1. 首页
  2. 法律委托案例
  3. 本田技研工业株式会社与中华人民共和国国家知识产权局专利复审委员会专利无效行政纠纷上诉案

本田技研工业株式会社与中华人民共和国国家知识产权局专利复审委员会专利无效行政纠纷上诉案

本田技研工业株式会社与中华人民共和国国家知识产权局专利复审委员会专利无效行政纠纷上诉案中华人民共和国北京市高级人民法院行政判决书(2006)高行终字第386号上诉人(原审原告)(日本国)本田技研工业株式会社,住所地日本国东京都港区南青山2丁目1番1号。法定代表人白石基厚,董事长。委托代理人汪惠民,中科专利商标代理有限责任公司专利代理人。委托代理人陈桢,中科专利商标代理有限责任公司专利代理人。被上诉人(原审被告)中华人民共和国国家知识产权局专利复审委员会,住所地中华人民共和国北京市海淀区北四环西路9号银谷大厦10-12层。法定代表人廖涛,副主任。委托代理人魏屹,该委员会审查员。委托代理人耿博,该委员会审查员。原审第三人重庆宗申...

本田技研工业株式会社与中华人民共和国国家知识产权局专利复审委员会专利无效行政纠纷上诉案

中 华 人 民 共 和 国 北 京 市 高 级 人 民 法 院行 政 判 决 书

(2006)高行终字第386号

上诉人(原审原告)(日本国)本田技研工业株式会社,住所地日本国东京都港区南青山2丁目1番1号。法定代表人白石基厚,董事长。委托代理人汪惠民,中科专利商标代理有限责任公司专利代理人。委托代理人陈桢,中科专利商标代理有限责任公司专利代理人。被上诉人(原审被告)中华人民共和国国家知识产权局专利复审委员会,住所地中华人民共和国北京市海淀区北四环西路9号银谷大厦10-12层。法定代表人廖涛,副主任。委托代理人魏屹,该委员会审查员。委托代理人耿博,该委员会审查员。原审第三人重庆宗申集团进出口有限公司,住所地中华人民共和国重庆市九龙坡区石桥铺二郎路25号。法定代表人左宗申,董事长。委托代理人张利,重庆利君律师事务所律师。委托代理人徐国文,北京安博达知识产权代理有限公司专利代理人。原审第三人力帆实业(集团)有限公司,住所地中华人民共和国重庆市沙坪坝区上桥张家湾60号。法定代表人陈巧凤,董事长。委托代理人张利,重庆利君律师事务所律师。委托代理人徐国文,北京安博达知识产权代理有限公司专利代理人。原审第三人重庆摩托车行业协会,住所地中华人民共和国重庆市高新区科园四街金冠大厦六楼。法定代表人戴祯龙,会长。委托代理人张利,重庆利君律师事务所律师。委托代理人徐国文,北京安博达知识产权代理有限公司专利代理人。上诉人(日本国)本田技研工业株式会社(简称本田株式会社)因专利无效行政纠纷一案,不服北京市第一中级人民法院于2006年6月20日作出的(2006)一中行初字第62号行政判决,向本院提起上诉。本院2006年9月4日受理本案后,依法组成合议庭,于2006年10月12日公开开庭进行了审理。上诉人本田株式会社的委托代理人汪惠民、陈桢,被上诉人中华人民共和国国家知识产权局专利复审委员会(简称专利复审委员会)的委托代理人魏屹、耿博,原审第三人宗申集团进出口有限公司(简称宗申集团公司)、重庆力帆实业(集团)有限公司(简称力帆实业公司)、重庆摩托车行业协会(简称摩托车协会)的共同委托代理人张利、徐国文到庭参加了诉讼。本案现已审理终结。本田株式会社系第94113542.X号“车把盖”发明专利(简称本专利)的专利权人。2004年2月12日、16日,宗申集团公司、摩托车协会、力帆实业公司分别向专利复审委员会提出无效宣告请求,其理由是本专利不符合《中华人民共和国专利法》(简称专利法)第二十六条第三款、第四款及《中华人民共和国专利法实施细则》(简称专利法实施细则)第二十条第一款、专利法第二十二条第三款的规定。2004年9月28日,摩托车协会再次向专利复审委员会提出无效宣告请求,理由是本专利不符合专利法第二十二条第二款、第三款的规定。2005年8月16日,专利复审委员会作出第7458号无效宣告请求审查决定(简称第7458号决定),宣告本专利权无效。本田株式会社不服第7458号决定,在法定期限内向北京市第一中级人民法院提起诉讼。北京市第一中级人民法院经审理认定:摩托车协会于2004年9月28日提出的无效宣告请求书中已经明确了将证据3-1作为认定本专利不具创造性的证据,故本田株式会社关于摩托车协会未对证据3-1做出相关说明而不应受理的主张不能成立。专利复审委员会根据《审查指南》第四部分第三章3.5节的规定决定对三次无效宣告请求进行合案审理并无不妥。由于第二次口头审理仅有本田株式会社和摩托车协会参加,第一、第二请求人没有参加,而且没有给其补充新证据的机会,故本田株式会社关于合案审理相当于允许第一、第二请求人补充新的证据的主张没有事实依据。

This cropland ability grinds industrial company limited and patent of committee of review a case of patent of bureau of intellectual property of country of People's Republic of China are invalid record of administrative issue appeal

Beijing of People's Republic of China is advanced report of people court administration

(2006) tall travel eventually word the 386th

Appellant (first trial accuser) (Japan) this cropland ability grinds industrial company limited, tokyo of abode ground Japan the green hill austral port area 2 man look 1 time 1. Legal representative white Shi Jihou, president. Attorney Wang Huimin, division patent brand acts as agent in patent of finite liability company is procuratorial. Attorney Chen Zhen, division patent brand acts as agent in patent of finite liability company is procuratorial. Appellee (first trial the accused) committee of review a case of patent of bureau of intellectual property of country of People's Republic of China, north of area of Haidian of Beijing of abode ground People's Republic of China 4 annulus on the west road layer of 10-12 of edifice of 9 Yin Gu. Legal representative Liao Tao, vice director. Attorney the Kingdom of Wei towerings like a mountain peak, this committee examinant. Attorney brighting rich, this committee examinant. First trial limited company of imports and exports of group of Zong Shen of Chongqing of the 3rd person, bridges of 9 stone of dragon slope area pave 2 man way 25. Legal representative Zun Zongshen, president. Attorney Zhang Li, solicitor of office of Chongqing Li Jun's attorney. Article of attorney Xu country, patent of limited company of representative of Beijing An Boda intellectual property is procuratorial. First trial sail of the 3rd manpower is industrial (group) limited company, zhang Jiawan of the bridge on area of dam of sanded level ground of city of Chongqing of abode ground People's Republic of China 60. Legal representative Chen Qiaofeng, president. Attorney Zhang Li, solicitor of office of Chongqing Li Jun's attorney. Article of attorney Xu country, patent of limited company of representative of Beijing An Boda intellectual property is procuratorial. First trial guild of autocycle of Chongqing of the 3rd person, garden of division of new and high district of city of Chongqing of abode ground People's Republic of China 6 buildings of edifice of 4 streets Jin Guan. The legal representative wears auspiciousing dragon, chairman. Attorney Zhang Li, solicitor of office of Chongqing Li Jun's attorney. Article of attorney Xu country, patent of limited company of representative of Beijing An Boda intellectual property is procuratorial. Appellant (Japan) this cropland ability grinds industrial company limited (abbreviation this cropland company limited) because of dispute of patent and invalid administration one case, refuse to obey Beijing court of the first intermediate people made on June 20, 2006 (2006) one in the 62nd administration adjudicates the word at the beginning of travel, mention to this academy appeal. After this academy accepted this proposal on September 4, 2006, comprise collegiate bench lawfully, undertook cognizance at making public open a court session on October 12, 2006. Appellant this cropland the attorney Wang Huimin of the company limited, Chen Zhen, committee of review a case of patent of bureau of intellectual property of country of appellee People's Republic of China (committee of abbreviation patent review a case) attorney Wei Ge, Geng Bo, first trial limited company of imports and exports of group of Zong Shen of the 3rd person (company of group of abbreviation Zong Shen) , Chongqing Li Fan is industrial (group) limited company (abbreviation Li Fan is industrial company) , Chongqing autocycle guild (abbreviation autocycle association) collective attorney Zhang Li, Xu Guowen. This case already was tried now terminative. The company limited is this cropland 94113542.X date " handlebar is built " the invention is patent (abbreviation this patent) patent person. On Feburary 12, 2004, 16 days, association of company of Zong Shen group, autocycle, Li Fan is industrial the company parts to put forward invalid declare to request to patent reexamine committee, its reason is this patent is not accorded with " exclusive law of People's Republic of China " (abbreviation exclusive law) the 26th the 3rd, the 4th paragraph and " exclusive law of People's Republic of China carries out detailed rules " (abbreviation exclusive law carries out detailed rules) the 20th the first paragraph, exclusive law the 22nd the 3rd. On September 28, 2004, autocycle association puts forward invalid declare request to patent reexamine committee again, reason is this patent does not accord with exclusive law the 22nd the 2nd paragraph, the 3rd regulation. On August 16, 2005, patent reexamine committee makes the 7458th invalid declare request to examine a decision (abbreviation decides the 7458th number) , declare this patent is invalid. This cropland the company limited refuses to obey the 7458th decision, the first intermediate people of city of northerly inside legal time limit capital forensic to lodge a complaint. Cognizance of classics of court of the first intermediate people maintains Beijing: The invalid declare request that autocycle association put forward on September 28, 2004 had been made clear in the book evidence 3 - 1 as the evidence that maintains this patent not to provide creativity, reason this cropland the position that did not make relevant specification to evidential 3-1 about autocycle association and should not accept cannot establish the company limited. Basis of patent reexamine committee " examine a guideline " the 4th part 3.5 formulary decision is opposite the 3rd chapter 3 times to invalid declare request undertakes adding up to case cognizance and do not have misgivings. Because the 2nd oral cognizance is only,company limited and autocycle association enter this field, the first, person of the 2nd request did not attend, and the chance that did not give its additional new evidence, reason this cropland the company limited is equivalent to allowing about adding up to case cognizance the first, the view of the evidence with new complement of person of the 2nd request does not have factual basis.

本文来自投稿,不代表君士君法律咨询网立场,如若转载,请注明出处:http://www.junshijun.com/wts/9.html