Recently, our firm achieved a significant victory in the second instance of a design patent infringement dispute lawsuit on behalf of an electronic company. The final judgement of the second instance rejected the appeal of the defendant, and upheld the original judgment. The first instance judgment found that the infringement was established, and ruled the defendant to compensate the plaintiff over 3.33 million yuan for economic losses and reasonable costs of rights enforcement, including the defendant's illegal profit over 1 million yuan, the punitive damages equal to twice the illegal profit, and reasonable costs 300,000 yuan.
The plaintiff and the defendant once were involved in a patent infringement lawsuit concerning the same patent. After the first and second instance, the people’s court held that the infringement was established, ruling the defendant to stop infringement, and compensate the plaintiff 150,000 yuan for economic losses and reasonable expenses. However, the plaintiff found that the defendant didn’t stop producing and selling alleged infringing products after fulfilling their compensation obligation as mandated by the court.
In order to completely stop the infringement, the plaintiff entrusted our firm to conduct further investigation, collect evidence and take corresponding legal measures. It was difficult to collect evidence due to the fact that the alleged infringing products are not daily supplies circulating in the market, but belong to BtoB field. We have adopted various methods of evidence collection based on the specific situation of the case, and have filed administrative resolution and civil lawsuits as well.
In the administrative resolution, the authority supported our claim and made an administrative adjudication, holding that the infringement was established. The infringer did not accept the above adjudication and filed an administrative litigation. The court of the first instance and the second instance of the administrative litigation both made judgments upholding the administrative adjudication.
In the civil lawsuit, we claimed that the defendant's behavior belonged to repetitive infringement, demonstrating clear subjective bad faith with severe infringement circumstance, therefore we requested for punitive damages.
After the first instance hearing, the court ruled in our favor, holding that the evidence on file could prove that the defendant continued to produce and sell products that infringed the plaintiff’s patent rights, even after the effective second instance judgment was made in the previous case, which constituted the repetitive infringement. Finally, the court held that the amount of punitive damages was set as twice the amount of the profit from infringement.
The infringer was unsatisfied with the civil judgment of first instance and appealed. The second instance court held that the infringement was established, and it was not inappropriate for the original court to calculate the compensatory damages by referring to the evidence submitted by the plaintiff. Punitive damages should be imposed on the defendant who still committed infringement after the previous judgment found the relevant infringement, and the calculation of punitive damages was not improper. The final court rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.
The plaintiff and the defendant once were involved in a patent infringement lawsuit concerning the same patent. After the first and second instance, the people’s court held that the infringement was established, ruling the defendant to stop infringement, and compensate the plaintiff 150,000 yuan for economic losses and reasonable expenses. However, the plaintiff found that the defendant didn’t stop producing and selling alleged infringing products after fulfilling their compensation obligation as mandated by the court.
In order to completely stop the infringement, the plaintiff entrusted our firm to conduct further investigation, collect evidence and take corresponding legal measures. It was difficult to collect evidence due to the fact that the alleged infringing products are not daily supplies circulating in the market, but belong to BtoB field. We have adopted various methods of evidence collection based on the specific situation of the case, and have filed administrative resolution and civil lawsuits as well.
In the administrative resolution, the authority supported our claim and made an administrative adjudication, holding that the infringement was established. The infringer did not accept the above adjudication and filed an administrative litigation. The court of the first instance and the second instance of the administrative litigation both made judgments upholding the administrative adjudication.
In the civil lawsuit, we claimed that the defendant's behavior belonged to repetitive infringement, demonstrating clear subjective bad faith with severe infringement circumstance, therefore we requested for punitive damages.
After the first instance hearing, the court ruled in our favor, holding that the evidence on file could prove that the defendant continued to produce and sell products that infringed the plaintiff’s patent rights, even after the effective second instance judgment was made in the previous case, which constituted the repetitive infringement. Finally, the court held that the amount of punitive damages was set as twice the amount of the profit from infringement.
The infringer was unsatisfied with the civil judgment of first instance and appealed. The second instance court held that the infringement was established, and it was not inappropriate for the original court to calculate the compensatory damages by referring to the evidence submitted by the plaintiff. Punitive damages should be imposed on the defendant who still committed infringement after the previous judgment found the relevant infringement, and the calculation of punitive damages was not improper. The final court rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.