The patent infringement lawsuit case of ZYIP's x optical company filed in court has been successfully won in the first instance.

2025-11-19

On November 8, 2017, the lawsuit filed by Taiwan Baix Industrial Co., Ltd. against Xuexi Optoelectronics (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. regarding the "High Heat Dissipation Light Emitting Diode Device" patent infringement was officially ruled upon by the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court. The first instance judgment rejected all the litigation requests of the plaintiff, Baix Industrial Co., Ltd., and also ordered it to bear the case filing fees. 


This time, XuX Optoelectronics (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. entrusted ZYIP to handle the patent infringement lawsuit and won the first instance. Next, ZYIP will continue to represent XuX in the "counterclaim" case regarding the invalidation of the involved invention patent. Once the "High Heat Dissipation Light Emitting Diode Device" invention patent is invalidated, BaiX will lose this powerful tool that was originally used to counterbalance other LED manufacturers. 

The court rejected all of Baix's litigation requests.
According to the description in the judgment, Baix believed that Xuex began to use the "high heat dissipation LED device" technology in its products and started selling them in Shenzhen Huaqiangbei and Zhongshan markets from 2015. On March 2, 2017, Baix filed a lawsuit with the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court against Xuex for infringing upon its invention patent. 
In 2010, the company was founded. The previous year, it was listed on the New Third Board. Over the past two years, it has been continuously investing in research and development, improving intellectual property rights, and purchasing equipment. But suddenly, it became a defendant. Xu X's Optics was quite surprised when it received the court summons. 
Subsequently, Xu X organized technical experts and ZYIP patent lawyers to discuss and analyze the case, and also analyzed the production process of the supplier's stent. The results showed that Bai X's invention patent and Xu X's product were completely different technical routes. Xu X did not use Bai X's patented technology at all, but instead used Xu X's original invention patent technology - the patent number is CN201510187764.0. 

"Sub-case" Xu x "Counterclaim" Bai x Patent Invalidity
Bai x applied for the "High Heat Dissipation Light Emitting Diode Device" invention patent in 2006 and it was authorized in 2010, with the patent number ZL200610151576.3. During the process of responding to the lawsuit, after conducting a search and analysis of the involved patent, it was found that this patent might not possess originality. That is to say, the stability of this patent used to accuse Xu x and other LED manufacturers needs to be examined. 
During the 8-month period of litigation preparation, numerous suppliers and competitors also reached out to us via WeChat and phone to report the situation and discuss countermeasures. Thus, Xuxin Optoelectronics made a bold and just decision: it officially submitted a request to the Patent Reexamination Committee of the National Intellectual Property Administration to declare Bix's patent invalid. 

The National Intellectual Property Administration accepted the case of invalidation of this invention patent. 
The invalid lawsuit will continue to be handled by ZYIP and has been accepted by the Patent Reexamination Committee of the National Intellectual Property Administration. Regarding this, the Secretary-General of the Shenzhen Lighting and Display Engineering Industry Association stated that the association will fully support member units in safeguarding their intellectual property rights. Some enterprises use so-called "core patents" to force other enterprises to purchase their products. Now, the awareness of intellectual property protection among domestic industry enterprises is constantly increasing, their independent innovation capabilities are constantly improving, and they are also daring to say "no" (Source: Integrated from the LED Daily Headline).

Return
Previous:Nothing Next:A case involving infringement of a utility model patent right