Recently, the case of infringement of design patent rights initiated by Panasonic Corporation (hereinafter referred to as Panasonic) represented by Beijing Wei Chixue Law Firm against the defendants Zhuhai Kingdom Electric Co., Ltd., Zhongshan Kingdom Electric Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Kingdom Company), and the defendant Beijing Likang Fuya Trading Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Likang Fuya Company) was concluded in the second instance of Beijing Higher People's Court. This years-long infringement dispute surrounding the "face steamer" has finally settled.
Since 2013, Kingdom Company has mass-produced, sold, and promoted a large number of KD2331 face steamers which were suspected of infringing Panasonic’s patent ZL201130151611.3
In 2014, Panasonic lodged a number of complaints on the e-commerce platform against the alleged infringing products of Kingdom Company, but the alleged infringement has not stopped. In February 2015, Panasonic filed a design patent infringement lawsuit against Kingdom Company with Beijing Intellectual Property Court. In November 2015 Beijing Intellectual Property Court issued the civil judgment (2015) Beijing IP Civil First No. 266, ruling that the products KD2331 produced by Kingdom Company fell into the protection scope of the patent of Panasonic, and ordered Kingdom Company to compensate for economic losses of RMB 3 million yuan and a reasonable expenses of RMB 200,000 yuan, fully supported Panasonic’s claim for compensation. Kingdom Company was unsatisfied with the first instance judgment and filed an appeal. The Beijing Higher People’s Court made the civil judgment (2016) Beijing Civil Final No. 245 in December 2016, upholding the first instance judgment. This case was successively rated as one of the top ten typical cases of intellectual property protection in Beijing courts in 2016 by Beijing Higher People’s Court, and as one of the top ten intellectual property cases in China’s courts in 2016 by the Supreme People’s Court, which has attracted extensive attention at home and abroad and has great social influence.
However, after the above-mentioned judgment has come into effect, Kingdom Company did not stop infringement in time. Not only did the original KD2331 face steamers remain on the market, it also expanded its production scale and launched the other three face steamers KD2331 (which is of subtle differences from the original KD2331), KD2331A and KD2331S which are closely similar to the original KD2331. Panasonic had to file a lawsuit against Kingdom Company with Beijing Intellectual Property Court again in June 2017, and requested the defendant to be ordered to pay RMB 5 million yuan in compensation for economic losses RMB 200,000 yuan for reasonable expenses. The Beijing Intellectual Property Court made the civil judgment (2017) Beijing 73 Civil First No. 1156 in June 2020, ruling that all the three products KD2331, KD2331A, and KD2331S produced by Kingdom Company fell into the protection scope of Panasonic’spatent , and ordered Kingdom Company compensate RMB 4.5 million yuan for economic losses, Likang Fuya Company compensate RMB 50,000 yuan for economic losses, and they jointly compensate RMB 150,000 yuan for reasonable expenses. Neither party was satisfied with the first judgment and filed an appeal. The Beijing Higher People’s Court made the civil judgment (2020) Beijing Civil Final No. 801 in June 2021, upholding the first instance judgment.
In this case, since the punitive damages system has not been introduced into the field of patent infringement when the infringement occurred, the punitive damages are not applicable in this case. However, based on the sales data of suspected infringing goods preserved for several times, our attorneys emphasized the defendants’ bad faith in infringement, duration of infringement, sales volume and profits, and finally the court considered our claim and determined an amount of compensation that was higher than that of the previous case, which has a deterrent effect on the infringer.
Since 2013, Kingdom Company has mass-produced, sold, and promoted a large number of KD2331 face steamers which were suspected of infringing Panasonic’s patent ZL201130151611.3
In 2014, Panasonic lodged a number of complaints on the e-commerce platform against the alleged infringing products of Kingdom Company, but the alleged infringement has not stopped. In February 2015, Panasonic filed a design patent infringement lawsuit against Kingdom Company with Beijing Intellectual Property Court. In November 2015 Beijing Intellectual Property Court issued the civil judgment (2015) Beijing IP Civil First No. 266, ruling that the products KD2331 produced by Kingdom Company fell into the protection scope of the patent of Panasonic, and ordered Kingdom Company to compensate for economic losses of RMB 3 million yuan and a reasonable expenses of RMB 200,000 yuan, fully supported Panasonic’s claim for compensation. Kingdom Company was unsatisfied with the first instance judgment and filed an appeal. The Beijing Higher People’s Court made the civil judgment (2016) Beijing Civil Final No. 245 in December 2016, upholding the first instance judgment. This case was successively rated as one of the top ten typical cases of intellectual property protection in Beijing courts in 2016 by Beijing Higher People’s Court, and as one of the top ten intellectual property cases in China’s courts in 2016 by the Supreme People’s Court, which has attracted extensive attention at home and abroad and has great social influence.
However, after the above-mentioned judgment has come into effect, Kingdom Company did not stop infringement in time. Not only did the original KD2331 face steamers remain on the market, it also expanded its production scale and launched the other three face steamers KD2331 (which is of subtle differences from the original KD2331), KD2331A and KD2331S which are closely similar to the original KD2331. Panasonic had to file a lawsuit against Kingdom Company with Beijing Intellectual Property Court again in June 2017, and requested the defendant to be ordered to pay RMB 5 million yuan in compensation for economic losses RMB 200,000 yuan for reasonable expenses. The Beijing Intellectual Property Court made the civil judgment (2017) Beijing 73 Civil First No. 1156 in June 2020, ruling that all the three products KD2331, KD2331A, and KD2331S produced by Kingdom Company fell into the protection scope of Panasonic’spatent , and ordered Kingdom Company compensate RMB 4.5 million yuan for economic losses, Likang Fuya Company compensate RMB 50,000 yuan for economic losses, and they jointly compensate RMB 150,000 yuan for reasonable expenses. Neither party was satisfied with the first judgment and filed an appeal. The Beijing Higher People’s Court made the civil judgment (2020) Beijing Civil Final No. 801 in June 2021, upholding the first instance judgment.
In this case, since the punitive damages system has not been introduced into the field of patent infringement when the infringement occurred, the punitive damages are not applicable in this case. However, based on the sales data of suspected infringing goods preserved for several times, our attorneys emphasized the defendants’ bad faith in infringement, duration of infringement, sales volume and profits, and finally the court considered our claim and determined an amount of compensation that was higher than that of the previous case, which has a deterrent effect on the infringer.