【Summary of Judgment】

In the case of Xiamen Lucas Auto Parts Co., Ltd., Xiamen Fuke Automobile Parts Co., Ltd. (Defendants-Appellants) v. VALEO SYSTEMES D'ESSUYAGE (Plaintiff-Appellee) and Chen Shaoqiang (Defendant in the first instance), a dispute over infringement of invention patent [case No.: 2019 SPCICS 2], the SPC held that where a limitation defines or implies a particular structure, component, process, condition, or mutual relationship there-between in the technical solution as desired by the invention, even if such limitation also defines the function or effect to be performed or realized, such limitation in principle shall not be deemed as means-plus-function limitation under Article 8 of the Interpretation (II) of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Patent Infringement Dispute Cases.

【Case Number】

2019 SPCICS 2

【Facts】

Valeo Company Systèmes d’Essuyage filed a lawsuit against Xiamen Lucas Auto Parts Co. Ltd. et al. with Shanghai Intellectual Property Court, claiming that the co-defendants shall immediately stop their infringing acts, i.e. cessation of manufacturing, sales and offering to sell allegedly infringing products, jointly and severally bearing the damages plus reasonable expenses as incurred by the plaintiff’s remedies. In the first-instance proceeding, Valeo pleaded that Shanghai IP Court render an interlocutory judgment ordering the co-defendants to immediately cease the infringement. The interlocutory judgment numbered (2016) Hu 73 Min Chu 859 was rendered as pleaded by the plaintiff and then was appealed by the defendants to the Supreme People’s Court or SPC, which rendered its second-instance judgment on March 27, 2019. The SPC upheld the first-instance judgment though it also corrected the opinion of Shanghai IP Court on identification of means-plus-function limitation.

【Essence of the SPC judgment】

The SPC held that where a limitation defines or implies a particular structure, component, process, condition, or mutual relationship there-between in the technical solution as desired by the invention, even if such limitation also defines the function or effect to be performed or realized, such limitation in principle shall not be deemed as means-plus-function limitation under Article 8 of the Interpretation (II) of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Patent Infringement Dispute Cases. As a matter of fact, the disputed technical limitation defined the relative positions of the safety buckle and the securing component, and thereby implied the particular structure thereof, i.e. the safety buckle extends with its face towards the said securing component, as stated in the patent claim. Such relative positions and implied structure may perform certain functions, i.e. preventing the securing component from elastic deformation and securing the connector. However, it should be noted that technical limitations containing positions or structures plus certain functions as implied thereby by nature still belong to the family of positional limitations or structural limitations although they contain the said functions, and hence such type of limitations shall not be deemed as means-plus-function limitation under Article 8 of the Interpretation (II) of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Patent Infringement Dispute Cases.