1、 Summary of the case and the path of the first instance judgment

German rose plastic company filed a lawsuit on the grounds of infringement of its invention patent. The name of the patent involved is“Polygonal sliding packaging that opens and closes through twisting and pushing motion”, Patent NumberZL201310204227.3The right holder is the company. The focus of the dispute between the two parties lies on a technical feature in the claims——“The two hollow bodies are made of rigid and bending resistant materials”.

The invention concept of this patent lies in relying on a specific structural design, so that the opening and closing action of the packaging does not require the deformation of the hollow body wall; The accused infringing product is made of plastic material.

The first instance of the case was tried by Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court, and the judgment rejected all the claims of Rose Plastic Company. The reasoning of the first instance is that the right holder claimed their materials during the substantive examination stage“Rigid and resistant to bending”The purpose is to distinguish it from existing technology, which should be regarded as giving up the elastic plastic material used in the accused product. Therefore, the principle of estoppel is invoked to exclude infringement.

2、 Corrective logic of the second instance

Rose Plastic Company is dissatisfied and has appealed to the Supreme People's Court. The second instance revoked the first instance judgment and clarified the conditions for the application of the principle of estoppel, gradually expanding its arguments along three levels.

Firstly, the explanation of technical features must return to the purpose of the invention. The Supreme People's Court holds that,“Rigid and resistant to bending”It cannot be understood in isolation or absoluteness, but should be grasped in the context of the technical problem that the patent aims to solve. The flaw that this patent aims to overcome is that existing technology relies on wall deformation to complete opening and closing. Therefore, the claims referred to in the claims“Rigid and resistant to bending”It refers to materials that do not undergo significant deformation under normal use, rather than materials that are absolutely undeformable; Relatively rigid plastics are not excluded from the protection range.

Secondly, the principle of estoppel cannot be abused. The Supreme People's Court further clarified that statements made by the rights holder during the examination stage to distinguish it from existing technology do not automatically constitute a claim against a certain type of technical solution“Clear and unambiguous”Abandoning. In this case, Rose Plastic Company emphasizes the importance of materials“rigidity”The original intention was to highlight the structural differences between it and existing technologies that rely on elastic deformation, rather than abandoning all plastic materials that may undergo deformation. Since there is no such explicit waiver, the principle of estoppel cannot be invoked to improperly compress the scope of patent protection.

Thirdly, the infringement depends on whether the accused product falls within the correctly interpreted claims. According to the above explanation, the unlocking mechanism of the accused infringing product does not rely on the deformation of the wall, and the plastic material used falls into“Rigid and bending resistant material”The scope of protection. Based on this, the Supreme People's Court determined that the infringement was established, revoked the non infringement judgment of the first instance, and ordered the infringer to pay compensation to Rose Plastic Co., Ltd.