À propos de la propriété intellectuelle Formation en propriété intellectuelle Respect de la propriété intellectuelle Sensibilisation à la propriété intellectuelle La propriété intellectuelle pour… Propriété intellectuelle et… Propriété intellectuelle et… Information relative aux brevets et à la technologie Information en matière de marques Information en matière de dessins et modèles industriels Information en matière d’indications géographiques Information en matière de protection des obtentions végétales (UPOV) Lois, traités et jugements dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle Ressources relatives à la propriété intellectuelle Rapports sur la propriété intellectuelle Protection des brevets Protection des marques Protection des dessins et modèles industriels Protection des indications géographiques Protection des obtentions végétales (UPOV) Règlement extrajudiciaire des litiges Solutions opérationnelles à l’intention des offices de propriété intellectuelle Paiement de services de propriété intellectuelle Décisions et négociations Coopération en matière de développement Appui à l’innovation Partenariats public-privé Outils et services en matière d’intelligence artificielle L’Organisation Travailler avec nous Responsabilité Brevets Marques Dessins et modèles industriels Indications géographiques Droit d’auteur Secrets d’affaires Académie de l’OMPI Ateliers et séminaires Application des droits de propriété intellectuelle WIPO ALERT Sensibilisation Journée mondiale de la propriété intellectuelle Magazine de l’OMPI Études de cas et exemples de réussite Actualités dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle Prix de l’OMPI Entreprises Universités Peuples autochtones Instances judiciaires Ressources génétiques, savoirs traditionnels et expressions culturelles traditionnelles Économie Égalité des genres Santé mondiale Changement climatique Politique en matière de concurrence Objectifs de développement durable Technologies de pointe Applications mobiles Sport Tourisme PATENTSCOPE Analyse de brevets Classification internationale des brevets Programme ARDI – Recherche pour l’innovation Programme ASPI – Information spécialisée en matière de brevets Base de données mondiale sur les marques Madrid Monitor Base de données Article 6ter Express Classification de Nice Classification de Vienne Base de données mondiale sur les dessins et modèles Bulletin des dessins et modèles internationaux Base de données Hague Express Classification de Locarno Base de données Lisbon Express Base de données mondiale sur les marques relative aux indications géographiques Base de données PLUTO sur les variétés végétales Base de données GENIE Traités administrés par l’OMPI WIPO Lex – lois, traités et jugements en matière de propriété intellectuelle Normes de l’OMPI Statistiques de propriété intellectuelle WIPO Pearl (Terminologie) Publications de l’OMPI Profils nationaux Centre de connaissances de l’OMPI Série de rapports de l’OMPI consacrés aux tendances technologiques Indice mondial de l’innovation Rapport sur la propriété intellectuelle dans le monde PCT – Le système international des brevets ePCT Budapest – Le système international de dépôt des micro-organismes Madrid – Le système international des marques eMadrid Article 6ter (armoiries, drapeaux, emblèmes nationaux) La Haye – Le système international des dessins et modèles industriels eHague Lisbonne – Le système d’enregistrement international des indications géographiques eLisbon UPOV PRISMA UPOV e-PVP Administration UPOV e-PVP DUS Exchange Médiation Arbitrage Procédure d’expertise Litiges relatifs aux noms de domaine Accès centralisé aux résultats de la recherche et de l’examen (WIPO CASE) Service d’accès numérique aux documents de priorité (DAS) WIPO Pay Compte courant auprès de l’OMPI Assemblées de l’OMPI Comités permanents Calendrier des réunions WIPO Webcast Documents officiels de l’OMPI Plan d’action de l’OMPI pour le développement Assistance technique Institutions de formation en matière de propriété intellectuelle Mesures d’appui concernant la COVID-19 Stratégies nationales de propriété intellectuelle Assistance en matière d’élaboration des politiques et de formulation de la législation Pôle de coopération Centres d’appui à la technologie et à l’innovation (CATI) Transfert de technologie Programme d’aide aux inventeurs WIPO GREEN Initiative PAT-INFORMED de l’OMPI Consortium pour des livres accessibles L’OMPI pour les créateurs WIPO Translate Speech-to-Text Assistant de classification États membres Observateurs Directeur général Activités par unité administrative Bureaux extérieurs Avis de vacance d’emploi Achats Résultats et budget Rapports financiers Audit et supervision
Arabic English Spanish French Russian Chinese
Lois Traités Jugements Recherche par ressort juridique

Chine

CN013-j

Retour

Thyssenkrupp Airportontainers System (Zhongshan) Co., Ltd. V. China International Mariners (Group) Ltd., Shenzhen Cimc Tianda Airport Equipment Co., Ltd., and Guangzhou Baiyun International Airport Co., Ltd. (2016) ZGFMZ No. 179, SPC

THYSSENKRUPP AIRPORT SYSTEMS (ZHONGSHAN) CO., LTD. V. CHINA INTERNATIONAL MARINE CONTAINERS (GROUP) LTD., SHENZHEN CIMC TIANDA AIRPORT EQUIPMENT CO., LTD., AND GUANGZHOU BAIYUN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CO., LTD. (2016) ZGFMZ No. 179, SPC

 

Cause of action: Dispute over infringement of patent right in an invention

 

Collegial panel members: Li Jian | Song Shuhua | Wu Rong

 

Keywords: infringement, invention patent, product manual, publication

 

Relevant legal provisions: Patent Law of the People’s Republic of China (as amended in 2000), article 22 Patent Law of the People’s Republic of China (as amended in 2008), article 62

 

Basic facts: In the dispute over infringement of an invention patent between appellant ThyssenKrupp Airport Systems (Zhongshan) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “ThyssenKrupp Zhongshan”) and respondents China International Marine Containers (Group) Ltd. (hereinafter “CIMC”), Shenzhen CIMC Tianda Airport Equipment Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Tianda”) and Guangzhou Baiyun International Airport Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Baiyun Airport”), CIMC was the defendant at first instance and the holder of invention patent No. 200410004652.9, entitled “Supporting Device for Boarding Bridge and Boarding Bridge with the Device and the Control Methodology”. The patent was filed on February 26, 2004, and granted on August 22, 2007, as published in the Gazette. On May 8, 2009, the holder of the patent was changed from CIMC to CIMC and Tianda. CIMC and Tianda filed a lawsuit claiming that the implementation of certain technical schemes by Baiyun Airport and ThyssenKrupp Zhongshan without CIMC’s and Tianda’s permission had infringed upon their patent.

 

At first instance, ThyssenKrupp Zhongshan made its defenses based on prior art, submitted the testimony of Raymond K. Streat, chief operating director of ThyssenKrupp Zhongshan, and attached supporting documents to support its assertions of prior art. As recorded in the evidence, between October 2000 and March 2001, ThyssenKrupp sent an on-site team to San Francisco International Airport, where it developed a technical solution to eliminate the large amplitude of shaking of the boarding bridge. The solution included installation of a hydraulic stabilizer on both sides of the beam/ loading wheel of the boarding bridge, for the purpose of promoting its stability. The team called it a “cantilever beam design” or “cantilever beam device”. The user accepted and applied the suggestion of a “cantilever beam design” or “cantilever beam device”, and the production and installation work was carried out.

 

 Appendix Y, “Hydraulic Stabilizer”, of the passenger boarding bridge manual (hereinafter “Appendix Y”) was released and delivered to the user after being updated. ThyssenKrupp Zhongshan claimed that Appendix Y proved that it was using a prior technology and not infringing on the patent. At first instance, Guangzhou Municipal Intermediate People’s Court of Guangdong Province held that Appendix Y was an informal publication printed by the affiliated company ThyssenKrupp Zhongshan. If ThyssenKrupp Zhongshan were to fail to prove that its affiliated company had used the technology of a “cantilever beam device”, it would be difficult for the first-instance court to confirm the authenticity of Appendix Y, as well as the time when the manual was printed and delivered to San Francisco International Airport. Because ThyssenKrupp Zhongshan did indeed fail to prove that the “cantilever beam device” technology had been publicized through Appendix Y in 2000–01, the defense concerning prior art was not found to be justified. The first-instance court therefore decided that ThyssenKrupp Zhongshan and Baiyun Airport should cease the act of infringement immediately, as well as that ThyssenKrupp Zhongshan should compensate CIMC and Tianda for their economic losses in the amount of RMB500,000, and it rejected CIMC’s and Tianda’s other claims.

 

ThyssenKrupp Zhongshan refused to accept the judgment and lodged an appeal. At second instance, the Higher People’s Court of Guangdong Province dismissed the appeal and affirmed the original judgment.

 

ThyssenKrupp Zhongshan still refused to accept the ruling and applied to the Supreme People’s Court for permission to appeal again. The Supreme People’s Court decided to hear the case and, on October 10, 2016, it overturned the judgments at first and second instances, and it rejected CIMC’s and Tianda’s claims.

 

Held: On September 24, 2012, Guangzhou Municipal Intermediate People’s Court of Guangdong Province delivered its judgment as follows ((2011) SZFMSCZ No. 107).

 

(a) ThyssenKrupp Zhongshan and Baiyun Airport should cease the infringing act immediately.

 

(b) ThyssenKrupp Zhongshan should compensate CIMC and Tianda for their economic losses in the amount of RMB500,000.

 

(c) CIMC’s and Tianda’s other claims were rejected.

 

ThyssenKrupp Zhongshan refused to accept the judgment and appealed to the Higher People’s Court of Guangdong Province. On July 16, 2014, the Higher People’s Court of Guangdong Province delivered its judgment, dismissing the appeal and affirming the original judgment ((2013) YGFMSZZ No. 38).

 

ThyssenKrupp Zhongshan still refused to accept the ruling and applied to the Supreme People’s Court for permission to appeal again. The Court delivered its judgment on October 10, 2016, finding that:

 

(a) the decision at second instance, of the Higher People’s Court of Guangdong Province, was to be overturned;

 

(b) the first-instance decision of the Guangzhou Municipal Intermediate People’s Court of Guangdong

 

Province was to be overturned; and (c) all claims made by CIMC and Tianda were to be rejected.

 

Reasoning: The Supreme People’s Court held that, in this case, ThyssenKrupp Zhongshan had based its defense upon prior art – that is, it argued that because Appendix Y was a publication, the technology it described was available as a prior technology and hence its use did not constitute an infringement upon the patent involved. “Publications” are defined under the Patent Law of the People’s Republic of China as independent communication media containing the detail of technologies or designs, the release or publication date of which, as indicated in the publication, can be verified by means of other evidence. Appendix Y, as a product manual for operation and maintenance, had been delivered to users along with the products sold, but neither the users nor those who had contact with it had the duty of confidentiality, which meant that Appendix Y was publicly available and accessible to the unspecified public by such means as photocopying. As a consequence, because Appendix Y was an independent communication medium, containing the technical features of the patented technologies involved, and it was possible to ascertain the time when it was delivered to San Francisco International Airport (that is, the time of public release), it fell into the scope of “publications”, as defined under the Patent Law, and ThyssenKrupp Zhongshan’s defense based on prior art as evidenced in Appendix Y had a basis in both fact and law. The defense was therefore to be sustained.