Basic Facts of the Case

Company A is the exclusive licensee of the invention patent involved in the case (patent name: pheromone composition for stimulating reproduction in female pigs and its method of use). The involved patent contains a total of 16 claims, including independent claims 1, 10, and 15, as well as dependent claims that directly or indirectly reference each independent claim.

In this trial, the court entrusted a testing company to identify the components and quality ratio of the accused infringing products "Huiluomeng" and "Youzhubao Spray". Based on the appraisal conclusion and comparison, the accused infringing product falls within the scope of protection of the patent in question. The three defendants, Huicheng Company and others, belong to affiliated companies with highly overlapping business scope, premises, and senior management personnel. In the accused infringement behavior, they subjectively had intention contacts and engaged in division of labor and cooperation, and the three companies constitute joint infringement.

court verdict

The Xiamen Intermediate People's Court ruled in the first instance that Huicheng Company and three other defendants should cease infringement and jointly compensate Company A for its economic losses. Huicheng Company and three other defendants appealed against the verdict, but the Supreme Court rejected the appeal and upheld the original verdict. The case has now come into effect.

This case is the first in the province involving the invention and technology of animal breeding preparations, and it is also a rare case in the country to review how to accept the relevant test results in a professional field that has not implemented the "statistical registration management system for appraisers and appraisal institutions" (as stated in the second instance judgment of the Supreme Court).

Due to the special and highly specialized technical field involved in this case, the evidence in the case and the court's internal "unified registration and management system for appraisers and appraisal institutions" are unable to determine the component content, quality ratio, etc. of the accused infringing product, resulting in unclear authenticity of the accused infringement facts. In terms of confirming infringement in this case, in addition to hiring technical investigators to conduct technical analysis on the matters to be proven, the provisions of Article 21 of the "Several Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Evidence in Intellectual Property Civil Litigation" were creatively applied. In the field of appraisal business where the "unified registration and management system for appraisers and appraisal institutions" has not been established, the selection procedure for appraisers stipulated in Article 32 of the "Several Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Evidence in Intellectual Property Civil Litigation" was followed to select professional institutions with testing capabilities and levels to test the components and quality ratios of the accused infringing products, and to review whether the testing methods are standardized and whether the technical means are reliable. Finally, based on the testing report, the components and quality ratios of the accused infringing products were accurately and effectively identified, Determine that the accused infringing product falls within the scope of protection of the patent in question.

In addition, in terms of responsibility allocation, the court found through evidence such as the three defendants belonging to affiliated companies with highly overlapping business scope, business premises, and senior management personnel that the three defendants subjectively had intention connections and engaged in division of labor and cooperation in the manufacturing, sales, and promised sales of the accused infringing products, constituting joint infringement, and ordered them to bear joint and several liability for compensation, reflecting the strong protection of the court in cases involving agricultural inputs.

typical significance

In the trial of agricultural technology related cases, due to the cutting-edge and special field involved, it is difficult to ascertain the technical facts. The accurate and efficient determination of technical facts has always been a bottleneck that restricts the quality, efficiency, and credibility of such cases. In this case, a diversified technology fact finding mechanism was flexibly applied. In the field of appraisal business where a unified registration management system for appraisers and appraisal institutions was not established, professional institutions were selected to test the components, quality ratios, etc. of the accused infringing products. Finally, the infringement facts of this case were determined by comparing the test results. This case has certain reference significance for the clarification of technical facts in similar cases, and also reflects the court's protection for cases involving agricultural inputs.