集佳代理搜狗九宫格确认不侵权纠纷案获得一审胜诉 Unitalen Successfully Helped Sogou Won the First-instance in Determining Non-infringement for an Inpu

 近日,集佳收到北京知识产权法院作出的一审胜诉判决书,认定集佳代理的原告北京搜狗科技发展有限公司、北京搜狗信息服务有限公司(简称“搜狗公司”)研发、提供的搜狗输入法软件不侵犯被告北京九宫混音呈列科技有限公司(简称“九宫混音公司”)ZL 200510055346.2号、名称为“一种小键盘上数字编码的汉语拼音和注音多字连续输入法”(简称“涉案专利”或“九宫格专利”)的发明专利权。

  本案中,原告搜狗公司收到被告的《专利授权沟通函》,称原告在Android和iOS应用商店提供的搜狗手机输入法软件侵权了被告的涉案专利,要求原告立即撤回相关产品。原告立即向被告发出回函,明确回应相关产品不侵犯涉案专利权,并要求被告收回沟通函,改为寻求更为合理的手段解决。但被告收到回函后,既不撤回侵权通知,也未提起专利侵权诉讼,使得搜狗公司相关产品一直处于“专利侵权与否”的不确定状态。

  对此,原告搜狗公司委托集佳维护其合法权益。集佳接到两原告的委托后,由孙长龙、王宝筠、刘磊、刘晓菲、彭晓明组成代理团队,向北京知识产权法院提起确认不侵权之诉。

  知识产权确认不侵权之诉的作用在于给予被警告人在遭受侵权警告、而权利人怠于行使诉权使得被警告人长期处于不安状态情形下的一种司法救济途径,其根本目的是规制权利人滥发侵权警告的行为,维护稳定的市场经营秩序。

  本案中,北京知识产权法院认为,原被告双方之间存在对于侵权与否的实质性争议,九宫混音公司逾期不撤回警告也未向法院提起诉讼,导致涉案输入法是否侵害九宫混音公司涉案专利权处于不明确的法律状态,两原告提起确认其行为不侵犯专利权的诉讼,符合法律规定。同时,北京知识产权法院在审查中结合各项证据及现场勘验比对情况,最终认定原告涉案输入法不侵犯被告涉案专利的发明专利权。

 

 

In the recent first-instance judgment issued by the Beijing Intellectual Property Court concerning the patent infringement case initiated by Beijing Sogou, who is represented by Unitalen, it’s found that the plaintiff Beijing Sogou had developed and provided the Sogou input method software without infringing the ZL 200510055346.2 invention patent of the defendant Beijing Jiugong Hunyin Chenglie Technology Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Beijing Jiugong”), which is entitled as "a numeric input of Chinese pinyin and phonetic multi-word continuous input method on the keypad".

 

 

Case Summary

 

The plaintiff in this case, Sogou company, received the “Patent Authorization Communication Letter” from Beijing Jiugong company, stating that the Sogou mobile phone input method software provided at the Android and iOS app stores had infringed their patent involved, requiring Sogou to immediately withdraw the relevant products. Upon receipt of this, Sogou responded clearly that the relevant products had not infringed the patent right involved and asked Beijing Jiugong to withdraw the communication letter and instead seek a more reasonable means to resolve it. However, Beijing Jiugong neither withdrew the notice of infringement nor filed a patent infringement lawsuit after Sogou’s reply, which made the related products of Sogou Company stuck in an uncertain state of “patent infringement or not”. Entrusted by Sogou, Unitalen filed a lawsuit before the Beijing Intellectual Property Court so as to confirm the non-infringement.

 

 

The Court’s Ruling

 

The Beijing Intellectual Property Court held that there was a substantive dispute between the two parties on the infringement. The defendant did not withdraw the warning and failed to file a lawsuit in the court, which led to the uncertain legal state of whether the input method involved had infringed the patent rights involved. Therefore, it’s in compliance with the law for the plaintiff to file a lawsuit confirming that their acts did not infringe the patent rights involved. Meanwhile, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court combined all kinds of evidences and the on-site inspection and comparison in the review to finally conclude that the plaintiff's input method involved did not infringe the rights of the defendant's patents involved in the case.



免责声明:凡本网注明"来源:XXX(非中国知识产权杂志出品)"的作品,均转载自其它媒体,转载目的在于传递更多信息,并不代表本网赞同其观点和对其真实性负责。本网转载其他媒体之稿件,意在为公众提供免费服务。如稿件版权单位或个人不想在本网发布,可与本网联系,本网视情况可立即将其撤除。新闻纠错:13621279650 13621252760,邮箱:chinaip@chinaipmagazine.com