Recently, a technical investigator of Shanghai Intellectual Property Court participated in an invention patent infringement case, Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co.KG (hereinafter referred to as "Oerlikon"), Plaintiff v. Jiangsu Haiyuan Machinery Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Haiyuan"), Defendant, from the start to end, and issued his first technical examination opinions. The Collegiate Bench adopted the technical examination opinions, and made the decision of first instance, i.e. dismissing all requests of the Plaintiff Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co.KG. The plaintiff Oerlikon is owner of the invention patent titled "false-twist texturing machine". On June 16, 2014, the plaintiff found the 448 polyester high-speed stretch yarn machine (“Allegedly Infringing Product) exhibited by the defendant Haiyuan at China International Textile Machinery Exhibition & ITMA Asia might infringe its patent. The plaintiff claimed that the allegedly infringing product had all technical features stated in the plaintiff’s patent claims, and thus filed a lawsuit to court requesting the court to convict the defendant of infringement and order the defendant to compensate the plaintiff RMB 1 million yuan for its economic loss and RMB 32,240 yuan for its reasonable expenses. The defendant argued that the allegedly infringing product did not have the technical feature of "post-treatment zone" in the plaintiff’s patent, and therefore it did not constitute an infringement. After reviewing the case, Shanghai IP Court was in the view that, the key dispute in the case was whether the technical solution of the allegedly infringing product fell into the protection scope of the plaintiff’s patent. Taking into account the fact that technical fact finding requires certain professional ability and is complicated, Shanghai IP Court appointed technical investigator Yang Jiali, who had worked as an examiner of SIPO Patent Reexamination Board, to participate in the field inspection and court hearing of the case. During field inspection, Yang Jiali carefully inquired the parties concerned about their respective statements of technical facts, collated the dispute focus about technical facts, and listened carefully to the views of the parties in court investigation. On the basis of knowing about technical facts in the case and communicating with judges responsible for the case, the technical investigator Yang Jiali wrote the technical investigation opinions from the angle of the two dispute focuses, i.e. whether the allegedly infringing product falls into the protection scope of the claims of the patent in question, and whether the defendant’s product photo album indicates the allegedly infringing product has “post-treatment zone”, according to the their expertise, providing reference to the collegiate bench for accurately finding technical facts. According to the technical examination opinions, the Collegiate Bench held that the technical feature of "the post-treatment zone" is not an optional one and it must contain device with post-treatment functions. However, in comparison at field inspection, both the plaintiff and defendant acknowledged that the allegedly infringing product inspected did not have specific parts carrying the “post-treatment” function. Moreover, the technical examination opinions also indicated that the demonstrative product photo provided by the plaintiff in the pamphlet did not show the specific device with "post-treatment" function. On this basis, the court held that the allegedly infringing product did not fall within protection scope of the claims. Specialized technical facts finding system is the core of the IPR trial mechanism, and also the important guarantee for improving the effect and quality of intellectual property trials. For this sake, Shanghai IP Court has established the “Four in One” technical facts finding system, in which “Four” stands for technical investigation, technical consulting, expert jury, technical appraisal, ensuring the technical facts finding is objective, accurate and efficient. Technical investigator system is new in China, and is shaped along with the establishment of IP courts, and reform of IP trial system. Technical investigation is different from the technical consulting, as technical investigator provides support to the trial and can participate in the lawsuit proceedings, particularly trials, while the technical consulting is an activity outside the court, and opinions rendered by technical consulting experts are for reference only. The biggest difference between the technical investigator and expert juror is that, the expert on jury is firstly a people’s juror and a member of the collegiate bench with statutory judging power, and technical investigator only participates and supports court trial, can be present in discussions of collegiate bench, but cannot participate in voting for judgment.
