Study On The Burden Of Producing Evidence Of The Case On The Infringement Of The Patent Right For Invention

As the ancient Rome law proverb ‘where there is the losing of the burden of producingevidence,where there is the losing of lawsuit’ reveals, the burden of producing evidence hasvital status in litigation and will determine the result of the litigation, and it is also the coreand difficulty in patent infringement litigation. Compared with common civil litigation, patentinfringement litigation has more complex legal relationship, and much strong legal disputetechnical characteristics, this determines the party in patent infringement litigation has moredifficulty to produce evidence. This paper takes the case of HOLLEY sued Samsung Corpinfringed the patent right for invention as the breakthrough point, then based on the analysisof difference between the burden of producing evidence and burden of proof, and the generaltheory of the burden of producing evidence burden distribution, introduces the specific scopeof the plaintiff and defendant in patent infringement litigation of burden of proof and thedistribution rules of burden of proof.The main text is divided into five parts, first of all, the case of HOLLEY sued SamsungCorp infringed the patent right for invention leads to the problem of the burden of producingevidence on infringing the patent right for invention, then based on the analysis on the relatedconcept, discussing the burden of producing evidence standing in the angle of the plaintiff andthe defendant. It finally leads to the discussion on whether the technology allegedinfringement related to this case falls into the scope of patent protection, and whether there isinfringement.The first part introduces the basic case in the cited case, the main focus of controversy ofthis case lies in whether the technical characteristics of SCH-W579mobile phone is in thescope of protection of the claim1, because the defendant produced different evidence, thefinal decision is quite the opposite from the first procedure. Thus leads to the problem of theburden of producing evidenceThe second part is the overview of the burden of producing evidence on infringing thepatent right for invention. Based on the preliminary analysis of the theory related to theburden of producing evidence on infringing the patent right for invention, this part indicatesthe difference between the burden of producing evidence and, namely the burden ofproducing evidence is related to the process of the litigation, while the burden of proof is related to the closure of the litigation. And then leads to that the fact of producing evidence inthe process of the litigation will influence the affirmation on whether the patent is infringing.The author considers the plaintiff shall right claim and fact claim; and the defendant shouldbear the burden of producing evidence from the angle of demur instead of denying.The third part details the burden of producing evidence of the plaintiff in the litigation ofpatent infringement. This part discusses the burden of producing evidence of the plaintiff forright and fact from the aspects of the object element and the behavior element. And thusfurther demonstrates that from the angle of right claim, the plaintiff needs to producingevidence to explain the scope of protection of rights covered the behavior object of theinfringement that been charged; and from the angle of the fact claim, the plaintiff needs toproducing evidence to explain the defendant has implemented the patent.The fourth part details the burden of producing evidence of the defendant in the litigationof patent infringement, and analyses the burden of producing evidence of the defendant in thelitigation of patent infringement from the perspective of demurring in the litigation process.the main contents of the burden of producing evidence of the defendant are: the infringementtechnology is existing technology, and the infringement technology is not in the scope ofprotection of rights, and the defendant has legal demur reason, and the behavior has gottenpermission.The fifth part returns to the case, and comes to a conclusion. First elaborating the effecton forming judge’s heart syndrome conclusion that result from the behavior of producingevidence, and when the case was closed, if the authenticity of the fact is still unknown, thejudge will determine the distribution of the burden of producing evidence based on the effectof the behavior of producing evidence.. And then analyses the reason of why the results areopposite in two procedures of the litigations, and demonstrate that whether the plaintiff hasproducing enough evidence directly affects the result of the litigation.