Recently, Shanghai No.1 Intermediate People’s Court heard the case, ruled Shanghai Colva’s two dyestuffs “Colva super black LC-G” as well as “Colva Super Black LC-R” infringed Huntsman’s subsidiary’s invention patent “Azo dyestuff with its production methods and applications”, and ordered Shanghai Colva to stop the infringement and pay ￥400,000in damages.

In September, 2007, Huntsman initiated the lawsuit in China. It sued Shanghai Colva in the Shanghai No.1 Intermediate People’s Court, alleging Shanghai Colva had infringed its invention patent “Azo  dyestuff with its production methods and applications” (Patent No. ZL00106403.7) and should stop the infringement and pay ￥500,000 in damages. As far as Huntsman’s concerned, the two kinds of dyestuffs “Colva super black LC-G” as well as “Colva Super Black LC-R” that Shanghai Colva manufactured and sold fell into the claims of its invention patent and hence constituted patent infringement.

During the trial, the court, according to Huntsman’s requirement, commissioned Shanghai Science and Technology Consulting Centre to identify whether there was equivalence in technical characteristics between Shanghai Colva’s two dyestuffs and Huntsman’s invention patent. On February 5, 2010, the Analysis and Testing Center of Shanghai Institute of Organic Chemistry, Chinese Academy of Sciences, commissioned by the Shanghai Science and Technology Consulting Centre, issued an “analysis report” which confirmed the main ingredients of Shanghai Colva’s dyestuffs were as same as those of Huntsman.

However, the Shanghai Science and Technology Consulting Centre did not submit the “analysis report” to the court. Hence, the court terminated the cooperation with it on May 11, 2012, and commissioned Beijing Guo Ke Intellectual Property Judicial Appraisal Center (Beijing Guo Ke) to make a new identification on July 3, 2012, according to the “analysis report” that the Analysis and Testing Center of Shanghai Institute of Organic Chemistry had released.
On November 16, 2012, Beijing Guo Ke issued its appraisal opinion, which confirmed there was equivalence in technical characteristics between Shanghai Colva’s two dyestuffs and Huntsman’s invention patent.

During the lawsuit, the Shanghai Colva raised objection to the test technique that the aforementioned accreditation agencies had adopted. As for this, the court held that the accreditation agencies had the right to choose the suitable test technique according to their knowledge and the case. The plaintiff as well as the defendant, however, had no right to define the test technique. Considering there was no other ways to test, the sample comparison test technique the accreditation agencies adopted was common in organic chemistry. Moreover, the sample comparison test technique had realized the goal of identification—to determine the structure of the products involving infringement.   Hence, the court dismissed Shanghai Colva’s objection.

Meanwhile, Shanghai Colva also questioned the result of the test, which was rejected by the court due to insufficient evidence. Finally, the court accepted the appraisal opinion that Beijing Guo Ke issued.
Accordingly, the court rendered at first-instance decision that the dyestuffs “Colva super black LC-G” as well as “Colva Super Black LC-R” that Shanghai Colva manufactured and sold without Huntsman’s permission infringed Huntsman’s invention patent right “Azo dyestuff with its production methods and applications”, and ruled Shanghai Colva immediately stopped the infringement and paid ￥400,000  in damages to Huntsman. In addition, the test fee ￥100,000as well as the appraisal fee ￥82,000 should also be paid by Shanghai Colva.

After the trial, a person in charge of Huntsman told to the CIP journalist that they will continue to take legal action against infringers to protect their IPRs. Up to now, Zhejiang Longsheng had not made response to our interview.
Now, the case is at second instance. We will continue to follow the development of the case.
(Source : www.cipnews.com.cn)