Basic Facts

Valeo Cleaning System Co. (hereinafter referred to as “Valeo”) is the proprietor of the Chinese invention patent entitled “Connector for a windscreen-wiper arm of a motor vehicle and associated connecting device”, which remains in force. In 2016 Valeo brought an action in the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court, claiming that Xiamen Lucas Automotive Parts Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Lucas”) and Xiamen Fuk Automotive Parts Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Fuk”) had, without authorisation, manufactured, sold and offered for sale, and that Chen Shaoqiang had manufactured and sold, the windscreen-wiper products falling within the scope of the patent. Valeo sought orders that Lucas, Fuk and Chen cease infringement, pay damages and reasonable expenses provisionally quantified at RMB 6 million, and additionally requested the court to grant a preliminary judgment ordering Lucas, Fuk and Chen forthwith to cease acts infringing the patent. Valeo also filed an application for an interim injunction seeking an order that Lucas, Fuk and Chen immediately cease the infringing acts.

 

Judgment

On 22 January 2019, Shanghai Intellectual Property Court granted a preliminary judgment ordering Lucas and Fuk to cease infringement of the invention patent from the date on which the judgment became binding. Lucas and Fuk appealed to the Supreme People’s Court. On 27 March 2019, the Supreme People’s Court held a public hearing in Case No. (2019) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Min Zhong No. 2, delivered judgment immediately and dismissed the appeal, upholding

he first-instance decision.

 

Key points of Judgment

1. Where a technical feature in a patent claim has already delimited –or implicitly defined – specific structure, composition, steps, conditions or the inter-relationship thereof, the feature does not constitute a “functional feature” within the meaning of Article 8 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Patent Infringement Dispute Cases (II), even if it simultaneously defines the function or effect achieved. The impugned feature is not a functional feature, and both the positional/structural

limitation and the functional limitation must be taken into account in assessing infringement. Consequently, the accused products embody the impugned technical feature and fall within the scope of claim 1.

 

2. In patent infringement proceedings, an interim injunction restraining the alleged infringing acts has independent value. Where a party applies both for an interim injunction and for a preliminary judgment ordering the cessation of infringement, and the court holds that a preliminary judgment on cessation is warranted, the court must, at the same time, examine the application for interim injunction. And if the conditions for interim relief are satisfied, an order must be issued promptly.

In the present case, Valeo maintained its application for an interim injunction against Lucas and Fuk. The evidence adduced did not, however, demonstrate any urgency causing harm to Valeo. A separate interim injunction would therefore have been superfluous. Accordingly, the application for an interim injunction was refused.

                                                                                                                                                           Source .english.court.gov.cn