The 2022 National Intellectual Property Publicity Week is about to kick off. The Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court released the 2021 Exemplary IP Civil and Administrative Litigation Cases of the Shenzhen Court to fully demonstrate the innovative achievements in IP judicial protection and judgement reform of the Shenzhen Court. A design patent infringement case, where we represent the plaintiff company X against the defendants of companies in Pingyang County and Shenzhen, is included in the list. This case is the first ruling of the Shenzhen court on the "documentary evidence production order" in IP litigation cases, and it is also an exemplary case that shows the exploration and improvement in the evidentiary rules for IP cases made by the Shenzhen court.
Representing the plaintiff, we claimed that the defendant's production, sale, and offer to sell facial muscle exercise devices infringed the plaintiff's design patent right. We demanded the defendants stop the infringement act and compensate for the economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling 3.2 million yuan.
In this case, a great deal of alleged infringing products began to appear on e-commerce platforms like Alibaba and Taobao no later than the second half of 2017. The plaintiff has submitted many infringement complaints on these platforms since November 2017. However, the defendant continued to sell the product through a new link right after the complained one was deleted and stopped posting the appearance picture of the product on the sales page intentionally to increase the difficulty for the plaintiff to file the infringement complaint. Objectively, after the link is deleted, it is much harder for the plaintiff to obtain the sales volume of the relevant products.
Entrusted by the plaintiff, after the completion of evidence preservation such as the notarized purchase, we filed a lawsuit with the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court. Before the time limit of producing evidence, we filed the request with the court for obtaining the sales data held by the backend of the e-commerce platform and demanded the defendant to provide records of the alleged infringing products including all the electronic data of online sales, the authentic account books of the offline sales, sales contracts, dispatch bills, invoices, the authentic account books of the cost and sales profits of the allegedly infringing products, purchase contracts and invoices of the mold and raw materials, etc.
Both parties expressed their opinions on the documentary evidence production order in the court trial. The defendant denied the act of manufacturing and selling the accused infringing product. But we produced evidence and elaborated on the high possibility of the defendant's infringement and emphasized the long-term sales of the infringement products and the obvious malicious intentions of the defendant.
After the trial, the court supported our request for obtaining sales data on the e-commerce platform. On May 26, 2021, the court issued the "Letter of Assistance in Evidence Retrieval" to Hangzhou Alibaba Advertising Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Alibaba) and Zhejiang Taobao Network Co., Ltd., to retrieve the date of the selling started, sales data, and product pictures of the alleged infringing products sold by the two defendants’ Alibaba shops, together with the links, product numbers, and complaint numbers. Alibaba provided the information about the complaint and the sales data of the defendant's Alibaba shops in the last three years.
Based on the existing evidence and the retrieved data, we produced evidence to prove that the defendant's profit gained from the infringement act has far exceeded the amount of compensation amount we claimed, and once again emphasized the necessity of the documentary evidence production order.
Because Alibaba was unable to provide sales data three years ago, and the accused infringing products were sold in multiple shops and platforms, the actual sales volume and sales profits were held by the defendant. If the defendant refused to provide the documentary evidence involved in this case, the sales volume and profit generated from the infringing product would be hard to obtain. Also, it would be difficult to determine whether the profit exceeded the limit of the statutory compensation. Therefore, the documentary evidence involved in this case plays a significant role in verifying facts and making the judgment.
The Shenzhen Intermediate Court supported our request for discovery order of documentary evidence and ordered the defendant, a company in Pingyang County, to submit relevant documentary evidence. Since there was no justification for this defendant to refuse, the court presumed that our claim on the matters covered by the evidence was established.
Finally, the court supported our claimed compensation in full, ruling the two defendants to compensate for the plaintiff’s economic loss and reasonable costs in a total of 3.2 million yuan. The judgement was made by the court after a comprehensive consideration of the plaintiff’s loss caused by the infringement and the benefits the defendants gained from the infringement; the nature, circumstances, and other elements of the infringement act. (This judgment has not been effective yet, and the case is currently in the second instance).
Representing the plaintiff, we claimed that the defendant's production, sale, and offer to sell facial muscle exercise devices infringed the plaintiff's design patent right. We demanded the defendants stop the infringement act and compensate for the economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling 3.2 million yuan.
In this case, a great deal of alleged infringing products began to appear on e-commerce platforms like Alibaba and Taobao no later than the second half of 2017. The plaintiff has submitted many infringement complaints on these platforms since November 2017. However, the defendant continued to sell the product through a new link right after the complained one was deleted and stopped posting the appearance picture of the product on the sales page intentionally to increase the difficulty for the plaintiff to file the infringement complaint. Objectively, after the link is deleted, it is much harder for the plaintiff to obtain the sales volume of the relevant products.
Entrusted by the plaintiff, after the completion of evidence preservation such as the notarized purchase, we filed a lawsuit with the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court. Before the time limit of producing evidence, we filed the request with the court for obtaining the sales data held by the backend of the e-commerce platform and demanded the defendant to provide records of the alleged infringing products including all the electronic data of online sales, the authentic account books of the offline sales, sales contracts, dispatch bills, invoices, the authentic account books of the cost and sales profits of the allegedly infringing products, purchase contracts and invoices of the mold and raw materials, etc.
Both parties expressed their opinions on the documentary evidence production order in the court trial. The defendant denied the act of manufacturing and selling the accused infringing product. But we produced evidence and elaborated on the high possibility of the defendant's infringement and emphasized the long-term sales of the infringement products and the obvious malicious intentions of the defendant.
After the trial, the court supported our request for obtaining sales data on the e-commerce platform. On May 26, 2021, the court issued the "Letter of Assistance in Evidence Retrieval" to Hangzhou Alibaba Advertising Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Alibaba) and Zhejiang Taobao Network Co., Ltd., to retrieve the date of the selling started, sales data, and product pictures of the alleged infringing products sold by the two defendants’ Alibaba shops, together with the links, product numbers, and complaint numbers. Alibaba provided the information about the complaint and the sales data of the defendant's Alibaba shops in the last three years.
Based on the existing evidence and the retrieved data, we produced evidence to prove that the defendant's profit gained from the infringement act has far exceeded the amount of compensation amount we claimed, and once again emphasized the necessity of the documentary evidence production order.
Because Alibaba was unable to provide sales data three years ago, and the accused infringing products were sold in multiple shops and platforms, the actual sales volume and sales profits were held by the defendant. If the defendant refused to provide the documentary evidence involved in this case, the sales volume and profit generated from the infringing product would be hard to obtain. Also, it would be difficult to determine whether the profit exceeded the limit of the statutory compensation. Therefore, the documentary evidence involved in this case plays a significant role in verifying facts and making the judgment.
The Shenzhen Intermediate Court supported our request for discovery order of documentary evidence and ordered the defendant, a company in Pingyang County, to submit relevant documentary evidence. Since there was no justification for this defendant to refuse, the court presumed that our claim on the matters covered by the evidence was established.
Finally, the court supported our claimed compensation in full, ruling the two defendants to compensate for the plaintiff’s economic loss and reasonable costs in a total of 3.2 million yuan. The judgement was made by the court after a comprehensive consideration of the plaintiff’s loss caused by the infringement and the benefits the defendants gained from the infringement; the nature, circumstances, and other elements of the infringement act. (This judgment has not been effective yet, and the case is currently in the second instance).