The overall situation of the bull group's 0.5 billion patent litigation has been decided, and the plaintiff's appeal of Tongling Technology is weak!

On March 10, Bull Group published the "Securities Daily 《Announcement on the progress of the proceedingsBull Group said that on March 6, it received the Supreme People's Court's "Notice of Responding to Appeal Cases" and "Notice of Proof". The Supreme People's Court decided to accept the appeal of Jiangsu Tongling Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Tongling Technology") on five cases involving utility model patents.Tong Ling Technology requested to revoke the "Civil Ruling" of the first instance made by the Nanjing Intermediate People's Court of Jiangsu Province and send the case back to the Nanjing Intermediate People's Court for retrial.

The five cases involved in this case can be found in previous news reports. In September 2018, Bull Group started the-share IPO process. In December 2018, Tongling Technology filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Nanjing Intermediate People's Court with Bull Group and others as defendants, involving two patents of invention patent "supporting sliding safety door" and utility model patent "power socket safety protection device" respectively. In January 2019, Bull Group filed an application for invalidation of the above-mentioned patents to the State Intellectual Property Office. After that, the Review and Invalidation Trial Department of the Patent Office of the State Intellectual Property Office issued the ''Invalidation Request Review Decision'' (No. 40759, No. 40829), declaring all the above-mentioned patent rights involved invalid. The Nanjing Intermediate People's Court rejected the lawsuit of Tongling Technology on July 21, 2019.

The main reason for the appeal of Tongren Technology is,At the time of the first instance ruling in this case, the invalid decision No. 40759 made by the State Intellectual Property Office on the patent involved had not yet taken effect, andInwithin the statutory period of three months within which the appellant is entitled to institute administrative proceedings against him. Only when the appellant fails to file a lawsuit with the people's court within three months from the date of receipt of the invalid decision No. 40759 or the effective judgment does not revoke the decision after the appellant has filed a lawsuit, will the appellant "have lost the legal basis for the claims claimed in the patent infringement lawsuit involved in this case. Moreover, the appellant is about to file an administrative lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court against the invalid decision No. 40759 within the statutory time limit. Therefore, the court of first instance directly made the determination that the appellant "has lost the legal basis for the claim claimed in the patent infringement lawsuit involved in this case" under the condition that the validity of the invalid examination decision No. 40759 of the patent involved in the case has not been determined, which is a serious error in the determination of the basic facts of this case.

The author believes that the reasons for the appeal of Tongling Technology are difficult to be recognized by the court, and the patent right that declares the patent invalid is regarded as non-existent from the beginning. Therefore, the review and invalidation department of the State Intellectual Property Office issued an invalidation request review decision and declared the patent involved invalid., The patent right involved in the case should be regarded as non-existent from the beginning and not protected by law. The decision takes effect when it is issued, whether or not administrative proceedings are instituted. As a result, it is difficult to obtain support for the grounds of appeal of Tongling Technology. If Tongling Technology refuses to accept the invalid decision and files an administrative lawsuit, the patent right will be restored in accordance with the law. According to Article 212 of the "Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the the People's Republic of China Civil Procedure Law", "If the plaintiff sues again, if it meets the conditions for prosecution and does not fall under the circumstances stipulated in Article 124 of the Civil Procedure Law, the people's court shall accept it." Tongling Technology can sue again. In addition, in the first instance procedure, the Nanjing Intermediate People's Court ruled to dismiss the prosecution, and the high acceptance fee paid in the early stage will also be returned to the plaintiff Tongling Technology. From the point of view of litigation costs, the author believes that it is not a very wise choice for Tong Ling Technology to appeal. Even in the process of appeal, the invalid decision is withdrawn and the first instance case is remanded for retrial, which is tantamount to a new prosecution.