CHANG TSI
Insights
Skechers (Hengqin New Area, Zhuhai) Commercial Co., Ltd. sued Guangdong Camel Clothing Co., Ltd., Guangzhou Camel Home Textile Technology Co., Ltd., Guangdong Zhongyou Technology Co., Ltd., Tianjin Ruijiaxun Trading Co., Ltd. for design patent infringement dispute (first instance).
The plaintiff holds a design patent with patent number ZL202030334419.7 and the title "Upper (203136)". The plaintiff found that a casual shoe manufactured by its competitor Guangdong Camel Clothing Co., Ltd. was suspected of infringing the above design patent right, and the infringing product was sold in large quantities on Pinduoduo and Jingdong platforms.
After receiving the entrustment, we quickly notarized and preserved the relevant infringement, and locked the manufacturers, sellers, and e-commerce sales platforms of the infringing products. We established the jurisdiction connection point through the e-commerce platform and filed a lawsuit in the First Intermediate People's Court of Tianjin. After such twists and turns as a jurisdictional objection and patent invalidation declaration, we successfully persuaded the Judicial panel to determine that the infringement was established and achieved the customer's expectations.
The plaintiff is the holder of the design patent ZL202030334419.7. The first defendant, Guangdong Camel Clothing Co., Ltd., is a company specializing in the processing, manufacturing, and selling of clothing, leather goods, and shoes. The second defendant, Guangzhou Camel Home Textile Technology Co., Ltd., opened the "Camel Flagship Store" on the Pinduoduo platform. The third defendant, Guangdong Zhongyou Technology Co., Ltd., opened the "Camel Official Flagship Store" on the Pinduoduo platform, and the fourth defendant, Tianjin Ruijiaxun Trade Co., Ltd., opened the "Camel Sports Self-operated Flagship Store" on the Jingdong platform. The above three companies sold shoes, clothing, and other goods of the "Camel" brand produced by the first defendant.
By comparing the same casual shoes produced and publicly sold by Defendant 1 and Defendant 2,3,4, the plaintiff found that the above-mentioned products produced and sold by the defendants fell within the protection scope of the plaintiff's design patent No. ZL202030334419.7. In order to stop infringement quickly, the client entrusted us to file a lawsuit.
i) We listed the manufacturer of the infringing products and several sellers as co-defendants and sued at the location of one of the sellers, neither the manufacturer nor other sellers were domiciled in the jurisdiction of the court. The defendants raised jurisdictional objections, and we faced the choice of withdrawing the indictments against some of the defendants or dividing the case.
ii) There are several differences between the accused infringing products and the patent involved, which can affect the overall visual effect to some extent and the court may not support our infringement claim.
Based on the focus and the difficulty of the case, we formulated the following litigation strategy:
i) Regarding jurisdictional objections, we collected a large number of cases, maintained close communication with the presiding judge, and successfully persuaded the court of first instance to make a ruling that they have jurisdiction over the case. The defendant is dissatisfied and files an appeal. The judge of the second instance held that the court of first instance only had jurisdiction over some of the subject matter of the litigation and had no jurisdiction over other subject matter of the litigation. Faced with this adverse situation, we mediated between the defendant and the presiding judge of the second instance to facilitate the defendant's withdrawal of the appeal against jurisdiction. And the case would be continued by the first instance court.
ii) Regarding the determination of infringement, in order to persuade the collegial panel, we made a lot of preparatory work before the trial. By marking and highlighting different design features, the collegial panel could understand the differences and similarities between the patent involved and the accused infringing product quickly. And we demonstrated the distinguishing design features of the patent involved, and ultimately convinced the collegial panel to support our claim.
i) This case is a model of full communication between the presiding judge, the plaintiff and the defendant, reflecting the advantages of diverse dispute resolution mechanisms. The Supreme Court's legal precedent has held that in patent infringement litigation, if the plaintiff files a lawsuit against the manufacturer and the seller located in different regions at the same time, the filing court has jurisdiction only over the subject matter of the lawsuit related to the seller in which it is located. Under these circumstances, the judge undertaking the case gave full play to his subjective initiative, communicated closely with both the plaintiff and the defendant, and persuaded the defendant to withdraw the appeal request for jurisdictional objections, and the case was able to be continued by the filing court.
ii) Infringement comparison is the most critical part of patent infringement litigation. We make full use of litigation visualization in this part, and use PPT to truthfully reflect the similarities and differences between the patent involved and the accused infringing products, so that the collegial panel can quickly understand the focus of the dispute and form the inner confirmation in our favor.
