Textile companies in the Yangtze River Delta encounter patent litigation, and 300,000 workers in 200 companies may be implicated
Shen Feng, the general manager of the printing and dyeing branch of Changshu Pigeon Ball Printing and Dyeing Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Pigeon Ball Printing and Dyeing”), has recently been troubled by a lawsuit.
In October, Veken Holding Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Veken Holdings”) sued Suzhou Intermediate People’s Government for “using its patented technology to produce and sell coral fleece blankets without permission.” The People’s Court required it to immediately stop producing the allegedly infringing products and compensate for losses of 5 million yuan. It is understood that in addition to pigeon ball printing and dyeing, many companies in Changzhou, Shanghai and other places were also sued by Veken Holdings. A relevant person from Veco Holdings who is responsible for the lawsuit told reporters that this is just a batch of approvals and does not rule out the possibility of suing more companies.
Zou Jie, president of the Yushan Town Chamber of Commerce in Changshu City, told the “Daily Economic News” that if this patent lawsuit is found to be fact by the court, it will cause a huge blow to more than 200 textile and garment fabric weaving companies in Changshu and surrounding areas. , nearly 300,000 industrial workers face unemployment, and nearly 10 billion market shares will be lost.
Plaintiff: Suing pigeon ball printing and dyeing for patent infringement
On October 8, Veken Holdings claimed that “without the permission of Veken Holdings, for the purpose of profit, it has mass-produced and sold coral fleece blankets that contain or are equivalent to all the technical features claimed in this patent, and sold them in large quantities. , and exported to obtain huge illegal profits, which impacted the market share of Veken Holdings”, the Pigeon Ball Printing and Dyeing was sued to the court. Veken Holdings requested in the lawsuit that Pigeon Ball Printing and Dyeing immediately stop producing and selling the plaintiff’s patented invention product with patent number ZL200510050367.5, and while publicly apologizing, it also compensates the plaintiff for economic losses of 5 million yuan.
In the indictment, Veken Holdings stated that on May 19, 2005, it applied to the State Intellectual Property Office for an invention patent titled “A polyester ultra-fine denier coral fleece blanket and its production method”. In July 2006, It was authorized on March 26, and the patent number is ZL200510050367.5. “As the patentee, the plaintiff pays patent fees on an annual basis. The patent is still within the protection period.”
It is understood that before suing several companies such as Pigeon Ball Printing and Dyeing, Veken Holdings had already won two patent lawsuits. However, the relevant personnel stated that it was “not convenient to disclose the specific amount of the claim and the companies involved.” ” refused to be interviewed.
It is reported that Veken Holdings is an industrial group company with textile as its main business and engaged in the comprehensive development of trade, real estate, energy, and investment. It is a listed company The Essence of Veken[2.24 – 3.86%] (600152)’s major shareholder, holding 24.28% of the shares. Veken Holdings stated that it has invested heavily in the research and development of polyester ultra-fine denier fiber blankets since 2000, and has successfully developed a series of polyester blankets based on 150D/288f (0.5D) polyester porous low-elastic network yarn. The product is cheap and high-quality, bringing huge economic benefits to the company.
Defendant: “This technology has been widely used many years ago”
Shen Feng told reporters that the coral fleece blankets mentioned by Veco Holdings were mass-produced on the market around 2001. Their organizational results are the same as the plush structure, while Dove was produced from the end of 2003 to the beginning of 2004. . “In our view, this is a public technology and is not the exclusive research and development result of Veken Holdings.”
“If Veken Holdings wins the lawsuit, it means that the technology we have used for nearly ten years can no longer be used, or we need to pay a certain fee to produce it. This is obviously monopolistic behavior.” Although he has not yet become a defendant, he has The person in charge of the printing and dyeing enterprise has already felt “bitter and colder”.
According to Shen Feng’s recollection, the products they produced were promoted on some websites at home and abroad in 2003, and they also passed the acceptance inspection of the commodity inspection department when they were exported. In addition, after receiving the lawsuit, they immediately contacted Jiangmen University, the industrial research school involved. Professors from the warp knitting industry at the school expressed objections to the patented technology. Shen Feng said that polyester yarn or polyester-nylon composite yarn with 0.58dtex (0.52D) or below has been developed since 2000. Its uses mainly include blanket veils. Naturally, industry companies can use this new product raw material to maintain maintenance. Ke Holding Group Co., Ltd. used conventional veil raw materials that have long existed in this industry as a product to apply for a patent and litigate, which is essentially an abuse of patent rights.
Peers: Dozens of home textile companies join the support team
Yesterday, a document titled “Initiative and Appeal for Maintaining Fair Competition Order in the Industry” signed by dozens of companies was submitted to industry management departments, administrative agencies and judicial departments at all levels of the industry.
It is reported that the signing units of the initiative are textile industry enterprises in Changshu City and surrounding areas. The initiative points out that “regarding the current malicious patent infringement lawsuits initiated by Veken Holding Group Co., Ltd. against many enterprises in the industry, hereby Issue initiatives and appeals.”
The proposal states that the history of polyester ultra-fine denier coral fleece blanket products is a known fact in the industry. Polyester ultra-fine denier coral fleece blanket products using 167dtex/288f polyester low-elastic network yarn veil specifications were as early as 2001. It is widely manufactured and sold by enterprises in the domestic textile industry (including Veken Holding Group Co., Ltd.). Veken Holding Group Co., Ltd. applied for a patent based on conventional products that have long existed in the industry.It is an act of malicious competition and extremely disrupts the order of fair competition in the industry.
Lawyer: Application for patent invalidation has been filed
Mao Yixing, a lawyer from Jiangsu Zhibang Law Firm who represents Pigeon Ball Printing and Dyeing, said in an interview with the Daily Economic News that a request for patent invalidation has been filed with the Patent Reexamination Committee of the State Intellectual Property Office.
“Next, we will request the trial court to rule to suspend the trial of the case in order to ensure the fairness and justice of the trial of this case, to prevent the malicious litigation purpose from being achieved, and to maintain the stability and order of the industry and society, pending the handling of the patent invalidation case. , we will try again.” Mao Yixing said.
As a lawyer specializing in intellectual property rights, Mao Yixing believes that the textile industry does not belong to the high-tech field, and the lawsuit he came into contact with this time should be a patent litigation case in the textile industry, and the scale of the radiation is unprecedented.
Government Statement
Hundreds of companies may lose their livelihood
Facing the sudden lawsuit, on the 29th, the relevant departments of the Yushan Town Government of Changshu City convened an emergency meeting of relevant enterprises to discuss response measures. Zou Jie, head of the Economic Development Office of the Yushan Town Government, believes that when the industry is facing various production and operation difficulties, Yushan Town expresses strong indignation and displeasure at the above-mentioned behavior of Veken Holdings regardless of the actual development of the Changshu textile and garment industry. strongly oppose.
In her view, if Veken Holdings’ lawsuit is successful, it will form a monopoly on this technology, and a large number of companies in the industry will face suspension of production and bankruptcy. This industry chain in the industry (including blanket fabric manufacturers, blanket Fabric printing and dyeing companies, blanket manufacturing equipment companies, blanket manufacturing companies, sales companies, etc.) will all be severely affected. The unfavorable outcome of this lawsuit may cause hundreds of companies in the industry to directly face huge losses.
“The connection between the upstream and downstream in the textile industry is very dense and fragile. As long as there is a problem in one link, the others will suffer.” Zou Jie said that they will actively seek solutions through local governments and industry associations at all levels. ways to express your demands reasonably. “We will also report the above situation to the State Intellectual Property Office and let them listen to the voices of industry departments.”
Related links
The country’s first malicious intellectual property litigation case
In 2003, relying on a so-called patent, the director of a valve factory in Wujiang City, Jiangsu Province filed a high compensation claim against his peers and requested the court to order his peers to destroy all “infringing” products and production molds. I have been involved in this “litigation” for three years. In 2006, the “factory director”‘s patent was confirmed to be “junk”. The Intellectual Property Tribunal of Nanjing Intermediate People’s Court even determined that the lawsuit was a “malicious lawsuit”. The “factory director” must pay for his malicious behavior and compensate the actual losses of his peers. More than 21,000 yuan.
Wine Industry Intellectual Property Case
A few days ago, the Cabernet trademark case, which has been dubbed the intellectual property case of China’s wine industry, continues to be heard in the Beijing Intermediate People’s Court. The dispute between dozens of wine companies and Changyu over whether “Cabernet” is a common name continues. Although the lawsuit is still ongoing, there are alarming rumors in the market: Once the “Cabernet” trademark is awarded to Changyu, Changyu will monopolize the wine market in this category, which will cause some companies to suffer huge losses. (This article is excerpted from: Phoenix Finance)
AAKY, 7II56U65
Disclaimer:
Disclaimer: Some of the texts, pictures, audios, and videos of some articles published on this site are from the Internet and do not represent the views of this site. The copyrights belong to the original authors. If you find that the information reproduced on this website infringes upon your rights, please contact us and we will change or delete it as soon as possible.
AA
