2023years9month21day, Plaintiff Kubota Corporation (A Japanese company) A patent infringement lawsuit was filed in the Delhi High Court, India, To enforce its patents. The plaintiff instituted an action, The request forbids the three defendants from manufacturing, sell, exit, Import and distribute its name "Ruilong Plus ++" Reaper of (Hereinafter referred to as "Accused of infringing products" ) .

The plaintiff argues that, The alleged infringing product was created by the infringing plaintiff No249257, 294814, 312782, 354002and371938Manufactured from parts of Patent No. The litigation patents cover different components of combine harvesters／unit. All five litigation patents are embodied in the plaintiff's products "Combine harvester" In the, The product was obtained by the plaintiff through its Indian subsidiary Kubota Agricultural Machinery India Limited (Kubota Agricultural Machinery India Pvt. Ltd. ) Production and sales, The brand name is "HARVES KING" . In addition, The plaintiff also states that, in2020to2022Fiscal year, The market share of its products in India is close to35%to40%. Plaintiff claims2022Advertising expenses for the fiscal year were approximately940Lakh rupees.

In addition, The plaintiff also states that, The name of the defendant's combine harvester "Ruilong Plus ++" , For the defendant1entrance. By infringing the plaintiff's litigation patent, The defendant has continuously expanded its market share over the past three years. The plaintiff alleges, in2023years5Sometime in October, One of the plaintiff's investigators approached the defendant1, Request to purchase the accused products to be delivered in Delhi, defendant1This request was confirmed.

therefore, The cause of action shall arise within the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court, Because it's free to sell in Delhi／Buy products accused of infringing. The plaintiff also filed a complaint with the investigator2023years9month5Written testimony from the sun, Proof of comparison with the plaintiff's patented product, The product accused of infringing is sold at a lower price, Therefore, the plaintiff suffered a loss. In addition, The plaintiff also argues that, Compare the alleged products purchased by the plaintiff with the plaintiff's products, The defendant is found to have infringed all of the plaintiff's litigation patents.

The plaintiff submitted comparative drawings of various components of the alleged product. Plaintiff put forward, The plaintiff is a market leader in agricultural machinery, Due to the novelty and creativity of the patented parts of the plaintiff's combine harvester, The plaintiff is entitled to an injunction against the defendant.

defendant1argue, in2020before, defendant1Always from the defendant2Importing products accused of infringement, About imported50Taiwan controlled product.

The High Court appointed two experts, The challenged product part is compared with the licensing claims of the litigation patent. The two experts were allowed to take photographs and video, And be asked to perform checks／Submit their respective reports independently within two weeks of commissioning. Direction of court, These two experts, as well as at least two technical experts representing the plaintiff and one technical expert representing the defendant, shall accompany the designated expert in the examination.

The court directed the defendants to provide the total quantity of the alleged products imported to date, Details of the importer and related documents. The court also asked the defendants to provide the quantity and sales figures of the imports and sales of the alleged products, And provide relevant documents as reply. Direction of court2and3Provide all sales figures and documentary evidence of the Defendant's products in India to date.

In addition, The court also requires the defendant2And the accused3Continue to maintain import accounts of the accused products, And to be submitted with the reply, Thereafter, it is filed quarterly with the court. The court allowed the plaintiff to apply for an exemption from pre-litigation mediation. In addition, The lawsuit will be filed in2024years1month24Daily trial. (Be compiled fromwww. lexology. com)

TRANSLATORS: Rason group　proofread: Liu Peng



　　disclaimer: This network reprint or compile the original articles are from the network, Does not represent the views of this website or confirm the authenticity of its content. If the source is mislabeled or the copyright of the article is involved, Please contact us, This website will be corrected in due course, delete, thank you.