Typical IP Cases of People’s Courts in 2025

Supreme People’s Court (2023) 最高法知民终2903号

 

[Basic Case Facts]

Chengdu Xin XX System Co., Ltd.is the patentee of the invention patent in question. Xin XX Company claims that Mao XX (Shenzhen) Technology Co., Ltd.  infringed upon its patent rights by manufacturing, offering for sale, and selling power management chips. Xin XX Company filed a lawsuit, requesting the court to order Mao XX Company and related distributors to cease infringement and compensate for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling 10 million RMB. The court of first instance held that the circuit module in the accused infringing technical solution constituted equivalent technical features to the pulse signal generation feature in claim 1 of the patent in question, and that the accused infringing technical solution fell within the protection scope of claim 1 of the patent in question. The court ruled that Mao XX Company and related distributors should immediately cease infringement and compensate Xin XX Company for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling 1.2 million RMB. Mao XX Company appealed.

 

[Judgment Result]

The Supreme People’s Court, in its second instance ruling, held that when interpreting the scope of protection of patent claims in the electrical field involving logic circuits, the focus should be on understanding the logical connections, signal flow, and control timing between the various technical features, avoiding interpreting technical features in isolation from their logical chain. In this case, understanding the pulse signal generation feature in the patent claim should be based on the perspective of a person skilled in the art, starting from the overall technical solution of the claim, combined with the content of the specification and drawings, common knowledge in the field, and the characteristics of claim drafting, for a comprehensive understanding. The circuit module in the accused infringing technical solution is different from the pulse signal generation feature in claim 1 of the patent in question in terms of means, function, and effect. The two do not constitute the same feature nor equivalent features. The accused infringing technical solution does not possess the pulse signal generation feature and does not fall within the scope of protection of claim 1 of the patent in question. Therefore, the court ruled: the first instance judgment is reversed, and the lawsuit filed by Xin XX Company is dismissed.

 

[Typical Significance]

 This case involves a patent infringement dispute related to chip technology. Power management chips are the heart of electronic devices’ power supply and play a crucial role in new energy vehicles, energy storage, and industrial fields. The judgment in this case clarifies the factors to consider in interpreting patent claims and determining equivalent infringement in this relevant field, providing a judicial model for similar cases and representing a beneficial exploration in ensuring both public interest and incentives for innovation.

                                                                                                            Source  News Bureau of the Supreme People's Court