The High Court of Eastern Denmark held, Huawei (Huawei) SONY and SONY (Sony) Violated the Sound Corporation (Sonion) Patent and utility model rights, And upheld an earlier decision by the Danish High Court of Maritime and Commercial Affairs, To issue preliminary injunctions against Huawei and SONY. The case raises a number of public interest issues related to patent enforcement.

This case involves the protection of a special vibration sensor (namelyVPUBone sensor) A number of patents and utility model rights. SONY and Huawei also use the sensors in a range of headsets they sell.

The Maritime and Commercial High Court is in2022Preliminary injunctions were issued against Huawei and SONY. Both Huawei and SONY subsequently appealed to the Eastern High Court.

Following the ruling of the High Court of Maritime and Commercial Affairs in this case, European Patent Office (EPO) The dissenting department argued that the company's revised European patent (That is, the mother application of the utility model of the company) Be effective. however, It also seems to meanEPOThe patent is considered invalid in the form in which it was granted in Denmark. therefore, The parties have subsequently submitted toEPOThe appeal Board filed an appeal.

therefore, The main issue with the Eastern High Court's latest ruling is this, Whether the company's preliminary injunction has lost its validity, Because the patents in question were only deemed valid after they were amended. meanwhile, Interested parties also need to know whether the Eastern High Court has the power to directly evaluate revised patent and utility model claims, Whether the rights of the company are still valid and whether SONY and Huawei have really violated the rights of the company.

After all, The Eastern Superior Court overruled all the objections, And made a decision to uphold the preliminary injunction.

therewith, Eastern Superior Court said, The preliminary injunctions that have been issued are not limited to a particular version of the intellectual property in question. besides, The Eastern Superior Court also held that, The agency has the authority to deal with and evaluate byEPOAmendments to patent claims made by the opposing department.

Eastern Superior Court said, Given the concern about access to effective legal protection, And this is also "Administrative law of justice" The first40chapter "Prohibition system" and "Enforcement instruction" The first3Articles and ordinances9Article to achieve the goal, EPOThe dissenting division's decision to uphold the validity of the revised patent does not mean that the court needs to withdraw the preliminary injunction for that reason alone.

The decision should perhaps be understood in the context of other reasoning given by the Eastern High Court. The court noted in its reasoning, It is a common practice for patents to be modified in opposition proceedings, Moreover, the patent owner cannot amend or file new claims in response to a preliminary injunction issued during the appellate process.

meanwhile, The Eastern Superior Court also held that, The right to voice the company is valid, And was violated.

In addition, The legal fees awarded by the court to the company have also increased.

Key point

The Eastern Superior Court's ruling is important, It is mainly based on the following reasons.

First of all, The Eastern High Court clarified whether a party needs to explicitly specify a registered version of the intellectual property in question, And what legal effect it will have if no specific version is specified.

In addition, The court also made it clear, Even if the patent on which the ban is based onlyEPOIt was retained in a revised form in the opposition procedure, And the revised patent has not yet been granted, But the court could still uphold the preliminary injunction already issued. Such a patent maintained in an amended form would strengthen the court's presumption of its validity.

In short, This means that the Eastern High Court appears to have dealt with the modification of the patent claims in question in an indirect form, And determined that the agency itself was capable of evaluating revised patent claims as well as some minor ones, Language changes. (Be compiled fromwww. mondaq. com)

TRANSLATORS: Liu Peng　proofread: Wang Dan



　　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.