The technology "gravity compensation type mobile contact line" (patent No.: ZL202020583993.0) independently developed by Lanzhou Xinwei Vehicle Equipment Co., Ltd (hereinafter referred to as "Xinwei") and its supporting patent "force transmission mechanism, cantilever positioning device and mobile contact line" (patent No.: ZL202023195929.4) were illegally copied by Lanzhou Yinli Electrical Equipment Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Yinli") in the projects of dedicated lines of three major railways in Xinjiang. Facing multiple challenges, including unfavorable patent evaluation reports and invalidation actions filed by the Defendant, Unitalen Law Office employed an integrated "technology + law + strategy" approach that successfully turned the tide, securing a crucial victory for Xinwei.
Core Disputes and Breakthroughs
Initially, the Evaluation Reports of Patent for Utility Model issued by the CNIPA stated that the patents involved "lacked inventiveness", directly threatening the validity of the patents. After accepting the entrustment, Unitalen's attorney team promptly initiated a reconsideration procedure and successfully persuaded the CNIPA to correct the evaluation reports, thereby ultimately affirming the inventiveness of the involved patents and removing the fundamental obstacles to subsequent patent enforcement.
During the trial of the infringement litigation, Yinli, the Defendant, filed an invalidation request with the Reexamination and Invalidation Department of the CNIPA. Unitalen's attorney team anticipated this risk and proactively made crucial amendments to the patent claims, maintaining the patents' validity while expanding their scope of protection. Both invalidation decisions upheld the patents' validity under the amended claims.
Although the invalidation decision was still pending, given that the scope of protection of claims had changed, Lanzhou Intermediate Court determined that the accused infringing products fell within the scope of protection of the amended claims of patent ZL202020583993.0 and constituted infringement.
Lanzhou Intermediate Court also found that the accused infringing products fell within the scope of protection of patent ZL202023195929.4 and constituted infringement. In the second instance, Yinli filed a request for invalidation, but the invalidation decision upheld the patent's validity, providing strong support for the patentee to proceed with the infringement litigation.
Meanwhile, to prevent the Defendant from transferring assets and evading compensation, Unitalen's attorney team applied to the Lanzhou Intermediate Court for property preservation during the litigation, successfully freezing several of the Defendant's bank accounts and maximizing protection of the client's legitimate rights.
Apart from civil litigation, Xinwei also filed an administrative request for investigating and prosecuting patent infringement with the Lanzhou Intellectual Property Office. Unitalen's attorney team assisted the administrative authority in determining that the mobile contact line product manufactured by Yinli fell entirely within the scope of protection of patent No. ZL202023195929.4, and that Yinli's acts of manufacture and sales constituted patent infringement. Finally, the Lanzhou Intellectual Property Office ordered Yinli to cease infringement immediately. This established a powerful deterrent through dual-track protection combining judicial and administrative measures.
Case Highlights
The court ascertained that the Defendant's acts of making, selling, and offering to sell constituted patent infringement and ordered an immediate cessation of infringement. The court also supported the Plaintiff's claim for RMB 2.04 million in economic compensation and awarded over RMB 160,000 for reasonable enforcement expenses. This case serves as a typical example of "successful dual track enforcement through judicial and administrative measures" in the field of railway electrification equipment, highlighting the comprehensive advantages of intellectual property protection for enterprises.
Industry Insights
This case provides a model for technology companies in patent enforcement. In terms of patent portfolio strategy, core patents should establish a "moat of claims" and leave room for amendments. In risk management, when facing unfavorable evaluation reports, companies should take proactive steps, such as reconsideration and invalidation procedures, to reverse unfavorable outcomes. In terms of litigation strategy, administrative investigation and prosecution, and civil litigation should be conducted in parallel to maximize enforcement efficiency and deterrence. Pre-emptive property preservation combined with precise technical feature comparisons forms a comprehensive litigation system that "integrates offensive and defensive strategies".