Recently, Liu Shen represented a chimney enterprise in an invention patent infringement dispute and secured a phased victory, where the court of first instance dismissed all claims filed by the plaintiff.
The case is highly complex and of typical industry significance. Previously, the client had been involved in patent infringement disputes over similar products and received an unfavorable prior judgment. Against this backdrop, the client carried out multiple design-around arrangements for the disputed technical solution and launched optimized new products into the market. Nevertheless, the plaintiff initiated a new lawsuit, asserting that the client’s new products still fell within the scope of protection of the patent in question.
Upon being engaged, the Liu Shen legal team conducted a comprehensive review of the case, promptly identified the technical solution differences between the present case and the prior case, and recognized the inherent evidentiary difficulties in litigation of this industry. The accused products are large-scale industrial equipment in continuous operation, subject to objective constraints such as high temperature, high operational risks and partially enclosed structures, which render on-site judicial inspection unavailable.
Given the substantial defense pressure resulted from the prior effective judgment and the evidentiary characteristics of this specialized sector, acting as counsel for the defendant, the Liu Shen team adopted a proactive evidence submission strategy. The team guided the client to systematically organize historical documents, compiled evidentiary materials based on WeChat communication records regarding technical solution negotiations as well as the delivery and installation of the accused products, and gradually established a complete chain of evidence covering key links of design, manufacturing, delivery and installation, laying a solid foundation for the trial proceedings.
In terms of substantive defense, the team went beyond superficial comparison of structural differences. Instead, it conducted in-depth analysis centering on the inventive concept and other core elements of the patent in dispute, and systematically demonstrated the essential differences between the accused new solution and the patent involved.
Ultimately, the court adopted the major legal opinions put forward by the Liu Shen team, and held that the accused products did not fall within the patent protection scope. Rarely in judicial practice, the court conducted a detailed item-by-item analysis of all disputed technical features claimed by the plaintiff, and ruled each feature to be neither identical nor equivalent.
The victory has effectively defused the client’s risks of repeated infringement allegations and punitive damages under the existing effective judgment. It also relieves downstream customers’ concerns over relevant product procurement, and creates a more stable commercial space for the client’s subsequent market expansion.
The case was handled by attorneys YAO, Guanyang, WANG, Xiao and LIU Weiran.
