履歴：
Mr. An joined Liu, Shen & Associates in 2004 and became a qualified
patent attorney in 2006. He specializes in patent prosecution, re-examination,
patent invalidation, patent infringement analysis, IP litigation with a focus
on telecommunication, electronics, computer hardware & software as well as
Internet & e-business.
Mr. An obtained his qualification as an attorney at law in 2007. He has
participated in several patent lawsuits including patent infringement and
patent invalidation. Moreover, he is an expert on patent evaluation and
pre-litigation analysis in the firm.
Mr.
An received his Computer Science master degree from the University of York in 2004.
Moreover, Mr. An was designated to work for Ricoh techno-research company for a
year (2008-2009) by Liu, Shen & Associates, and He was designated to train
the Chinese group members in Ricoh techno-research about IP prosecution in
China.
活動歴：
I. Civil Litigation
1. Lenovo vs.
Yinuo (2014), patent infringement litigation and related patent invalidation, Beijing First Intermediate Court (First Instance), representing Lenovo.
The infringement litigation
was settled before the Court, and the plaintiff
withdrew the infringement case.
2. An
international Telecommunication company vs. A domestic Telecommunication
company (several litigation cases), Standard Essential Patent infringement
litigation, Beijing IP Court (First instance), representing defendant.
The
infringement litigation is still on going.
3. An
international Telecommunication company vs. A domestic audio solution providing
company, Standard Essential Patent infringement litigation, representing
defendant.
4. An international
Telecommunication company and chipset manufacturer vs. an international
Telecommunication company (several litigation cases), representing plaintiff. The infringement litigations
were settled.
II. Patent
Invalidation or Administrative Litigation
1. Obortech v. Chen Yaobang, patent invalidation,
patent Reexamination Board
of the SIPO, representing the patentee; The Board held
the invention patent valid
2. An international Telecommunication company v. A
domestic Telecommunication company, representing the petitioner. The Board held the
invention patent invalid in part.
3. An international Telecommunication company v.
A domestic Telecommunication company, representing the petitioner. The Board held the
invention patent invalid.
4. An international Telecommunication company v.
A domestic Telecommunication company, representing the petitioner. The Board held the
invention patent invalid in part.
5. An international Telecommunication company v.
A domestic audio solution providing company, representing the petitioner.
The Board held the invention patent invalid.
