Eli Lilly V. Jiangsu Stockhausen Patent Infringement Case

USA, Inc. v. Eli Lilly, Stockhausen Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Jiangsu, China against the invention patent dispute case to be heard by the Higher People’s Court of Jiangsu Province, the ruling dismissed the claim of the Eli Lilly Company. Stockhausen Company, Eli Lilly Company did not exercise the burden of proof, the application materials without the court cross-examination, expert conclusions error filed an appeal on the grounds. Judgment of the Supreme People’s Court remand, Eli Lilly appeal again, to make the final judgment upheld in the Supreme People’s Court again identified, drew a line for this case.More and more cases of patent disputes involving hi-tech field of bio-chemicals and Pharmaceuticals, professional and technical findings o f fact and sued for infringement of the identification of technical solutions to the difficulties and focus. In drug supervision and administration departments for the record the alleged infringing pharmaceutical production process material on the technical content of specific circumstances, the parties often whether to identify the technical content of a dispute to adopt a presumption. Eli Lilly that the patent infringement case in the court of second instance, the chemical theory of basic knowledge combined with the supplement submitted by the patent specification and the alleged infringer to confirm the experimental conclusions as well as the technical content of published papers disclosed evidence, finds that the expert conclusions on the alleged infringer technical solutions related to the technical content of the presumption of a factual basis for credible identification of the conclusions of the Court of First Instance is not inappropriate. The case of clear long as there is a sufficient factual basis does not exclude by presumption identify the accused infringing technical solution technical content. While emphasizing that only disputes involving infringement of patent for invention of a new product manufacturing, the alleged infringer bear the burden of proof to prove their product manufacturing process is different from the patented process.This thesis is divided into four parts, the first chapter describes the facts of the case and the outcome of the trial, twenty-three chapters around the three controversial points of the case specific analysis of the Patent Law and the Civil Procedure Law of the burden of proof involved in inversion of the principles and the alleged infringer method technical features identification and presumptive.