Japan's Mitsubishi sues Shanghai Zhencai for patent infringement and loses

On March 15, 2006, the Second Intermediate People's Court of Beijing accepted a lawsuit from Mitsubishi Pencil Co., Ltd. against Shanghai Zhencai Stationery Co., Ltd., Shanghai Lemei Stationery Co., Ltd., and Beijing Ideal Wenyi Business Center for infringement of design patent rights. Japan's Mitsubishi Pencil Co., Ltd. seeks compensation for the plaintiff’s economic losses of RMB 1.5 million. MicrosoftInternetExplorer402DocumentNotSpecified7.8 pounds Normal0 March 15, 2006 Beijing No. 2 Intermediate People's Court accepted Japan's Mitsubishi Pencil Co., Ltd.'s lawsuit against Shanghai Zhencai Stationery Co., Ltd., Shanghai Lemei Stationery Co., Ltd., and Beijing Ideal Wenyi Commercial Center for infringement of design patent rights case. Japan's Mitsubishi Pencil Co., Ltd. seeks compensation for the plaintiff’s economic losses of RMB 1.5 million. The case was heard in public hearings on May 9 and June 9, 2006. On June 19, the Second Intermediate People’s Court of Beijing ruled that: Japan’s Mitsubishi Pencil Co., Ltd. sued Shanghai Zhencai Stationery Co., Ltd., Shanghai Lemei Stationery Co., Ltd., and Beijing Ideal Wenyi Business Center for infringement of design patents, which lacked factual and legal basis. This court does not accept it. The plaintiff's request for the three defendants to stop the infringement, compensation and other litigation requests was not supported by this court. The Second Intermediate People's Court believes that the determination of design patent infringement should first conduct an overall observation and comprehensive determination of the product to see whether the two have the same aesthetics. The focus of the comparison should be the main aesthetic design part created by the patentee. Compared with the plaintiff’s patented product, the true color sharp-point 911A press gel pen accused of infringement is mainly a large slender oval ring used in the clip part, and a small oval plate on the large oval ring is similar to the plaintiff There are similar factors in the patented products of, but there is a big difference in appearance of the two. The two have different designs on the pressing rod, pen body, grip and nib. Even the pen holder with similar factors has different designs. The design of the elongated small oval hollow hole changes the pen. The combined ratio of the large ellipse ring and the small ellipse plate of the clip makes the difference between the two in terms of visual effects. Based on the above factors, the accused product of infringement is totally different from the patented product. Therefore, it was determined that the alleged infringing product and the plaintiff’s patented product adopted different or similar designs. The Second Intermediate People's Court also dismissed Japan's Mitsubishi Pencil Co., Ltd.'s lawsuit against Shanghai Lemei Stationery Co., Ltd. for infringement of the appearance patent of the altered pen. In accordance with the provisions of Article 11, Paragraph 2 of the 'Patent Law of the People's Republic of ChinaThe acceptance fee for the two cases was 35020 yuan, which was borne by Mitsubishi Pencil Co., Ltd. (paid).