Sogou obtains the patent of input method deletion function, baidu thinks it is invalid, and the first administrative case of invalid patent right will be sentenced on a later date
Zhang Zhiqiang 2021-06-07 19:44:22

 Sogou has obtained the patent of input method deletion function, which Baidu thinks is invalid The first administrative case of patent invalidation will be decided on a date

The intellectual property court of the Supreme People's court tried the first administrative case of patent invalidation in public . picture source : The supreme law Zhou Rongrong taken


Chinese netizens 4 month 23 - ( The reporter Jin Huihui correspondent Qiao Wenxin ) Today, , Intellectual property court of the Supreme People's court ( The Supreme Court of intellectual property ) The first administrative case of patent invalidation was heard in public . The appellant of the case is Beijing Baidu Wangxun Technology Co., Ltd ( Baidu company for short )、 Beijing Sogou Technology Development Co., Ltd ( Sogou company for short ) With the appellee Patent Reexamination Board of the State Intellectual Property Office ( Referred to as the Patent Reexamination Board ) Administrative dispute over invalidation of patent right for invention .

according to the understanding of , The Beijing Higher People's court was the court of second instance in the administrative case of invalid patent right . After the establishment of the Supreme Court of intellectual property , Such cases can be directly appealed to the Supreme People's court and tried by the intellectual property court , The Beijing Higher People's court will no longer hear such cases .

meanwhile , According to the unified plan for the reform of the central organs , since 2019 year 4 month 1 The date of , The Patent Reexamination Board of the State Intellectual Property Office is incorporated into the Patent Office of the State Intellectual Property Office . This case is the first administrative case of patent invalidation tried by the Supreme Court of intellectual property .

Sogou in 2011 year 9 month 28 I got an item named “ The invention relates to a method and a device for deleting information in the input process ” Patent for invention .2017 year 7 month 3 Japan , Baidu asked the Patent Reexamination Board to declare the patent invalid .2018 year 2 month 2 Japan , After examination, the Patent Reexamination Board makes the second decision 35082 No. 1 invalidation request examination decision ( For short, the defendant's decision ). The Patent Reexamination Board found in the sued decision that , Baidu claims on the patent 1-11 The invalid reason for not having novelty and creativity cannot be established , Decide to keep the patent valid .

Baidu refuses to accept the decision of being sued , To Beijing Intellectual Property Court ( The court of first instance ) Bring an administrative lawsuit , Request to revoke the decision of the accused . The court of first instance held that , The defendant decided that the determination of the inventiveness of the patent was correct , However, it is wrong to recognize that the relevant evidence does not constitute the prior art of the patent due to the undisclosed technical solution . The court of first instance 2019 year 1 month 28 Judgment made on , Rescinded the decision to be sued , And ordered the Patent Reexamination Board to make a new examination decision .

 Sogou has obtained the patent of input method deletion function, which Baidu thinks is invalid The first administrative case of patent invalidation will be decided on a date

The intellectual property court of the Supreme People's court tried the first administrative case of patent invalidation in public . picture source : The supreme law Zhou Rongrong taken


Baidu 、 Sogou refused to accept the first instance judgment , Appeal to the supreme law . Baidu thinks , There is an error in the determination of inventiveness of the patent in the decision of the defendant and the judgment of the first instance , It is requested that the judgment of the first instance be upheld on the basis of the correction of some facts and legal findings . Sogou thinks , In the judgment of the first instance, there is an error in the determination that the relevant evidence constitutes the prior art of the patent , Request for the annulment of the first instance judgment , Maintain the decision to be sued .

In court debates ,“ The degree of disclosure of prior art ” The issue became the focus of heated debate between the two sides . We can learn from the presentation on the spot , The invalid requester provided an old mobile phone , Through the operation of these mobile phones, we try to prove that the patented technical solution has been disclosed in advance .

The patentee claims that the patent requires the screen operation of the terminal device and the cooperation of the background software , The mobile phone provided by the invalid requester can only show the screen operation , Those skilled in the art cannot understand the background software settings through the operation of the mobile phone , Also cannot understand its screen operation and the backstage software coordination relations . Therefore, can these mobile phones be used as prior art to evaluate the inventiveness of this patent , It needs to be decided by the court .

The collegiate bench announced an recess , The case will be decided on a date .

It is reported that , During this intellectual property public open week , The Supreme Court of intellectual property will hold a trial in public 11 This is an appeal case , And live on the Internet at the same time .

版权声明
本文为[Zhang Zhiqiang]所创,转载请带上原文链接,感谢
https://fheadline.com/2021/05/20210521230030896Z.html
相似文章

2021-08-09