The leading enterprises in the domestic intelligent weighing industry are facing the infringement predicament where multiple similar companies are copying their patented technologies and selling them on major e-commerce platforms such as Tmall and JD.com on a large scale.

This case focuses on an innovative luggage company that leads the industry. Its revolutionary waterproof luggage became a market hit, but later it was subject to large-scale malicious imitation across the entire industry.

A lighting company's products were suddenly subject to a patent infringement lawsuit, threatening the company's survival and market prospects. The ZYIP team was called upon to act in an emergency. They managed to turn the situation around in the first instance and the second instance, ultimately winning the final verdict.

These three cases are also typical examples of how the patent invalidation request procedure influences patent infringement litigation cases. It is worth noting that the three patent infringement litigation cases in question were filed by the same patentee within the same period of time against the same party, based on different legal grounds.

In this case, the National Intellectual Property Administration had already made a review decision on the invalidation request first raised by the requester, and upheld the validity of the patent. After the requester entrusted us as the agent, we supplemented new evidence based on the comparison design provided by the requester, and again submitted an invalidation request to the National Intellectual Property Administration regarding the same patent. This does not violate the principle of "no repetition of the same matter" in the invalidation procedure.

This case is similar to the one involving Guangxi xxx Technology Co., Ltd. and Shenzhen xxx Information Technology Co., Ltd. regarding infringement of a utility model patent. Both cases utilize the patent invalidation procedure to influence patent infringement disputes in litigation. The main difference lies in that the former case pertains to a utility model patent infringement dispute, while this case involves an infringement dispute of a design patent.