IV. Dispute over Infringement of the Invention Patent of BRITA's Filter Kettle
Plaintiff BRITA Co., Ltd. filed a lawsuit against the Defendant Ningbo Qingqing Environmental Protection Electric Co., Ltd. for infringement of invention patent [Civil Judgment (2015) HZMCZ No.753 of Shanghai IP Court, members of collegiate panel: Hu Mi, Xu Fei, Gao Weiping. Civil Judgment (2017) HMZ No.146 of Shanghai High People's Court, members of collegiate panel: Wang Jing, Tao Ye, Cao Wenjia]
[Case Brief]
The Plaintiff is engaged in the R&D and manufacture of water dispensers. On April 27, 2005, it applied to the State Intellectual Property Office for the invention patent entitled “Filter Cartridge and Device for Filtration of Liquids” and was granted with the patent on May 12, 2010. The Defendant displayed and promised to sell the alleged infringing products at the Eighth Shanghai International Water Show. At the same time, it distributed the publicity materials and introductions of the alleged infringing products, and also highlighted the alleged infringing products on its website. It also sold the alleged infringing products at its web store and publicly claimed that the alleged infringing products were the imitations of the Plaintiff's Brita products. The Plaintiff sued the court to order that: 1. the Defendant immediately stop the infringement, including stopping manufacturing, selling, and promising to sell the alleged infringing products; 2. the Defendant destroy the special mold for the manufacture of the alleged infringing product; 3. the Defendant compensate for the Plaintiff's economic loss of RMB 1 million yuan and reasonable expenses of RMB 300,000 yuan.
[Adjudication]
The court of first instance held that, the “first fixed structure” and the “second fixed structure” in the patent involved were functional technical features. According to the description of the Plaintiff’s patent specification and the attached figure, the structure of such two technical features shall include the first inner convex portion set on the filter cartridge and the second inner convex portion set on the bottom wall of the receiving chamber, both of which are inwardly turned, and the two inward turning portions may realize plug fitting, that is, the second inward turning portion on the bottom wall of the filter cartridge must fit the first inward turning portion on the bottom wall of the receiving chamber, and the mandrel of the second inward turning portion must pass the first inward turning portion, to achieve the technical effect of determining the right location of the filter cartridge when the filter cartridge is inserted into the receiving chamber. There is an inwardly projecting cylindrical hollow body at the bottom of the receiving chamber of the alleged infringing product in this case, an inwardly extending annular flange with a notch at the top of the hollow body. The lower part of the filter cartridge of the alleged infringing product has an inwardly projecting hollow cylindrical portion. The top end of the cylinder has an outwardly extending mandrel which also has a notch. There are four symmetry spacer ribs beside the mandrel at the top of the cylinder. When the filter cartridge is inserted into the receiving chamber, the two inwardly projecting cylindrical hollow bodies can partially overlap to produce a wrap effect, and the mandrel on the filter cartridge can pass through the discharge port of the receiving chamber. With the cooperation between the hollow bodies and the mandrel, the function and effect of guiding positioning and throttling liquid can be realized. Upon comparison, the technical features of the alleged infringing product fall within the scope of patent protection involved in this case. Therefore, the Defendant was ordered to stop the infringement and compensate the Plaintiff for an economic loss of RMB 400,000 yuan and reasonable expenses of RMB 100,000 yuan. After the judgment of the first instance, the Defendant filed an appeal. The court of second instance dismissed the appeal and upheld the original judgment.
[Typical Significance]
This case is a patent infringement dispute involving functional technical features. The specific embodiments stated in the invention patent claims and the descriptions involved in this case are complicated. When determining the content of the relevant functional technical features, the court clarified the relationship between the different embodiment schemes and various alternative embodiment means according to the contents of the specifications. In the technical comparison, the court distinguished whether the difference in specific details was processing defect or technical solution avoidance, and made legal and reasonable judgment combining design tolerances, processing errors and other considerations in the manufacturing and processing industry, providing an idea for reference in the identification of technical facts in the trial of similar cases.
photo from: ebuy16.com
