A. Case Information:
- Plaintiff/Patentee: Thermaltake Technology Co., Ltd.
- Defendant/Invalidation Petitioner: Beijing Aeolus Trade Co., Ltd.
- Agency of Defendant/Invalidation Petitioner: Beijing Genuineways Intellectual Property Agency Co., Ltd.
- Courts/Bodies with Jurisdiction: Guangdong Higher People's Court/Guangdong Intermediate People's Court/ Patent Reexamination Board.
B. Result of Processing / Judgment:
It is declared that the patent is invalidated.
C. Analysis of the Case:
We, serving as intellectual property consultancy unit for Aeolus, provide legal advices, patent and trademark registration application service, analysis of patent infringement and patentability, and many other works for it all year round. In the infringement analysis prior to promotion of a new product, it was found that the product involved a risk of infringement as to a relevant on mainland application of the Taiwan Thermaltake. Hence we conducted a patentability analysis of the patent, and successfully found an X-class document, which is enough to destroy the novelty of the patent. Finally, we put forward proposal and assured the client to launch that product.
Later Thermaltake really, based on the patent, brought a lawsuit against Aeolus for patent infringement. We, acting on behalf of Aeolus, made response, and, at the same time, filed an invalidation request with the Patent Reexamination Board, which successfully invalidated the patent and effectively safeguarded the client’s interests. This enabled the client to easily win the infringement proceeding.
D. Comments by Attorney:
In respect of the patent itself, there is no much suspense for this case. But the following is worth learning:
1. In respect of Thermaltake, the reason of its patent being invalidated is mainly because of significant flaws in the application process. The application was filed in mainland after the same was already disclosed in Taiwan, which directly resulted the application in Taiwan and Hong Kong as the prior art, and the texts and figures of technical solutions of the two patent applications were of no substantive change, which affects the novelty of the application on the mainland. This is a major mistake easily made by the applicant and inventor, who tend to believe that the technology belongs to them and hence they shall be capable of applying for the patent. But in fact, a lot of technologies loss the opportunity to apply for a patent because of the prior disclosure by oneself.
2. On Aeolus, the reason why it won so easily and in no suspense is because of its earlier full preparation. The infringement search before the promotion of a new product to the market made it early recognize the potential risk; through patentability analysis, it successfully excluded the risk. It really reflects that precaution averts perils and having a well-thought-out plan.
- Attachments:
- 1. Examination decision of the Patent Reexamination Board of SIPO on invalidation request of the case. PDF
- 2. Civil judgment by Guangdong Dongguan Intermediate People's Court of this case. PDF
- 3. Civil judgment by Guangdong Higher People's Court of the case. PDF
