Recently, I saw a case in which Xidian Jietong sued Apple for patent infringement. However, some people found that the case was not as simple as the appearance of the face, which also involved Sony, so this may be a case. But the specific situation is still not clear.
On November 14, 2017, Xidian Jietong Company v. Apple's patent infringement case was openly heard by the Higher People's Court of Shaanxi Province at Northwest University of Political Science and Law. After the previous multi-round trials, this highly regarded Chinese standard patent infringement case officially entered the critical trial stage. More than 150 teachers and students from the representatives of the parties and the Northwest University of Political Science and Law attended the meeting.
In the trial statement, Xidian Jietong believes that Apple has implemented a patent held by its company in its iPhone 6 series products, iPhone 7 series products and iPad tablet computers, and based on actual sales of Apple infringement and infringing products. In the case, a claim of 150 million yuan was filed, and the right to increase the amount of the claim or the additional claim for the direct or indirect losses suffered by the defendant’s actual sales of the infringing product for the duration of the infringement of the defendant was stated.
The case was widely concerned before the formal trial, not only because it was the first case of the Chinese standard essential patent in the ICT field - Xidian Jietong v. Sony patent infringement case, Xidian Jietong initiated the same patent The second act of rights defending, and the defendant is the largest company with a global market value of nearly one trillion US dollars. It is also the case that triggered a series of “cases†– which, in the outside world, also indicates the trial of the series. It will be long-lasting and costly.
The dispute originated from a standard essential patentThe dispute between Xidian Jietong and Apple began with a rights defense lawsuit for wireless network security protocol technology patents. In April 2016, the patent (Patent No. 02139508.X), which was developed and held 15 years ago as “a method for secure access and data security communication for wireless LAN mobile devicesâ€, was infringed. On the grounds of patent infringement, Jietong appealed Apple Computer Trading (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. and Xi'an Gome Electrical Appliance Co., Ltd. to the Higher People's Court of Shaanxi Province, demanding that the court order the three defendants to immediately stop patent infringement and stop selling the infringement of Xidianjie. Patented mobile phone products and compensation for economic losses.
The patent involved in the case is a core patent of the wireless local area network security technology WAPI (Wireless Local Area Network Authentication and Security Infrastructure) developed by Xidian Jietong. From the domestic application date of the patent in 2002, the patent will expire in 5 years.
At present, the global WLAN has formed a relatively unified technical architecture, but the security technology is divided into two development routes: one is the US-led IEEE 802.11i standard, and the other is the China-led WAPI standard (WAPI technology was adopted by the national standard in 2003). adoption). The wireless local area networks formed based on the above technical routes are respectively referred to as Wi-Fi networks and WAPI networks. The patent involved in the case is one of the necessary patents adopted by the WAPI standard. On October 16 this year, the Wi-Fi maximum security level protection mechanism WPA2 technical standard was found to have a major loophole.
It is understood that in order to promote the application process of WAPI in the global market, in May 2005, Xidian Jietong submitted a patent application for WAPI technology in the United States. From 2010 to 2013, the patent application became an important topic of the China-US Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade for four consecutive times. On October 24, 2013, the patent application was finally authorized in the United States with the high-level concerns of China and the United States. In addition, on June 1, 2010, the core technology entity identification (TePA-AC) of the WAPI core supporting ternary peer-to-peer security architecture became an international standard, which is China's first international standard in the field of network security basic technology.
In the trial, the plaintiff pointed out that in 2010, Apple signed a patent agreement with Xidian Jietong. The two parties clarified the patent license fees for the five-year period from 2010 to 2014 in accordance with the principle of “fair, reasonable and non-discriminatoryâ€.
After the expiration of the contract between the two parties at the end of 2014, "Although the West Rail Jietong repeatedly negotiated, Apple refused to conduct substantive consultations with the plaintiff on the patent license, but maliciously delayed the refusal to pay the relevant fees for various reasons." After experiencing 16 months of discussions with Apple but did not make any substantial progress, Xidian Jietong believed that Apple's actions were purely malicious negotiations and initiated patent infringement lawsuits.
Three major points of the caseDuring the trial, both parties gave evidence and statements on their respective grounds, but they did not debate in court.
The plaintiff's attorney first explained the development and application of Xidian Jietong Company and the patents involved, and made a statement on the specific reasons for the defendant's infringement of the patents involved.
The plaintiff’s attorney pointed out that “the plaintiff believes that the above-mentioned acts of the defendant for a long-term, large-scale and deliberate implementation have seriously damaged the legitimate rights and interests of the plaintiff based on the above-mentioned patent rights. The subjective and malicious nature is obvious, and the intellectual property rights generated by the plaintiff’s massive investment cannot be To obtain a reasonable return, you should bear the corresponding legal responsibility."
Subsequently, Apple's attorneys claimed that the plaintiff's patent was not a standard essential patent, and the alleged infringing product did not infringe the patent involved. The original patent obtained by the defendant was still valid, and the plaintiff had no right to stop the infringement. The case should not apply injunctive relief, etc. It is believed that the plaintiff’s claims are all not established. After more than half an hour of opinions, the presiding judge summarized the disputes between the two parties as three points: whether the patent in question is a standard necessary patent; whether it constitutes infringement, and whether and how to enforce the infringement; if infringement, how is the tort liability? bear. In this regard, both the original and the defendant expressed no objection. The presiding judge immediately announced that the next issue was mainly to investigate the issue of infringement.
Subsequently, based on whether the patent in question is a standard necessary patent or whether the defendant is infringing, the two sides conducted evidence and opinions through multimedia demonstrations, expert assistant testimonies and oral statements by lawyers.
Eventually, after a two-and-a-half-hour trial, the presiding judge announced the end of the trial and the next court hearing will be announced.
Case in the caseAfter Xidian Jietong sued Apple for patent infringement in April 2016, the latter immediately initiated a patent invalidation request for the patent of Xidian Jietong. In May 2016, Apple filed a request for invalidation of the patent in question with the Patent Reexamination Board of the State Intellectual Property Office for reasons such as insufficient disclosure of the specification, lack of necessary technical features, lack of support from the specification, and lack of novelty and creativity. . On February 20, 2017, the Patent Reexamination Board made Decision No. 31501, dismissing all invalid requests from Apple and maintaining the validity of the patents involved. In response to this result, Apple expressed its dissatisfaction with the decision of the respondent, and filed a lawsuit in the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, requesting the court to revoke the decision of the appeal and order the Patent Reexamination Board to re-examine the decision. The case is currently under further investigation.
After initiating a patent invalidation request, Apple also successively launched a “patent royalty rate†lawsuit and “abuse of market dominance†litigation against Xidian Jietong.
On September 29, 2016, Apple, Apple Computer Trading (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. and Apple Electronics Trading (Beijing) Co., Ltd. filed a lawsuit against Xidian Jietong on the standard necessary patent royalty dispute in Beijing Intellectual Property Court. The defendant granted the relevant standard patents and patent applications to the plaintiff in accordance with the principle of fairness, reasonableness and non-discrimination, and requested the court to determine the license rate.
According to the information obtained from the trial on November 14, Apple and Apple Computer Trading (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. filed a lawsuit against Xidian Jietong on the abuse of market dominance in the Beijing Intellectual Property Court.
In the court trial on the same day, the plaintiff's attorney pointed out that in the two lawsuits against Xidian Jietong, Apple used the standard fair patents such as “fair, reasonable, non-discrimination principle†and “banâ€. Trial of questions and terminology, which is one of the reasons why the plaintiff believes that the defendant Apple has admitted to using the standard essential patents of Xidian Jietong in its products.
The complexity of the "case in the case" does not stop there. In this trial, the plaintiff's attorney also mentioned that in the previous Sony case involving the same patent dispute, Apple illegally provided important assistance to Sony, illegally leaking the plaintiff's business information, in order to achieve the boycott payment. The purpose of the patent license fee. The statement of the plaintiff's attorney did not commence in court.
In June 2015, Xidian Jietong filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Sony Mobile Communications Products (China) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Sonyâ€) for the patent infringement case involving the same case, and obtained the first trial on March 22, 2017. Winning the case, this ruling has had a huge impact on the intellectual property academia and practice.
Subsequently, Sony refused to accept the verdict and filed an appeal. According to industry insiders' verification and disclosure, on July 14, 2017, Sony filed a request (5:17-mc-80090) from the California Northern District Court based on 28 US Code § 1782, requesting Apple and West Electric from Apple. The license agreement between the two, and asked for expedited handling - Sony's move is considered to be used for the Sony North High Court appeal.
According to the order file finally filed by Sony in the Northern District Court of California, Sony’s application was initially rejected by the court. Later, Sony resubmitted the application. The court held that Sony’s application was quickly granted because “Apple did not object to submitting relevant documentsâ€. In the end, Sony promptly transferred to the document that Apple should assume confidentiality obligations to third parties.
The person in charge of Xidian Jietong told the reporter that Apple has always taken unfair or even illegal measures to deal with the patent infringement dispute. In response to this practice, they will resolutely safeguard their rights and interests.
There are cases in the case, both the Apple case itself and the second trial of the Sony case will increase the difficulty, even the challenge.
Double Switch Socket,Satin Chrome Sockets,Matt Black Plug Sockets,Heritage Brass Sockets
Guangdong Jinli Electrical Appliance Co., Ltd , https://www.sokelectric.com