In an appeal concerning a dispute over the infringement of an invention patent, the Supreme People's Court held that the determination of whether an infringement exists requires that every technical feature set forth in the asserted claims be considered. An argument that a particular feature is non essential and therefore should not be considered has no legal basis. The Court further noted that the patentee's conduct in calculating and repeatedly changing its damages claims during the litigation was both calculated and inconsistent. This behavior was aimed at avoiding court fees associated with high value claims on one hand and at imposing additional litigation pressure on the opposing party on the other. The Supreme People's Court explicitly condemned such improper conduct as a violation of the principle of good faith.
Company A filed a lawsuit in the first instance court, claiming that it was the owner of an invention patent titled "An Electronic Dog" (referred to as the patent in suit). Company A alleged that the "Gox" robotic dog manufactured by Company B (referred to as the accused product) fell within the scope of protection of the patent and constituted infringement, with infringement profits reaching tens of millions of yuan RMB. Company A requested the court to order Company B to immediately stop the infringement and to pay Company A only 500 yuan RMB in damages, with the actual amount to be determined based on the court's audit. Company A also requested punitive damages of three to five times the infringement profits, again with the actual amount to be determined by the court's audit.
Company B argued in the first instance that the accused product did not infringe the patent, that Company A had provided no evidence to support its claim of huge losses, and that Company A's claim for 500 yuan RMB in damages was a statutory damages claim, making any audit of Company B unnecessary. Company B requested that all of Company A's claims be dismissed.
The first instance court dismissed all of Company A's claims. Specifically, the court found that the accused product did not have the technical feature "the outer surface of the electronic dog is covered with color changing bionic fur" as recited in claim 1 of the patent in suit. Company A's assertions regarding paint, handle straps, or clothing did not establish equivalence. The court also found that the force sensors on the feet of the accused product were not equivalent to the "liquid level sensor" recited in the patent, and that the laser radar in the accused product was not equivalent to the "gas sensor" recited in the patent.
Company A appealed, arguing that the feature "the outer surface of the electronic dog is covered with color changing bionic fur" was a non essential technical feature. Company A also argued that the accused product contained features that were identical or equivalent to the "color changing bionic fur," "gas sensor," and "liquid level sensor" features.
The Supreme People's Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the first instance court's decision.
Regarding the infringement comparison, the Supreme People's Court held that all technical features written into a patent claim are essential. To find that an accused product falls within the scope of protection of a patent, the accused technical solution must contain all technical features recited in the claim, either identically or equivalently. If any feature is missing, or is neither identical nor equivalent, the accused product cannot be found to infringe. Company A's argument that the "color changing bionic fur" was a non essential feature had no legal basis. Upon review, the accused product did not contain features identical or equivalent to the "color changing bionic fur," "gas sensor," or "liquid level sensor" features recited in claim 1 of the patent in suit, and therefore did not constitute infringement.
Regarding the patentee's various abnormal behaviors during the litigation, the Supreme People's Court specifically noted that anyone exercising rights and participating in litigation must act in good faith. Company A filed this lawsuit against Company B just five days after acquiring the patent from a third party. In its complaint, Company A claimed that Company B's infringement profits were as high as tens of millions of yuan RMB, but it only sought 500 yuan RMB in damages while simultaneously requesting that the actual amount be determined by a court audit. In the appeal, after the first instance court had already found no infringement and dismissed all claims, Company A requested a "preliminary judgment" ordering Company B to pay 80 million yuan RMB in damages, only to revert to claiming 500 yuan RMB the day after the appeal hearing concluded. The Court found that Company A's conduct throughout the first and second instances was both calculated and inconsistent. It was aimed at avoiding court fees that would be due on a high value claim while simultaneously imposing additional litigation pressure on the opposing party. The Court explicitly condemned Company A's conduct as a violation of the principle of good faith.
The appeal decision reiterates that patent infringement comparisons must strictly follow the "covering all elements rule" and rejects a patentee's attempt to expand the scope of protection by arguing that certain features are “non essential.” The decision further emphasizes that patentees must act in good faith during litigation and may not avoid litigation costs or pressure opposing parties through calculated and inconsistent conduct. The court's clear condemnation of such bad faith litigation practices demonstrates the judiciary's firm commitment to curbing abuse of rights.
(2025) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Min Zhong No. 756
If you have any question about the protection of intellectual property rights, please feel free to send us emails. For patent-related matters, please send to info@afdip.com. For trademark/litigation/legal matters, please send to info@bhtdlaw.com.
