Philips' lawsuit against the Shanghai Lock & Lock Trade Co., Ltd (Lock & Lock) and Cixi Hongbang Electric Co., Ltd (Hongbang) on the ground of invention patent infringement was rejected by the court recently. "Thanks to Philips to make our company much stronger!" said Hou Shaoyong, one of the company's principal, to CIP News journalist recently.

In 2012, Philips filed a lawsuit against Lock & Lock and Hongbang on the ground that some electric ovens marked with Lock & Lock infringed its Airfryer's invention patent in Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate People's Court. The court denied Philips' claim at first-instance recently.

Airfryer triggers the patent slugfest

On June 18, 2007, Holland Kavaring Cooking Systems Co., Ltd invented "a new apparatus for preparing food and air guide member", and filed an invention application, which was granted by SIPO on January 25, 2012. Philips obtained an exclusive license right of the patent on February 27, 2012, with its Airfryer enjoyed high reputation in the market.

Philips then found the defendants sold the electric ovens with Lock & Lock's marks in store and online shop manufactured by Hongbang. Philips sued the two companies to the court and requested to cease manufacturing, distributing such ovens as the products infringed its patent right and claimed for over three million yuan in compensation for its loss.

The defendant Lock & Lock took the view that the questioned products were used by their own patent technology which did not infringe Philips' patent right.

"We drew lessons from European patents of its kind, improved technique and filed the utility model patent application on October 2011, which was granted in July 2012," Hou said.

Meanwhile, Hongbang brought actions to SIPO's Patent Reexamination Board (PRB) to invalidate Philips' patent. PRB affirmed the validity of the patent on July 4, 2013.

Comparing to the characteristics

"There is no technical characteristic of upper part of preparing food section and upper air exits. Moreover, the air fan, air guide and bottom of the electric ovens are different from those of Philips, which do not constitute patent infringement," Hou pointed out.

The court maintained that the focus of disputes was whether the products should be brought into the legal protection scope or not. Hongbang's products only had half bottom interior which lacked the crucial technical characteristics. When the fans worked, the device could not realize the functions that the patent depicts. So the court decided Hongbang's products did not bring into the legal protection scope.

The court then denied Philips' request.

(China IP News)