A Commentary On The Patent Infringement Case Of Sun Yas Company V. Hongda Company

In patent infringement cases,the determination of the amount of equiv alent infringement,indirect infringement and damages has always been a controversial issue in academic circles and judicial practice.The above-mentioned related issues are also involved in the patent infringement cases of Sun Yas Company v.Hongda Company,etc.,but the two levels of courts have made completely different judgments.my country has introduced the principle of equivalence for many years,but it still faces many challenges in its specific application.In the case of Sun Yas Company v.Hongda Company for infringing an invention patent,the court of first instance judged whether the object of the alleged infringing act and the patent in question constituted the same,and at the same time,it wrongly selected the scope of protection of the right,and did not compare the technical characteristics of the two.In the case of equivalent infringement,the "full coverage principle" should be strictly applied to avoid the exposure of the "overall equivalent" and "superfluous designation principles".The determination of equivalent infringement should adopt the "three basics" plus "obviousness" standard.The two elements are indispensable.In order to ensure the authority and accuracy of judicial adjudication,the judgment criteria should be clarified as soon as possible in judicial practice,and different standards should be applied in different fields.Although indirect infringement has been included in my country’s judicial interpretations,it is still based on joint infringement and takes direct infringement as the premise,resulting in insufficient protection of patentees and insufficient regulation of infringement.The Supreme Court held that because Xinhengtai and No.6 Plastics Factory committed direct infringement,Hongda’s offering of "special products" constituted indirect infringement.The standard of "specially used for the enforcement of patents" in my country’s Patent Law is too vague,and the "indispensable","substantially non-infringing use" and "non-circulating goods" standards established in the judicial practice of the Supreme Court are actually copies of American standards,but the different expressions of Japan and the United States are synthesized in the expression.This standard reflects the rationality and necessity of regulating ind irect torts,and is in line with legislative purposes.The "subordination theory" can no longer meet the needs of current social development.In order to adapt to the current new technological environment and give more adequate protection to the right hold er,indirect patent infringement should be based on the "independent theory".When calculated as a multiple of a reasonable license fee,the corresponding part of the license fee is the infringer’s economic compensation to the right holder for the infringe ment,and the amount determined by the "multiple" is punitive,and overlaps with punitive damages.The product of the license fee for the number of units agreed by the licensor and the licensee and the total number of infringements is the amount of infring ement compensation.If the infringer has other malicious infringement circumstances,if the circumstances are serious,punitive damages should be applied to severely crack down.