A few days ago, the Patent Compound Committee of the State Intellectual Property Office issued invalid decisions No. 29146 and No. 29147, respectively announcing the patent number 201330528226.5 (Landwind E32, Landwind X7) of Jiangling Holdings Co., Ltd. and the patent number 201130436459.3 (Land Rover Range Rover) of Jaguar Land Rover. Aurora) all patent rights are invalid. It is worth noting that the two parties in the two invalidation decisions are mutually invalid petitioners. The two invalidation decisions cited the provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 23 of the Patent Law.

And just earlier this month, a Reuters report confirmed that Jaguar Land Rover Co., Ltd. has filed a lawsuit against Jiangling Holdings Co., Ltd. Landwind X7 copycat and its Land Rover Range Rover Evoque. The two invalidation decisions issued by the Patent Compound Committee of the State Intellectual Property Office will have a major impact on this case.

Land Rover sues Landwind

The invalidation requestor, Jaguar Land Rover Co., Ltd., filed a request for invalidation of Jiangling Holdings Co., Ltd.'s patent number 201330528226.5 (Landwind E32, Jilufeng X7) to the Patent Reexamination Board on July 25, 2014. The reason was that the patent in question did not comply with Article 23 of the Patent Law. Article 2 of the provisions. It also submitted relevant evidence such as the patent information of the Range Rover Evoque, relevant media reports, and copies of relevant sales and registration documents of the Range Rover Evoque with the license plate number "京N0EV03". The collegiate panel of the Patent Compound Committee issued an oral hearing notice to both parties on December 10, 2014, and held an oral hearing on January 27, 2015. Both parties verified the relevant evidence. On May 13, 2016, the Patent Reexamination Board made a decision on invalidation No. 29146 in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 23 of the Patent Law and issued a document on June 3, 2016.

In the Invalidation Decision No. 29146, the Patent Review Board stated that “comprehensively consider the impact of the similarities and differences between the two on the overall visual effect, and there is no obvious difference between the two in the overall visual effect. The patent involved in the case did not comply with the provisions of Article 23, paragraph 2 of the Patent Law.” The conclusion was that Jiangling Holdings Co., Ltd.'s patent number 201330528226.5 (Landwind E32, and Landwind X7) were all invalidated. If the parties are dissatisfied with this decision, they may file a suit in the Beijing Intellectual Property Court within three months from the date of receipt of this decision in accordance with Article 46, paragraph 2 of the Patent Law. According to the provisions of this paragraph, after one party filed a lawsuit, the other party participated in the lawsuit as a third party.

Invalid decision

Brief comment: In the announcement of this decision, a patent office determined that the Landwind X7 is similar in appearance to the Land Rover Evoque, which means that the State Patent Office has determined that the Landwind X7 is a copycat behavior. Although the Landwind X7 is not protected only at the patent level, it is a court's judgment of infringement, and there is no punishment. But at least it is a qualitative improvement over the many ridiculous judgments that have been found to be dissimilar. In addition, the invalidation decision of the Patent Review Board of the Patent Office will have a decisive influence on the final judgment of the court.

The invalidation requestor Jiangling Holdings Co., Ltd. filed a request for invalidation of Jaguar Land Rover's patent number 201130436459.3 (Land Rover Evoque) to the Patent Reexamination Board on February 16, 2015, on the grounds that the patent in question did not comply with Article 23, paragraph 1 and The provisions of paragraph 2 (Note: The patent number is 201130436459.3, the design patent named "motor vehicle", its application date is November 24, 2011, the authorization announcement date is August 29, 2012, the original patentee It was a Land Rover company and later changed to Jaguar Land Rover Co., Ltd.), and submitted a series of online media and magazine media about the Jaguar Land Rover Range Rover Evoque five-door version (patented appearance 1) and three-door version (patented appearance 2) to participate in 2010 A report on the Guangzhou Auto Show that opened in December 2015.

On February 16, 2015, the Patent Reexamination Board accepted the above-mentioned invalidation request and transferred the invalidation request and copies of the evidence to the patentee, and established a collegial panel. The collegial panel issued an oral hearing notice to both parties on March 5, 2015, and held an oral hearing on April 14, 2015. The relevant evidence was finally verified and it was determined that the appearance of the vehicle exhibited in December 2010 was consistent with the appearance of the patent involved, so the patent involved was an existing design before the application date (November 24, 2011). In accordance with the provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 23 of the Patent Law, the Patent Review Board issued a written invalidation decision No. 29147, announcing that the design patent rights of 201130436459.3 (Land Rover Evoque) were all invalid. If the parties are dissatisfied with this decision, they may file a lawsuit in the Beijing Intellectual Property Court within three months from the date of receipt of this decision in accordance with Article 46, paragraph 2 of the Patent Law. According to the provisions of this paragraph, after one party filed a lawsuit, the other party participated in the lawsuit as a third party.

Invalid decision

Comment: Land Rover EVOQUE (Range Rover Evoque) made its debut at the Paris Motor Show in October 2010 and debuted in China in December of that year. In addition, Land Rover registered a design patent number 4005532 in the UK. The application date was December 05, 2007, and the publication date was December 30, 2008. However, Land Rover neglected the domestic patent application procedures. This judgment was also executed in accordance with relevant Chinese laws and regulations, and there was no favoritism, so Land Rover suffered a dumb loss. This judgment will also directly affect Jaguar Land Rover's lawsuit against Jiangling Holdings' Landwind X7 copycat historical Aurora.

As early as 2006-2012 in the case of Neoplan v. Zhongda A9 Shanzhai (click for details), Neoplan won the first instance because the product release date was earlier than its domestic patent application date. It was reversed in the second instance and the patent was declared invalid. Although the National Patent Office determined that the Landwind X7 had a copycat and declared its patent rights to be invalid, the simultaneous declaration of the Jaguar Land Rover patent rights will also directly affect the court's judgment in this lawsuit. The author is slightly pessimistic about the judgment of Jaguar Land Rover v. Jiangling Holdings Shanzhai, but is firmly critical of Shanzhai. However, the two judgments will not affect the sales of related models, and the two parties have not issued any statements on this. The author believes that the two verdicts are to warn that original manufacturers must have a strong sense of intellectual property protection, and the other is to advise copycat manufacturers. Now that the country has begun to identify copycats, they will not be so lucky next time. (Text: Guo Rui from Pacific Automotive Network)

Attach:

Article 23 of the Patent Law:

The design for which a patent is granted should not belong to an existing design; no unit or individual has filed an application for the same design with the Patent Administration Department of the State Council before the date of application and recorded it in the patent documents announced after the date of application.

Compared with the existing design or the combination of existing design features, the design for which the patent right is granted should be clearly different.

The design for which the patent is granted shall not conflict with the legal rights acquired by others before the filing date.

The “existing design” mentioned in this law refers to the design known to the public at home and abroad before the filing date.

Article 24 of the Patent Law:

The invention-creation for which a patent is applied for shall not lose its novelty in any of the following circumstances within six months before the filing date:

(1) It was exhibited for the first time at an international exhibition sponsored or recognized by the Chinese government;

(2) It is published for the first time at a prescribed academic conference or technical conference;

(3) Others divulge the content without the consent of the applicant.