In a judgment dated April 26, 2020, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court ruled in favor of Netac Technology Co Ltd. against Micron Consumer Products Group, Inc. for patent infringement of CN1088218C. However, damages were only 500,000 RMB (about $70,500 USD) and no injunction was awarded as the patent expired. This contrasts with the recent ruling of 40 million RMB made in favor of Gree. The case # is （2017）京73民初323号 .
Category: Case
Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court OKs Parallel Imports
In a trio of cases dated May 6, 2020, the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court allowed the parallel import of lightning surge protectors from Singapore into China. Parallel import is the import of a non-counterfeit product from another country without the permission of the intellectual property owner. Specifically, in cases(2019)粤73民终6944号, (2019)粤73民终6975号, and (2019)粤73民终6976号 the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court held on appeal that parallel importation by Guangdong Shifu Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. (广东施富电气实业有限公司) of the genuine surge protectors did not violate Chinese …
Guangdong Higher People’s Court Affirms 40 Million RMB Award on Utility Model Patent
In a decision released April 20, 2020, the Guangdong Higher People’s Court affirmed an award of 40 million RMB (about $5.6 million) including punitive damages to Zhuhai Gree Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter, Gree) in case no. （2020）粤执复117号. The defendant, Ningbo Aosheng Trading Co., Ltd. (hereinafter Aosheng), had appealed from a ruling by the Guangdong Intermediate People’s Court of Guangzhou that it infringed CN201242223Y for an indoor air conditioner. Several factors stand out about this judgement including the relatively high …
China’s Supreme People’s Procuratorate Issues Top Example Cases of Criminal Intellectual Property Rights Infringement in 2019
On April 25, 2020, China’s Supreme People’s Procuratorate issued a list of the top example cases in 2019 of criminal IP rights infringement. The cases cover trademark, copyright and trade secret theft. Verdicts included both imprisonment and fines. While the punishments were severe for trademark and copyright cases, only 2 of the 18 cases are for trade secret theft and defendants received minimal or no jail time, perhaps indicating room for improvement on trade secret protection in China.