The article is reproduced from the "air compressor network" wechat public number, if there is infringement please contact delete!

Gree and Oakes Super 2.200 million yuan compressor patent dispute of the second trial of the Supreme Court

Gree VS Oakes patent war lasted nearly 5 years, on the invention patent back and forth, but also the State Intellectual Property Office pulled into the bureau, can be said to be a protracted war。

This also has a warning for the air pressure industry。Air compressor industry attaches no importance to patent rights?Say do not pay attention to also pay attention to, looking at, some scale of air compressor enterprises can come up with a "stack" patent certificate;The patent certificate of many enterprises is only used for display, and the technology in the patent is neglected to protect。Anyway, when there's a technological innovation on the market, everyone rushes in and tries to copy it, right。Most people think: the status quo of the market is so, don't talk about what infringement does not infringe, have time to make money together。

Of course, there are also companies with strong intellectual property awareness。Last year, for example, Atlas Copco Aerodynamics won a two-year dispute over design patents。

In short, our enterprises should raise their awareness of intellectual property rights, abide by the law and the bottom line of business ethics, and also have the courage to say "no" to infringements, and jointly maintain a good environment conducive to innovation。

On April 23, five disputes between Gree Electric Appliances and Oaks Air conditioning on compressor patent infringement were held at the Supreme People's Court。Whether Oakes has the plaintiff qualification and whether Gree air conditioning falls within the scope of Oakes patent protection have become the focus of debate between the two sides during the court investigation on the same day。

According to the official wechat of the Supreme People's Court, the first court of the Intellectual Property Tribunal of the Supreme People's Court publicly heard the administrative dispute case of Gree Electric Appliances, Oaks air conditioning and the State Intellectual Property Office's invention patent invalid on the morning of 23。下午，The Tribunal has opened four additional cases for consolidation，Including Gree Electric Appliances and Oaks air conditioning and Zhejiang Gome Electric appliance infringement of invention patent dispute two cases，Oaks air conditioning, Gree Electric Appliances and Li Feng infringement of invention patent dispute case，And Gree Electric Appliances and Oaks air conditioning and Ningbo Yongge Information Technology Co., Ltd. infringement of invention patent dispute case。

Earlier, Oakes bought Toshiba air conditioning compressor patents, and then sued Gree Electric Appliances infringement。In August 2022, the Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court of first instance made patent infringement judgments on the two cases of Oaks v. Gree, and awarded Gree Electric Appliances a total compensation of about 55 million yuan。In addition, in December 2021, the first instance of the Ningbo Intermediate People's Court on the two cases of Oakes versus Gree made about 1.The judgment of 600 million yuan, Ochs with the same patent has been awarded more than 2.2亿元。

On the same day, the first tribunal of the Intellectual Property Tribunal of the Supreme People's Court held a trial of the second instance on the dispute。In the morning's administrative proceedings, Gree believes that the patent held by Oakes is not creative, and strong protection depends on the quality of the patent;Oakes reiterated the protection of patents。More than 7,000 people watched the live broadcast of the trial, and the trial video was played 63,173 times as of 21:50 that day。

On the afternoon of the 23rd, the live broadcast of the trial of four civil lawsuits was made public, and the video of the trial had reached 17,928 times as of 21:50 on the same day。During the trial，The judge launched a court investigation on whether Gree created infringement, whether Oakes had plaintiff qualifications, whether Oakes abused authorization, whether Gree products fell into the scope of patent protection, Gree raised invalid defenses, and the calculation method of compensation amount，Gree, Ochs and the two sides also launched a tit-for-tat debate。

Gree argued that Oakes was not the inventor of the compressor patent in question。Toshiba Air conditioning was absorbed and merged by Toshiba Carrier in 2008 without proof of transfer of related property。In 2018, Toshiba Air Conditioning transferred the patent to Toshiba Carrier, which in turn sold the patent to Oakes。But Toshiba Air conditioners no longer existed, and Oaks had no standing as a plaintiff。

Oaks claimed that Toshiba air conditioning was simply renamed Toshiba Carrier, and Oaks obtained legal patents from Toshiba Carrier and was entitled to claim third-party infringement liability。

Gree also believes that Oakes does not have its own research and development and production of compressors, and sues by buying patents that are about to expire to obtain 2.200 million yuan compensation, no innovative contribution to the compressor industry。That is more than the amount Gree had previously won when it sued Oaks for infringing 27 of its patents。Oaks won the first trial, denying the industry's true innovators the benefit。

In this regard, Oakes said that this matter has nothing to do with the 27 patents mentioned by Gree, Oakes has legal patents, advocating corresponding rights, there is nothing to blame。

In addition, Gree believes that the products involved should be compressors, not air conditioners, the producer is Zhuhai Lingda company, can not get the conclusion that Gree Electric Appliances is the manufacturer, Oaks air conditioning also purchased compressors from Lingda company;Gree air conditioning also has from Daijin, Haili and other companies to purchase compressors。Oakes said that Lingda compressor is wholly-owned by Gree Electric Appliances, and Gree air conditioning has fewer external compressors, so Gree has a systemCreating infringement, selling infringement。

Gree believes that 2.The amount of compensation of 200 million yuan is too high, and the contribution rate of the patent involved should be calculated according to the price of the compressor, rather than the price of the air conditioner。The cost of the compressor in the air conditioning is about 10%, even if the patent involved in the compressor has 20% patent contribution rate, its patent contribution rate in the air conditioning should be multiplied by about 10%。Ochs said the calculations were based on expert reports。

At the trial, Gree said that the patent in question incorporated the content of Japanese literature into its patent and should be ruled invalid。2.200 million yuan compensation leads to financial and reputation losses, the two parties involved are still in business competition, patent instability, civil litigation does not end, will affect Gree's reputation in the market。Therefore, Gree's appeal is to determine that the patent is invalid。

At about 19 o 'clock in the evening, under the questioning of the judge, Gree and Oakes said they had no intention to mediate。The judge announced that the trial was over on the same day, and the parties could supplement the proxy opinion within a week, combined with the trial, but not contrary to the stated opinion。