Lawyer’s Insights: Article 66, Paragraph 1 of the Patent Law stipulates: “Where a patent infringement dispute involves an invention patent for a new product manufacturing method, the entity or individual manufacturing the same product shall provide proof that its product manufacturing method differs from the patented method.” This legal provision can be interpreted as follows: In patent infringement disputes involving new product manufacturing methods, the plaintiff needs to prove two points: first, the dispute involves a “new product,” and second, the product being manufactured is the “same product.” Once the plaintiff proves these two points, the burden of proof is reversed, and the defendant bears the burden of proving that its manufacturing method is different.
In this case, the defendant actively argued that the prerequisite for applying the reversed burden of proof is that the plaintiff must submit evidence proving that the patented product in question is a new product. The plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that the patented product in question is a new product, nor could it provide evidence of the processing and manufacturing method of the accused product, and should therefore bear the consequences of failing to provide evidence. The plaintiff voluntarily withdrew the lawsuit due to the inability to provide evidence.
In patent infringement disputes involving new product manufacturing methods, the allocation of the burden of proof is often the deciding factor in the case. The key issue is that the plaintiff needs to prove that the accused product is a new product and that it is identical to the product directly obtained by the method patent. If the plaintiff can prove these two points, then according to the explicit provisions of the Patent Law, the burden of proof is reversed, and the defendant needs to prove its innocence; otherwise, it will bear the adverse consequences of failing to provide evidence. However, if the plaintiff cannot prove these two points, the burden of proof is not reversed, and the plaintiff still bears the burden of proving the existence of infringement. If the plaintiff’s evidence fails to meet the standard of proof, then the plaintiff will bear the adverse consequences of failing to provide evidence.
Parties:
Plaintiff: Liaoning Petrochemical Machinery & Instrument Co., Ltd.
Defendant (Client): Shijiazhuang Tiancheng Special Equipment Co., Ltd.
Basic Facts: The plaintiff, Liaoning Petrochemical Machinery & Instrument Co., Ltd., twice sued the defendant, Shijiazhuang Tiancheng Special Equipment Co., Ltd., for infringement of its invention patent right with patent number 201010561383.1 and title “V-shaped Wire Industrial Filter and its Laser Processing Technology”. After an unfavorable first instance trial, Tiancheng Company retained Attorney Yu Chunbo to represent them in this case in hopes of turning the tide. After the first instance hearing, the plaintiff withdrew the lawsuit.
Document Number:
Civil Ruling No. (2024) Ji 01 Zhi Min Chu 275