The Supreme People’s Court (SPC) recently has made the retrial judgment for a design patent infringement case concerning “tire” brought by our client Bridgestone Co., Ltd. against Shandong Haoke International Rubber Industry Co., Ltd. (Shandong Haoke) and Beijing Zhengqiang New Century International Trade Co., Ltd. (Beijing Zhengqiang). The SPC revoked the first and the second instance judgment and found that the infringement was established.
In this case, the plaintiff found in 2017 that the defendant Shandong Haoke was involved in the production, sale, and offering to sell of a tire product that highly similar to the plaintiff’s “tire” design patent. Additionally, the defendant Beijing Zhengqiang was also found to have sold the same tire product. In order to safeguard the legitimate rights and interests, the client entrusted our firm to collect evidence and file a lawsuit. However, the first instance court ruled that although the main design of the infringing product and the asserted patent was similar, the accused infringing products had red, yellow and white color identification lines on the middle three rows of circular contact surfaces respectively, while the asserted patent had longitudinal linear grooves on the corresponding circular contact surfaces, rendering the substantive differences between the accused infringing product and the asserted patent in the overall visual effect, thus the accused infringing product did not fall into the scope of protection of the asserted patent. Therefore, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims.
We appealed against the first instance judgment. The court of second instance, although recognizing the claim that the “red, yellow, and white” three-color identification line on the accused infringing product should not be included in the comparison, still held that the two longitudinal grooves on the circular contact surface of the asserted patent render substantive differences in the overall visual effect of the two, coupled with the differences in the number of main grooves with protruding parts and the shape of transverse grooves and the way of connecting with longitudinal grooves. From the perspective of the average consumer, the design of accused infringing product and the asserted patent have substantive differences in the overall visual effect, thus the court dismissed our appeal and upheld the original judgment.
We filed a request for a retrial with the SPC, arguing that the first and second instance courts errored in the judgment on the similarity of designs, which ignored the effect of the identical part of the asserted patent and the accused infringing design, and failed to take into account the influence of the design features distinguishing from the existing design on the overall visual effect. We also claimed that the identical part of the asserted patent and the accused infringing design were the design features that distinguished the asserted patent from the prior design, which had a greater impact on the overall visual effect. The longitudinal grooves on the circular contact surface, which have been recognized by the courts of first and second instance as having a significant impact on the visual effect, are a commonly-used design method. The change brought about by these grooves may not be noticeable to general consumers when compared with the design feature of the asserted patent. Therefore, the similarity should be established.
In 2023, the SPC decided to bring the case to retrial, and issued a retrial judgment on October 20, 2023. The SPC has ruled in our favor in the retrial judgment, stating that the design of the infringing products fell within the scope of protection of the asserted patent. As a result, the judgments of the first and second instance have been revoked, and the defendant, Shandong Haoke, has been ordered to compensate the plaintiff 300,000 RMB for economic damages and reasonable expenses.
By overturning the unfavorable judgments of the lower courts and securing a final win for our client, this case also represents our seventh triumph before the SPC.
In this case, the plaintiff found in 2017 that the defendant Shandong Haoke was involved in the production, sale, and offering to sell of a tire product that highly similar to the plaintiff’s “tire” design patent. Additionally, the defendant Beijing Zhengqiang was also found to have sold the same tire product. In order to safeguard the legitimate rights and interests, the client entrusted our firm to collect evidence and file a lawsuit. However, the first instance court ruled that although the main design of the infringing product and the asserted patent was similar, the accused infringing products had red, yellow and white color identification lines on the middle three rows of circular contact surfaces respectively, while the asserted patent had longitudinal linear grooves on the corresponding circular contact surfaces, rendering the substantive differences between the accused infringing product and the asserted patent in the overall visual effect, thus the accused infringing product did not fall into the scope of protection of the asserted patent. Therefore, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims.
We appealed against the first instance judgment. The court of second instance, although recognizing the claim that the “red, yellow, and white” three-color identification line on the accused infringing product should not be included in the comparison, still held that the two longitudinal grooves on the circular contact surface of the asserted patent render substantive differences in the overall visual effect of the two, coupled with the differences in the number of main grooves with protruding parts and the shape of transverse grooves and the way of connecting with longitudinal grooves. From the perspective of the average consumer, the design of accused infringing product and the asserted patent have substantive differences in the overall visual effect, thus the court dismissed our appeal and upheld the original judgment.
We filed a request for a retrial with the SPC, arguing that the first and second instance courts errored in the judgment on the similarity of designs, which ignored the effect of the identical part of the asserted patent and the accused infringing design, and failed to take into account the influence of the design features distinguishing from the existing design on the overall visual effect. We also claimed that the identical part of the asserted patent and the accused infringing design were the design features that distinguished the asserted patent from the prior design, which had a greater impact on the overall visual effect. The longitudinal grooves on the circular contact surface, which have been recognized by the courts of first and second instance as having a significant impact on the visual effect, are a commonly-used design method. The change brought about by these grooves may not be noticeable to general consumers when compared with the design feature of the asserted patent. Therefore, the similarity should be established.
In 2023, the SPC decided to bring the case to retrial, and issued a retrial judgment on October 20, 2023. The SPC has ruled in our favor in the retrial judgment, stating that the design of the infringing products fell within the scope of protection of the asserted patent. As a result, the judgments of the first and second instance have been revoked, and the defendant, Shandong Haoke, has been ordered to compensate the plaintiff 300,000 RMB for economic damages and reasonable expenses.
By overturning the unfavorable judgments of the lower courts and securing a final win for our client, this case also represents our seventh triumph before the SPC.