An Analysis Of The Patent Infringement Cases Handled By A Municipal Intellectual Property Office

In recent years, an increasing number of patent applications and the number ofpatent applications into the market are rising, so that along with the patentinfringement also showed an increasing trend. If improper handling of such cases willnot only hit the patentee’s enthusiasm, but also disrupt the normal order of marketcompetition. This paper gold as welding machine factory in a city we are talkingabout the A Intellectual Property Office belongs to the above case. The main focus ofthe dispute case exists the following three aspects: first, whether the plaintiff isaccused of infringing products maker; followed by the decision of the accused isillegal; Furthermore, is accused of failure to deal with the patent is correct. Inresponse to these focuses of controversy, after analysis and theoretical analysis of thecase, we can draw the following conclusions: Firstly, the alleged infringing productcan not be determined for the plaintiffs’ production. This is because: First, inintellectual property litigation circumstantial evidence alone can not be taken as thebasis, but all the evidence in the case is A Intellectual Property Office to provideindirect evidence, circumstantial evidence which does not form a complete proofsystem to As not all the evidence points to the series of facts; secondly, the fact ofinfringement defendant found not reach the standard of proof of patent infringement,patent infringement should be recognized along with the formal requirements,substantial elements and elements of the three aspects of evidence, the case of a cityintellectual Property Office only in the "implementation of the behavior involved is aneffective patent" on the formal requirements to meet the requirements, and substantialelements and evidence requirements for both elements of A Intellectual PropertyOffice did not reach a city; again, the Court of First Instance wrongly use experiencelaw standards, the rule of thumb to use administrative proceedings mainly refers towhether the evidence is admissible and relevant and whether it can waive or reducethe burden of proof of the parties, this case does not apply well before the Court ofFirst Instance judgment of these two rules of thumb. Secondly, processing thedefendant’s decision is illegal. This is because: First, a city on the basis of theexistence of A Intellectual Property Office applicable law many errors; secondly, itexceeds the statutory period before making a treatment decision, there is a violationof procedure, and therefore the decision made by A Intellectual Property Office of a city can be identified as illegal. Thirdly, the failure of processing patent there is someerror. Although the defendant in this case the failure patents received is correct, butthere is an error on the decision invalid patents, mainly due to expired patents belongto the "public well-known" patent law does not protect any individual subject, legalpersons and other organizations can use the patent, so the city in A IntellectualProperty Office patent for failure to make treatment decisions, patent infringementliability can only be held within the validity period, should be investigated for otherresponsibilities.