On November 19, the Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People's Court opened a hearing to trial two cases of disputes over infringement of utility model patent rights between the appellant Shenzhen Deye Intelligent Co., Ltd. and the appellant Zhuhai Shipping Control Rich CNC Technology Co., Ltd. After the trial, under the auspices of the collegial panel, both parties reached a settlement agreement on eleven patent civil infringement disputes, including the two cases, and eight patent invalidation requests that are still pending in the China National Intellectual Property Administration, which contributed to a series of substantial resolution of disputes over intellectual property rights.

After the case was accepted, the fifth collegiate panel that undertook the case organized a pre-trial panel discussion on the patented technologies involved in the two cases, and made full preparations for the efficient and smooth progress of the trial. During the trial, both parties provided new evidence on their respective claims. Under the auspices of the presiding judge Xu Yanru, judges Zhan Jingkang and Liu Xiaomei conducted a thorough investigation on the technical facts and legal disputes of the case.

During the trial of the case, the law enforcement officer Zhan Jingkang further discovered that both parties to the case have R&D and manufacturing capabilities, and each holds a number of patents in this field. Including the two cases under trial, the two parties filed each other for infringement and patent invalidation, and there were three civil infringement disputes of second-instance patents, eight civil infringement disputes of first-instance patents, and eight administrative disputes about patent invalidation, and there was a trend of filing new litigation. In addition, both parties have invested a lot of manpower, financial resources, and material resources to travel to and from Beijing, Guangdong and other places for a long time, and their production and business activities have been affected to a certain extent. The two parties have also conducted many consultations on the series of disputes involved, but they have failed to achieve a result that is satisfactory to both parties. Although the parties claimed in court that they were unwilling to settle, considering various factors, there is still the possibility of settlement in this case.

In response to this, the judge undertaking the case immediately organized the parties to conduct in-depth communication after the trial, and fully considered the respective demands of the parties. After the parties reached a preliminary settlement intention, they actively promoted the parties to jointly negotiate and determine the specific content of the settlement agreement. Three hours after the trial ended, the parties reached a friendly agreement and withdrew all the litigation, appeals and invalidation requests in the dispute for overall 19 cases.