Mobai single body trapped in patent dispute two on the dock
Patent disputes become the "roadblock" for the development of innovative economy
Data map.
Some experts believe that innovative companies face patent disputes often because they "closed doors" in the production process, lack of understanding of the patent reserves of the pioneers in the technology field, and finally hit the "gun" of others.
Rule of Law Weekend reporter Yu Dongming from Shanghai
Recently, the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court made a first-instance judgment against Hu Tao v. Mobai (Beijing) Information Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Mobai Company) infringement of patent disputes for inventions, and rejected all claims of the plaintiff.
It is reported that the case is a case in which in May 2017, Shenzhen Jinyun Company v. Mobike bicycle infringement patent rights, and another Mobike bicycle was sued for patent infringement.
In this regard, some experts believe that innovative companies face patent disputes often because they "closed doors" in the production process, lack of understanding of the patent reserves of the pioneers in the technology field, and finally hit the "gun" of others. In the end, these frequent patent disputes have created tremendous resistance to the development of an innovative economy.
Plaintiff: Mobai constitutes infringement
Hu Tao is the main inventor of patent technology involved in this patent infringement lawsuit. He told reporters that the patent for infringement dispute was invented in 2013, and in 2016 he was authorized by the State Intellectual Property Office to "an electric vehicle control system and its operation method".
Hu Tao told reporters that in the electric vehicle industry for 20 years, he gradually realized the problems in the anti-theft performance of electric vehicles. At that time, the two-dimensional code technology such as mobile payment began to rise, and the small two-dimensional code caught the attention of Hu Tao.
"The key will be lost, it will be stolen, and the traditional mechanical lock can be easily opened and destroyed. Can you replace the key with a QR code and unlock it by scanning and comparing the QR code?" Driven by this idea, Hu Tao has assembled several friends and family members engaged in the electric vehicle and two-dimensional code technology industry. In 2013, he invented the set of electric vehicle control system that scans and unlocks.
Simply put, the control system on the electric car will send a QR code to the user's mobile phone. The user only needs to scan the QR code image in the mobile phone in front of the micro camera of the control system, and the control system will automatically The image is compared with the internally stored QR code data. After the comparison is successful, the controller controls the electric vehicle to automatically unlock, and if the comparison fails, an alarm sounds.
Talking about this invention, Hu Tao’s words reveal a sense of pride. He firmly believes that this control system, which was born before the sharing of bicycles has not appeared, “has made an important contribution to the application of QR code technology in the futureâ€.
At the beginning of 2017, Hu Tao saw the news about the Moby bicycle on the Internet. The propaganda of “Scanning the QR code to unlock†reminded him of his invention. He suspected that Mobike used his own control technology.
So after checking the information on the Internet and personally unlocking the Mobike bicycle, Hu Tao summed up the two major points of Moab bicycle infringement of his invention patent rights:
First of all, the scan code unlocking system of the two is consistent in terms of means. Hu Tao believes that after the Mobike bicycle user scans the QR code, the cloud server will receive the information of the user and the vehicle. After the server compares the information successfully, the vehicle is unlocked. This is compared with the patented two-dimensional code image and the two-dimensional code data. The process is the same.
Secondly, the inventive patent control system comprises a two-dimensional code recognizer consisting of a miniature camera, a graphics decoder, a memory and a two-dimensional code comparator. Hu Tao believes that although the Mobike bicycle does not integrate these components together, the user's mobile phone camera, cloud server and the two-dimensional code on the vehicle body jointly play the role of the two-dimensional code recognizer.
With the purpose of protecting the patent right of his invention, Hu Tao sued Mobai Company in the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court. However, contrary to expectations, the court finally rejected all the claims of the plaintiff Hu Tao.
Defendant: There are three major differences
Liao Tingting, a lawyer from Shanghai Fangda Law Firm, is one of the attorneys of the defendant Fang Mobai Company in the patent infringement case. In an interview, she told reporters that during the trial, the defendant seized three differences and debated the plaintiff’s claim of infringement.
First, the Mobike bicycle scan code unlocking system is not the same as the patent involved.
"One is a car sweeping, and the other is a people sweeping the car. This is the most obvious difference." Liao Tingting told reporters that according to the contents of the patent claims involved in the case, the user unlocked the electric car and placed the QR code in the mobile phone. The mini camera in the car scans in front; while the Mobility bike scans the QR code printed on the car body with the camera on the phone. The scanning method is the opposite.
In addition, the patent invented by the plaintiff is used in the field of electric vehicles, and the controlled infringing product Mobike bicycle belongs to the bicycle, and the two do not belong to the same technical field.
Second, the technical characteristics of the Mobike bicycle lock control system are different from the patents involved.
According to the contents of the patent claim in question, the electric vehicle control system invented by the plaintiff includes a two-dimensional code recognizer composed of a miniature camera, a memory, a graphic decoder and a two-dimensional code comparator, and the two-dimensional code recognition The device is mounted on the body of the electric vehicle; the other parts of the motorcycle are not covered by the patent except the QR code.
Third, there is no information comparison link in the Mobike bicycle scan code unlocking process.
“The Mobike Bike Cloud Server performs a complex information verification procedure, rather than simply comparing whether the scanned QR code is consistent with the system-saved QR code data.†According to Liao Tingting, the user scans Mobai. After the QR code on the bicycle body, the cloud server verifies the information such as the user's wallet balance, the bicycle lock status, and whether the vehicle is scheduled, only if the user has a balance, the vehicle is locked, and the reservation is not made. The corresponding bicycle will be automatically unlocked.
"The above points are clear enough to prove that the Mobike bicycle did not fall into the plaintiff's patent protection scope, and the court's final dismissal of the plaintiff's lawsuit is also within our expectation." Liao Tingting told reporters.
According to the insiders of Mobai, the scanning of the code through the Internet is a unique technical advantage of Mobike. The company itself also attaches great importance to the protection of its invention patents. At present, Mobai is actively applying for invention patents for the technical means involved in Mobike bicycles.
Expert: hindering the innovation economy
After hearing the case, the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court held that the Moby bicycle body posted a two-dimensional code and installed a lock with a controller; the micro camera and graphics decoder were located in the user's mobile phone; the two-dimensional code comparator and memory were located in the cloud server. . There is no physical contact between the four components of the alleged infringing product, so there is no equivalent between the technical features of the patent in question.
In the end, the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court issued a judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s entire claim. The company has temporarily announced the victory of this dispute.
In 2015, ofo launched the shared bicycle plan, and the “small yellow car†began to appear in people's field of vision. Then, Moby, Xiaoming and other shared bicycles springed up. Today, shared bicycles have been rated as China's "new four major inventions" along with high-speed rail, Alipay and online shopping.
In addition to praise and praise, many patent disputes are inevitably found in these new things. In 2017 alone, Moby was placed on the dock twice for allegedly infringing patents of others.
As early as May of this year, Shenzhen Jinyun Technology Co., Ltd. has sued Beijing Mobai Co., Ltd. for infringing its own remote unlocking patent. The court has not yet decided on the case.
"The disputes arising from patent rights constitute a huge resistance to innovative companies like Mobai that are competitive with independent innovation," an insider of Moby said in an interview. In fact, many of the innovating companies that are coming up are facing a patent offensive with the “first mover†in the technology field.
Some professionals pointed out that innovative companies face patent disputes often because they “closed the door†in the production process, lacked awareness of the patent reserves of the pioneers in the technology field, and finally ran into the “gun†of others.
"As an innovative company, we must have the spirit of 'precaution in the future' and strengthen the emphasis on intellectual property accumulation and management. At the same time, we also welcome the public to supervise our technological innovation." Mobai said that it is currently proceeding. Carding and accumulation of invention patents in the industry. The reporter learned from the public information of the State Intellectual Property Office that there are currently 25 inventions in the Mobai company that are applying for patents.
Another expert said that the current authorization process for domestic patents is too long. “A patent license often takes two to three years, but today the information society is developing rapidly, and the time required for a new thing to emerge from the epidemic may be much less than this cycle.†He suggested that the domestic patent authorization process should be shortened appropriately. So that companies have enough time to accumulate enough intellectual property rights to deal with possible patent disputes.
Enter [Sina Finance and Economics Unit] Discussion
Brass Gate Valves,2 Inch Brass Gate Valves,Antique Brass Gate Valves,Brass Gate Valves Price List
AS-SUR INDUSTRIAL VALVE CO., LTD. , https://www.assur-valve.com