Lođiều kiện rút tiền 8xbetn News

Contents

Lođiều kiện rút tiền 8xbetn News

A Case Involving Facial Recognition Invention Patent Confirmation Represented by Long An Included in the Top 10 Intellectual Property Cases by điều kiện rút tiền 8xbetupreme People’s Court in 2023

Long An Successfully Achieves Reversals in Several Patent Cases at điều kiện rút tiền 8xbetupreme People’s Court

Lawyer Jiali Xu, Founding Partner of Long An, Attends điều kiện rút tiền 8xbeteminar on Protection of Trade Secrets Hosted by Intellectual Property Publishing House

Lođiều kiện rút tiền 8xbetn Notable Cases

Lođiều kiện rút tiền 8xbetn Assists PUMA SE in Winning the Administrative Litigation on Trademark Invalidation

China IP News

The CNIPA Releases “2023 China Patent Survey Report”: Industrialization Rate of Enterprise Invention Patents Exceeds 50% for the First Time

Lođiều kiện rút tiền 8xbetn Top 10 IP Cases in 2023 (Cases 1-2)

AuthenMetric Co., Ltd. patent invalidation administrative litigation

Beijing Century Beking Furniture Co., Ltd. v. Shanghai Langju Industrial Co., Ltd., Shanghai Bangying Brand Management Co., Ltd., Germany Beking International Holdings Group Co., Ltd., and Ma Guifu on trademark infringement and unfair competition

Lođiều kiện rút tiền 8xbetn News

On April 22, điều kiện rút tiền 8xbetupreme People’s Court held a press conference to present the overall situation of judicial protection of intellectual property rights in Chinese courts in 2023, điều kiện rút tiền 8xbetelection process of public welfare short films on intellectual property protection, and released the top 10 intellectual property cases and 50 typical intellectual property cases in China for 2023. The case involving Facial Recognition invention patent confirmation, represented by lawyers Cindy Xianzhi Quan, Jianjun Fu, Wei Wang, and Xiaojun Zheng from Long An Law Firm, was included in the “Top 10 Intellectual Property Cases in China for 2023”.

This case was also included in the “Summary of Judgments of the Intellectual Property Court of điều kiện rút tiền 8xbetupreme People’s Court in 2023″ and the “100 Typical Cases on the Fifth Anniversary of the Establishment of the Intellectual Property Court of điều kiện rút tiền 8xbetupreme People’s Court”, fully demonstrating its significant importance and exemplary value in the field of intellectual property.

https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/Im9ko4u2eJisLGs47LstHg

Long An Successfully Achieves Reversals in Several Patent Cases at điều kiện rút tiền 8xbetupreme People’s Court

In 2023, several cases represented by the Long An achieved favorable outcome at điều kiện rút tiền 8xbetupreme People’s Court, including several cases whose decisions were successfully reversed in điều kiện rút tiền 8xbetecond instance. Here are three representative cases:

Dispute over Patent Invalidation between Midea Company and Best Company

The patent involved is the core patent of Midea Company’s dishwasher, which has undergone multiple invalidations and holds significant commercial value. Best Company filed a request for invalidation of the patent involved, seeking to invalidate it entirely. Midea Company filed administrative litigation, but the first-instance court dismissed Midea’s claim. After several hearings in điều kiện rút tiền 8xbetecond instance, điều kiện rút tiền 8xbetupreme People’s Court ultimately determined that the decision ignored distinguishing features, thus revoking the first-instance judgment and the decision.

Patent Infringement Dispute between Botao Company and Sikerma Company

Sikerma Company filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Botao Company in điều kiện rút tiền 8xbethenzhen Intermediate People’s Court, claiming infringement of its utility model patent for shoe covers. The first-instance court found infringement. According to the client’s instructions, the aim of this case was to overturn the infringement judgment through a non-infringement defense, which was a challenge. Considering the extremely low success rate of overturning judgments in utility model patent infringement appeal cases, we fully analyzed the first-instance judgment, evidence provided by both parties, and the invalidity materials of the patent involved, and believed that the accused product might not fall within the protection scope of the claims of the patent involved. To further confirm this, we requested the client to send a sample of the accused product, and conducted a detailed comparison between the working principle of điều kiện rút tiền 8xbetample and the content of the patent claims. Ultimately, điều kiện rút tiền 8xbetecond-instance court overturned the first-instance judgment, ruling non-infringement.

Patent Infringement Dispute between Midea Company and SEB Company

SEB Company filed a lawsuit against Midea Company in the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court for infringement of its cooking machine patent. The first-instance court ruled in favor of the defendant, finding non-infringement, and both parties appealed. Although the first-instance court found no infringement, only one of the three distinguishing features we advocated was accepted. If only the plaintiff had appealed, our defensive space in điều kiện rút tiền 8xbetecond instance would have been greatly reduced. To avoid losing the initiative, we also appealed the two distinguishing features that the court did not accept. Finally, the two distinguishing features that were not accepted in the first instance were accepted by điều kiện rút tiền 8xbetecond-instance court, completely blocking the plaintiff’s route for overturning the case and thoroughly eliminating the client’s infringement risks.

https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/A6-mg7mvu5WiCEhXevLntA

Lawyer Jiali Xu, Founding Partner of Long An, Attends điều kiện rút tiền 8xbeteminar on Protection of Trade Secrets Hosted by China Intellectual Property Publishing House

On the afternoon of April 9, Intellectual Property Publishing House hosted a Seminar on Theory and Practice of Enterprise Trade Secret Protection. Lawyer Jiali Xu, Founding Partner of Lođiều kiện rút tiền 8xbetn Law Firm and an expert with extensive practical experience, was invited to attend and delivered a speech on “Theory and Practice of Trade Secret Protection”.

https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/u801Bb0IssEHvS_0PIb3Yg

Lođiều kiện rút tiền 8xbetn Notable Cases

Lođiều kiện rút tiền 8xbetn Assists PUMA SE in Winning the Administrative Litigation on Trademark Invalidation

Recently, lawyers Cindy Xianzhi Quan, Chengyan Zhao, and Kuiliang Chen from Long An Law Firm represented PUMA SE in the first-instance administrative litigation on trademark invalidation, successfully revoking the decision issued by the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) and upholding the original judgment in điều kiện rút tiền 8xbetecond instance.

[Dispute Focus]

The focal point of thiđiều kiện rút tiền 8xbetase is whether the disputed trademark “PUMANCHI 普幔驰” violates Article 30 of the Trademark Law.

Although the disputed trademark includes the letters of “PUMA” trademark of PUMA SE, “PUMANCHI”, the disputed trademark, is the Chinese phonetic alphabets of “普幔驰”, and the CNIPA did not recognize điều kiện rút tiền 8xbetimilarity between the disputed trademark and the “PUMA” trademark during the opposition and invalidation phases. Therefore, the difficulty in this case lies in whether the Chinese phonetic alphabets equivalent “PUMA” contained in the disputed trademark can be considered similar to the PUMA’s “PUMA” trademark.

Before the trial, Lođiều kiện rút tiền 8xbetn submitted other decisions on opposition and invalidation of similar cases, as well as prior decisions and judgments recognizing PUMA SE’s “PUMA” and “PUMA and device” trademarks as well-known trademarks.

During the trial, Long An elaborated on the trademark itself, similar rulings, the awareness of the cited trademark, etc. The Beijing Intellectual Property Court ruled that the disputed trademark is similar to the cited trademark “PUMA” in terms of textual composition, visual effects, etc., thuđiều kiện rút tiền 8xbetonstituting a similar trademark. Finally, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court revoked the decision and requested CNIPA to make a new decision.

CNIPA refused to accept the first-instance judgment and appealed.

In điều kiện rút tiền 8xbetecond instance, the Beijing High People’s Court believed that the disputed trademark is a similar trademark used on điều kiện rút tiền 8xbetame or similar goods as the cited trademark, and found no improper application of Article 30 of the Trademark Law in the original judgment, thereby upholding it.

https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/jZ66ra3NYiramlUF7LJBcQ

China IP News

The CNIPA Releases “2023 China Patent Survey Report”: Industrialization Rate of Enterprise Invention Patents Exceeds 50% for the First Time

Recently, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) released the “2023 China Patent Survey Report” (hereinafter referred to as the “Report”).

In 2023, the industrialization rate of invention patents in China reached 39.6%, an increase of 2.9 percentage points from the previous year, and the industrialization rate of enterprise invention patents reached 51.3%, up 3.2 percentage points from the previous year. From the perspective of enterprise size, the industrialization rates of invention patents of large, medium, small, and micro-enterprises were 51.0%, 57.9%, 53.9%, and 33.8% respectively, all showing improvement compared to the previous year.

In 2023, the average income from the industrialization of industry-university-research (IUR) invention patents in China reached CNY 10.332 million per patent, which is 24.5% higher than the average income from industrialization of enterprise invention patents (i.e. CNY 8.296 million per patent).

In patent infringement litigation cases involving enterprises, the proportion of cases with an amount of court-ruled compensation, court mediation, or out-of-court settlements exceeding CNY 5 million was 8.4%, an increase of 1.4 percentage points from the previous year, maintainiđiều kiện rút tiền 8xbetbove 7% for the past three years.

https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/3tQe49LVmHBdzluDNtx0Tg

Lođiều kiện rút tiền 8xbetn Top 10 IP Cases in 2023 (Cases 1-2)

Case 1: AuthenMetric Co., Ltd. patent invalidation administrative litigation

AuthenMetric Co., Ltd. holds a patent (No. 200480036270.2) titled “A Method for Obtaining Facial Images and a Facial Recognition Method and System” (hereinafter referred to as “the patent in question”). The China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) issued Decision No. 40533 on invalidation request, declaring that the patent in question was invalid. Dissatisfied with this decision, AuthenMetric entrusted our firm to initiate an administrative litigation.

Our lawyers conducted a detailed analysis of the invalidation decision, claiming that the invalidation decision’s finding that some of the amended claims could not be accepted as a breakthrough point. Ultimately, điều kiện rút tiền 8xbetupreme People’s Court accepted our opinion and ruled to revoke the invalidation decision.

https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/d9xLsFF_ZjQCab5u1N3sSw

Case 2: Beijing Century Beking Furniture Co., Ltd. v. Shanghai Langju Industrial Co., Ltd., Shanghai Bangying Brand Management Co., Ltd., Germany Beking International Holdings Group Co., Ltd., and Ma Guifu on trademark infringement and unfair competition

The legal team of our firm identified the infringement pattern of the opposing party through research and investigation. The actual controller of the defendants established a shell company in Hong Kong named Germany Beking International Holdings Group Co., Ltd., which, under the guise of licensing Shanghai Langju Industrial Co., Ltd. and Shanghai Bangying Brand Management Co., Ltd., hyped the latter as điều kiện rút tiền 8xbetubsidiaries of Germany Beking International Holdings Group Co., Ltd. and the fictitious Beking Panel Material International Holdings Group Co., Ltd. and operated a franchise system under the ‘Beking’/’Germany Beking’ brand.

Our legal team comprehensively presented to the court the infringiđiều kiện rút tiền 8xbetctions of each defendant and their respective roles, substantiating their collaboration and division of labor in the infringement actions through extensive evidence (in thousands of pages).

Our legal team provided ample evidence regarding the plaintiff’s brand value, the duration of the defendants’ infringement, their malicious intent, the use of infringing marks, profit margins, and other aspects. Considering these factors, the court finally ruled that the four defendants are jointly and severally liable to compensate the plaintiff CNY11.96 million based on điều kiện rút tiền 8xbettatutory maximum compensation.

https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/HQ0MN3AAGnasl9KIHNuSUg

For more details, please follow us on: