The first verdict on the infringement of the invention patent of the mobile phone baseband chip in China is released

eric_wang

The first verdict on the infringement of the invention patent of the mobile phone baseband chip in China is released [Copy link]

Source: French Shield Salon

Recently, Aojie Technology Co., Ltd., an IPO issuer on the Science and Technology Innovation Board, disclosed a lawsuit involving a mobile phone baseband chip invention patent infringement involving a litigation amount of up to 100 million yuan. The case was heard by the Third Intermediate People's Court of Tianjin, and the case number is (2020) Jin 03 Zhi Min Chu 319. At present, the Third Intermediate People's Court of Tianjin has made a first-instance judgment, determining that the ASR3601 baseband chip produced and sold by the defendant Aojie Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Aojie Company") infringed the invention patent right of the plaintiff Spreadtrum Communications (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Spreadtrum Company"), and ordered the defendant Aojie Company to immediately stop the infringement and pay Spreadtrum Company 24.31 million yuan in economic losses and reasonable expenses of 100,000 yuan. It is understood that this judgment is the first judgment in a domestic mobile phone baseband chip invention patent infringement case.

Case Background:

The patent involved in the case is invention patent 201180004859.4 owned by Spreadtrum Corporation. The technical problem it aims to solve is to provide a mobile terminal and its service processing method, and a baseband processing chip, so that a multi-card multi-standby mobile terminal based on a single-RF single-baseband method can process high-real-time services on other user cards while processing PS domain services on one of the user cards.

1. Intellectual property appraisal opinions become the key

According to the listing application documents of ASR, the product involved in the lawsuit is ASR's mobile phone baseband communication chip model ASR3601. On December 22, 2020, Spreadtrum filed a patent infringement lawsuit with the Tianjin No. 3 Intermediate People's Court, requesting the court to order ASR to immediately stop the infringement and pay Spreadtrum 100 million yuan in economic losses and 300,000 yuan in reasonable expenses. Regarding the infringement evidence, Spreadtrum submitted the "Intellectual Property Appraisal Opinion" issued by the China Academy of Information and Communications Technology (hereinafter referred to as "CAICT"), arguing that the alleged infringing chip completely covers the technical solution of the invention patent involved in the case, and has fallen within the scope of protection of the invention patent involved, constituting the same infringement. During the litigation, Spreadtrum filed an application for behavioral preservation with the Tianjin No. 3 Intermediate People's Court, requesting the court to order the defendant to immediately stop manufacturing, selling, and promising to sell the alleged infringing products.

It is understandable that whether the "Intellectual Property Appraisal Opinion" submitted by the plaintiff and issued by the China Academy of Information and Communications Technology can be accepted by the court will have an important impact on the characterization of the case. As the defendant, Aojie Company is obviously aware of this. Therefore, in response to the plaintiff's appraisal opinion, Aojie Company not only completely denied it, but also submitted contrary evidence to claim non-infringement. According to Aojie's listing application documents, Aojie Company separately commissioned the Shanghai Silicon Intellectual Property Exchange Center (hereinafter referred to as "Shanghai Silicon Institute") to conduct an appraisal on whether the alleged infringing products fall within the scope of protection of the patent involved and issued an "Intellectual Property Appraisal Opinion" (Shanghai Silicon Institute [2021] No. 019), and its conclusion is that the alleged infringing products are neither identical nor equivalent to all the independent claims of the patent involved, and do not fall within the scope of protection of the patent involved.

Based on this, regarding whether the alleged infringing product falls within the scope of protection of the invention patent involved in the case, the Intellectual Property Appraisal Opinion issued by SINO-Solid and the Intellectual Property Appraisal Opinion issued by CAICT formed completely opposite appraisal opinions. Therefore, the acceptance of the intellectual property appraisal opinion became the key to this case.

The Several Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Evidence in Intellectual Property Civil Litigation (hereinafter referred to as the "Intellectual Property Evidence Provisions") stipulates the evidence review standards for intellectual property appraisal opinions. According to Article 23 of the "Intellectual Property Evidence Provisions", the people's court shall review the appraisal opinions in combination with the following factors: (i) whether the appraiser has the corresponding qualifications; (ii) whether the appraiser has the knowledge, experience and skills to solve relevant specialized problems; (iii) whether the appraisal methods and procedures are standardized and whether the technical means are reliable; (iv) whether the materials submitted for inspection have been cross-examined by the parties and meet the appraisal conditions; (v) whether the basis of the appraisal opinion is sufficient; (vi) whether the appraiser has any statutory reasons for recusing himself; and (vii) whether the appraiser has engaged in favoritism or fraud or other circumstances that affect the impartiality of the appraisal during the appraisal process.

Judging from the first-instance judgment, the court determined that infringement was established, and the "Intellectual Property Appraisal Opinion" issued by the China Academy of Information and Communications Technology was persuasive. In other words, whether from the perspective of the review of the qualifications of the appraiser, or from the perspective of whether the appraisal procedure is standardized and whether the appraisal basis is sufficient, the "Intellectual Property Appraisal Opinion" issued by the China Academy of Information and Communications Technology has withstood the test of litigation and was accepted by the court. On the other hand, the "Intellectual Property Appraisal Opinion" issued by Shangsi submitted by the defendant was not recognized by the court. The reason is that the "Intellectual Property Appraisal Opinion" issued by Shangsi should not meet the evidence review requirements for appraisal opinions in the "Intellectual Property Evidence Provisions".

II . Determination of the Sci-Tech Innovation Board IPO Prospectus as Evidence in the Amount of Compensation

Regarding the amount of profit from infringement, Aojie's listing application documents have detailed records. According to the "Reply to the Review Inquiry Letter on Aojie's Initial Public Offering and Application for Listing on the Science and Technology Innovation Board" issued by Aojie to the Shanghai Stock Exchange, Aojie disclosed the gross profit margin of producing customized chips. In addition, according to the "Reply to the Second Round of Review Inquiry Letter on Aojie's Initial Public Offering and Application for Listing on the Science and Technology Innovation Board", in 2019 and from January to September 2020, the revenue from the sales of ASR3601 chips by Aojie was 1.4295 million yuan and 77.1478 million yuan respectively. In other words, Aojie disclosed the sales and gross profit margins of the allegedly infringing products, and the profit amount of 24.31 million yuan determined by the judgment of the Tianjin No. 3 Intermediate People's Court should come from this.

III. Case Comments

Intellectual property appraisal opinions play an important role in intellectual property infringement litigation, especially in communication patent infringement cases with complex technical facts. In recent years, there have been a number of patent infringement cases in which multiple intellectual property appraisal opinions with opposite conclusions have appeared. In such cases, whether the intellectual property appraisal procedure is legal, whether the appraisal materials are authentic and have been cross-examined, whether the appraisal method is scientific, and whether the appraisal basis is sufficient will all become the focus of dispute between the two parties and the focus of the court's trial. In the case of a "fight" between the appraisal opinions of both parties, the "quality" of the intellectual property appraisal opinions will have a crucial impact on the case.

On the other hand, when a company planning to go public faces an intellectual property dispute, its response to the inquiry of the listing review agency may constitute the party’s admission, which will have an impact on the related intellectual property litigation. In this case, Aojie’s confirmation of the technical solution, model, and sales amount of the chip involved in the lawsuit in its reply to the Shanghai Stock Exchange constituted an admission, and the court can determine the amount of compensation based on the defendant’s admission.