This binding civil judgment was issued by the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court, Case No. (2024) Yue73 Min Chu No. 1609, involving invention patent infringement of industrial intelligent sorting equipment. This case focuses on the core controversy of equivalent infringement and identification of offering-for-sale infringement, which is completely different from previous design patent and utility model patent cases.
The patentee is Sage Intelligent Equipment Co., Ltd., a domestic high-tech enterprise engaged in logistics automation R&D. The company obtained an invention patent titled “Intelligent Dynamic Sorting Conveyor Mechanism” from the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA), Patent No. ZL20221009XXXX. The patent protects the overall structural layout, sensor matching mode and adaptive buffer transmission control method of sorting equipment. The infringing manufacturer is Hengda Automation Technology Co., Ltd., which develops and produces logistics sorting machinery and sells products through offline exhibitions and an industrial B2B online platform.
Core applicable statutory provisions of the Patent Law of the People’s Republic of China and relevant judicial interpretations:
1. Article 11 Paragraph 1 of the Patent Law: After an invention patent is granted, no entity or individual may, without the permission of the patentee, manufacture, use, offer for sale, sell or import the patented invention for production and business purposes.
2. Equivalent Infringement Identification Rule: Equivalent features refer to technical features that adopt substantially identical means to achieve substantially identical functions and reach substantially identical effects, and can be easily conceived by a person ordinarily skilled in the relevant art without creative labor at the time of infringement. The court shall adopt the all technical features rule for infringement comparison.
3. Judicial Interpretation Standard for Offering-for-Sale: Displaying infringing products at industry exhibitions, publishing product specification brochures and releasing sales information on industrial e-commerce platforms all constitute acts of offering for sale, regardless of whether actual sales transactions are completed.
4. Article 71 of the Patent Law: Where actual losses or illegal gains cannot be verified, the court may award statutory compensation ranging from RMB 10,000 to RMB 5 million. The scale of production and sales, duration of infringement and subjective fault shall be comprehensively considered.
From April 2023 to February 2024, Sage Intelligent Equipment entrusted a notary public to conduct multiple evidence preservation operations:
1. Hengda Automation manufactured intelligent sorting equipment. Compared with the patented technical scheme, the defendant replaced the integrated buffer cylinder with a split combined spring buffer assembly. Other core technical features including sensor layout, conveyor chain drive structure and signal feedback control logic remained completely consistent. The defendant argued that the difference in buffer structure avoided infringement.
2. Hengda Automation displayed the same type of sorting equipment at two national logistics equipment exhibitions, distributed printed product catalogues marked with product parameters, and continuously released product introduction and quotation information on a domestic industrial B2B platform. The notary office completed on-site video recording and webpage screenshot notarization. Up to the date of litigation, the defendant had manufactured more than 40 sets of infringing equipment, and 17 sets had been delivered to downstream logistics enterprises.
3. After Sage Intelligent issued a formal cease-and-desist letter attached with the patent certificate and technical comparison report in July 2023, Hengda Automation only suspended online information updates for 18 days, then re-published product promotional materials and continued manufacturing new equipment. During the trial, Hengda Automation raised two main defenses: first, the buffer component adopted a different structural form, and the technical scheme was not identical or equivalent to the patented technology; second, exhibition display and online information release were only promotional behaviors, and no formal sales contract was signed, which did not constitute offering for sale. Both defenses were rejected by the court.
The court conducted a detailed technical comparison and held:The split spring buffer assembly adopted by the defendant uses substantially identical transmission and buffering means to realize the adaptive vibration reduction and position adjustment functions of the sorting mechanism, and achieves substantially identical operational effects. A person ordinarily skilled in the logistics machinery field can conceive this alternative structure without creative labor. The difference only lies in the simple transformation of component assembly form and belongs to equivalent feature, so the accused technical scheme falls within the patent protection scope.
The judge clarified that offering for sale is an independent infringement act under the Patent Law. Publicly displaying products at exhibitions, publishing detailed technical parameters and quotations on commercial platforms all express the intention to conclude sales contracts with unspecified purchasers. Completion of actual transactions is not a constituent condition. Therefore, Hengda’s exhibition and online promotion constituted offering for sale.
The defendant continued manufacturing and public promotion after receiving the cease-and-desist notice, which proved obvious subjective fault and was taken as an aggravating factor when determining compensation.
After comprehensively weighing the inventive height of the invention patent, production scale, infringement duration and reasonable rights-protection expenses including notarization fees, technical appraisal fees and attorney fees, the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court rendered the judgment:
1. Order Hengda Automation Technology Co., Ltd. to immediately stop manufacturing, offering for sale and selling infringing intelligent sorting conveyor equipment, and destroy all existing semi-finished products, finished infringing equipment and dedicated production tooling.
2. Hengda Automation shall compensate Sage Intelligent Equipment Co., Ltd. for economic losses and reasonable rights-protection expenses totaling RMB 2.12 million.
3. All litigation fees and technical feature appraisal fees shall be borne by the defendant.
1. Simply replacing the assembly form of partial components cannot avoid equivalent infringement liability if the core functional technical features of the invention patent are reproduced.
2. Exhibition display, B2B platform product promotion and catalogue distribution all constitute offering for sale under the Patent Law; enterprises cannot rely on the absence of concluded sales contracts to evade liability.
3. After receiving a patent cease-and-desist letter, continuous production and publicity will be recognized as aggravated subjective fault, leading to higher statutory compensation.
4. Before launching new industrial equipment, enterprises shall conduct comprehensive patent retrieval and risk analysis to prevent equivalent infringement risks caused by simple structural substitution.
1. Manufacturers mistakenly believe that partial structural replacement of components will not constitute patent infringement, ignoring the application of the equivalent infringement principle.
2. Enterprises underestimate the legal risk of exhibition display and online product promotion, mistakenly believing that only completed sales constitute patent infringement.
3. After receiving patent infringement notifications, enterprises only temporarily suspend information updates instead of thoroughly stopping manufacturing and promotion.
4. R&D teams only carry out literal comparison and ignore equivalent feature analysis during pre-launch patent risk evaluation.
1. WIPO WIPOLEX Full English Consolidated Text of the 2020 Revised PatentLawofthePeople’sRepublicofChina: https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/legislation/details/21027
2.CNIPAOfficialNationalPatentInquirySystemPortal: https://cpquery.cponline.cnipa.gov.cn
3. China Judgments Online National Patent Infringement Judgment Retrieval Platform: https://wenshu.court.gov.cn
4. Supreme People’s Court Intellectual Property Court Patent Judicial Interpretation and Guiding Cases: https://enipc.court.gov.cn
