Comment On Dispute Between Panasonic Co.,Ltd.and Jindao Co.,Ltd Over Infringement Of Patent Rights In Appearance Design

The cases of patent infringement of appearance design patent account for a large proportion in the cases of patent infringement in China,and plenty of them are highly controversial.In the judicial practice,the court adopts the method of "overall observation,comprehensive judgment",to determine the same design tort which is relatively easy to identify,but the similar tort is often difficult to make accurate recognition.Panasonic Co.,Ltd.v.Jindao Co.,Ltd.infringed the design patent rights dispute case to analyze the main case,and infringed the design patent right dispute case by GROHE Corporation v.Zhejiang Jianlong Sanitary Co.,Ltd.,Emerson Electric Co.,Ltd.,and Weifang Baishi Precision Machinery Co.,Ltd.assisted in the analysis of patent disputes infringement of design patents,detailed comparative analysis and summarization of practical issues in the determination of design infringement,discussed the defects and deficiencies of current design patent infringement determination standards and evidence rules,and demonstrated the current design.The abuse of liability for infringement.In the appearance design infringement case of Panasonic Co.,Ltd.and Jindao Co.,Ltd,its core focus of controversy remains whether the alleged infringement product appearance design falls into the scope of protection of the patent right involved,and how to determine the tort compensation.Firstly,with regarding to whether the alleged infringement product appearance design falls into the scope of protection of the patent right involved,generally,the way of judgement,"overall observation,comprehensive judgment",is adopted in the judicial practice,in which it emphasizes the comprehensive observation design characteristics and the overall visual effect,to determine their infringement.The method should fully consider the impact of the similarities and differences between the alleged infringement product and the patent right for design on the overall visual effect,to finally determine whether the visual effect of the overall design of one product is the same or similar.In this case,the infringement products and the products involved in the case have the same whole fuselage,the consistent nozzle style,and the same shape and position of the button and the water injection port.Although there are few dif-ferences,these differences are not easy to observe,or they do not have a significant impact on the overall visual effect of the product,so they are similar.Secondly,according to the 65th in "patent law",the design tort compensation method of the appearance design patent infringement case depends on the actual loss,the profit,the multiples of license fee,the order of the legal standard applies.In this case,Panasonic co.to the accused of infringement product sales are acquired through notary the sum of the number and the average price of the product as a basis for the 3 million RMB compensation request,supported by the court of first instance and second instance and retrial.In addition,in view of the phenomenon appearance design "hard proof,low compensation" caused by the invisibility of patent of appearance design,the uncertainty of injury consequence,the concealment of the infringement and the proof positive of the holder,it should be considered to improve rules of proof and the standard of proof consistent with characteristics of infringement of intellectual property rights,and the decision of the plaintiff to dismiss the plaintiffs question of the destruction of the inventory,molds and production equipment of the accused Jindao Co.,Ltd.is worth discussing in this case.