The case of patent infringement between the plaintiff Hallys Corporation (hereinafter referred to as Hallys) and the defendant PDT Co., Ltd., a South Korea company, (hereinafter referred to as PDT) was openly heard by Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court. The Court ordered PDT to stop producing and selling products that infringe Hallys’ patent right, and compensated Hallys for its economic losses and reasonable expenditure totaling 3,000,000 rmb.

    [Basic Information]

    Hallys Corporation, the plaintiff, was founded in 2000. It is a Japanese innovative enterprise specialized in developing and manufacturing glass processing equipment, roll to roll / automation equipment and RFID equipment. It integrates high-speed and high-precision manufacturing technology to develop and manufacture innovative equipment with high added value, and produces competitive products in the world market.

    Hallys has the patent right of invention with the name of "processing device for sheet like objects and manufacturing method for sheet like components" and the patent number is ZL201410267474.2.In June 2017, Hallys found that PDT, the South Korea company, publicized glass cover CNC equipment at one Shenzhen exhibition. After investigation, Hallys found that the company had produced infringing products and sold to Chinese companies.

    Hallys believes that PDT’s act of producing, offering to sell and selling not only seriously infringes Hallys’ patent rights, but also causes serious economic losses to Hallys, so it entrusts Kangrui Law Firm to file a civil infringement lawsuit against PDT.

    [Case Process]

    After receiving the entrustment, our firm had a detailed communication with our client and formulated rights protection strategies. As the infringing products are large-scale processing equipment, it is difficult to obtain evidence, so our attorneys applied to the court for evidence preservation while filing the case. In order to find out the facts of the case, the court sent personnel to the scene for examination, and took photos and videos of the accused infringing products to fix the evidence. After careful sorting of the evidence, court trial and the inquest process of argument, we successfully won the case, and the court fully supported our claims of compensation.

    [Extract of Judgment]

    The court fully supports Hallys’ claim for economic losses and reasonable expenditure totaling 3,000,000 rmb for the following reasons: First, the type of patent. The patent in this case is an invention patent, with relatively high market value and wide range of application, which needs strong judicial protection; Second, the nature of infringement. PDT implements producing and selling infringement, and the accused infringing product constitute the same infringement as the patent in this case. Producing belongs to source infringement and is large-scale production line. According to the investigation, the sales price of the accused infringing product is US $500,000, which is equivalent to the price of the patented product. The two products are in the same competitive market, and the profits should be roughly equal. Even more, because the infringing product saves the research and development cost, the profits will be higher than the patented product. Third, infringement lasts for a long time. According to the facts found in this case, the duration of the infringement has been at least from 2017 to now, and the duration of the infringement is relatively long. It squeezed Hallys’ market share and caused a great deal of damage to Hallys. Fourth, the contribution rate of this invention is large. The patent technical solution of this case belongs to the technical solution of the core part of the accused infringing product, which has a high contribution rate to the accused infringing product, so the compensation amount should be determined from the high level. Fifth, reasonable expenditure. Hallys has done a lot of work to protect its rights. It entrusts lawyers to protect its rights. It needs to pay the corresponding expenses, and has provided evidence to prove the reasonable expenditure. Considering the above factors, in order to strengthen the protection of intellectual property rights and protect the legitimate rights and interests of the obligee, under the condition that the obligee provides evidence and can make reasonable explanation, the court considers that the amount of compensation claimed by Hallys is reasonable and not obviously improper. In order to create a good business environment, the court should increase the intensity of compensation to show the judicial firm attitude towards the protection of intellectual property rights.

    To sum up, in accordance with Article 179 of the General Rules of the Civil Law of the People’s Republic of China and Articles 11, 59 and 65 of the Patent Law of the People’s Republic of China, the rulings are as follows:

    1、 PDT Co., Ltd. shall immediately stop producing and selling the infringing products with the patent number of ZL201410267474.2 and the name of " processing device for sheet like objects and manufacturing method for sheet like components" of Harris Corporation as of the date of the legal effect of this judgment;

    2、 PDT Co., Ltd. shall compensate Harris Corporation for economic losses and reasonable expenditure totaling 3,000,000 yuan within 10 days from the effective date of this judgment;

    3、 Other claims of Harris Corporation were rejected.