1. Where a technical feature in the claim of a patent has defined or implied the specific structure, components, steps, conditions, or relations between them, even if the technical feature also defines the function or effect that it realizes, the technical feature is not the functional feature as mentioned in Article 8 of the Interpretation (II) of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Patent Infringement Dispute Cases.

2. In a judicial proceeding for patent infringement, an injunction ordering the cessation of the alleged patent infringement has independent values. Where a party has applied for both an injunction ordering cessation of the alleged infringement and an interlocutory judgment on cessation of infringement, and the people's court deems it necessary to enter an interlocutory judgment on cessation of infringement, the people's court should concurrently examine the application for an injunction; and if the conditions for an injunction are met, should enter a ruling in a timely manner.

Article 59 of the Patent Law of the People's Republic of China

Article 153 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China

In 2016, Valeo Systemes d'Essuyage (hereinafter referred to as “Valeo”), as the patentee of the invention involved, “wiper connectors for motor vehicles and corresponding connecting devices,” with the patent still being in the protection period, filed a lawsuit with the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court, alleging that the wiper products manufactured, sold, and offered for sale by Xiamen Lukasi Automobile Parts Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Lukasi Company”) and Xiamen Fuke Automobile Parts Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Fuke Company”) without permission and those manufactured and sold by Chen Shaoqiang without permission fell within the protection scope of its patent. Valeo requested the court to order Lukasi Company, Fuke Company, and Chen Shaoqiang to cease infringement and compensate the plaintiff for losses and reasonable expenses on stopping the infringement in a temporary amount of 6 million yuan, and also requested the court to enter an interlocutory judgment ordering Lukasi Company, Fuke Company, and Chen Shaoqiang to immediately cease infringement upon the patent involved. In addition, Valeo applied for an interim injunction, requesting the court to rule that Lukasi Company, Fuke Company, and Chen Shaoqiang should immediately cease the infringement.

On January 22, 2019, the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court entered an interlocutory judgment, ordering Lukasi Company and Fuke Company to cease any infringement upon the patent involved immediately from the effective date of the judgment. Lukasi Company and Fuke Company appealed the judgment to the Supreme People's Court. On March 27, 2019, the Supreme People's Court tried this case in open court, and entered a civil judgment (No. 2 [2019], Final, Intellectual Property, SPC), which was pronounced in court, to dismiss the appeal and uphold the original judgment.

In the opinion of the Supreme People's Court:

I. Whether the technical feature that “the said safety clasp is extended in the said closed position by facing the said locking component to prevent the elastic deformation of the said locking component and lock the said connector” was a functional feature and whether the alleged infringing product had the aforesaid feature

First, whether the aforesaid technical feature was a functional feature: A functional feature was a technical feature that defined the structure, components, steps, conditions, or relations between them by the function or effect to be achieved by it in the invention rather than directly defined the structure, components, steps, conditions, or relations between them in the invention's technical solution. Where a technical feature had limited or implied the specific structure, components, steps, conditions, or relations between them in the invention's technical solution, even if the technical feature also limited the function or effect to be achieved, in general, it was not a functional feature as mentioned in Article 8 of the Interpretation (II) of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Patent Infringement Dispute Cases and should not be regarded as a functional feature for infringement comparison. The aforesaid technical feature had actually limited the positional relations of the safety clasp and the locking component and implied the specific structure: “the said safety clasp is extended … by facing the said locking component,” and the functions of the positions and structure were “preventing the elastic deformation of the said locking component and locking the said connector.” Based on the positional and structural relations and in light of the specification and drawings of the patent involved, especially the statement in paragraph [0056] of the specification that “the locking of the connect is guaranteed by the internal surface of the vertical side walls of the clasp, and the internal surface is extended along the outer surface of the claw. In this way, the clasp prevents lateral deformation of the claw out of the connector, and the connector cannot free itself from the hook end,” persons having ordinary skill in the art may comprehend that “the said safety clasp is extended … by facing the said locking component.” The effect of preventing the elastic deformation of the locking component and locking the connector may be achieved, provided that the distance between the extension and the external surface of the locking component was small enough. As one may see, the aforesaid technical feature defined not only the specific positions and structure but also the functions of such positions and structure. Only when the positions and structure were comprehended in combination with their functions may the specific content of such positions and structure be clearly determined. Although this technical feature of “positions or structure + functional description” was a description of the function, it remained to be a feature of positions or structure in nature rather than a functional feature as mentioned in Article 8 of the Interpretation (II) of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Patent Infringement Dispute Cases.

Second, whether the alleged infringing product had the aforesaid technical feature: The aforesaid technical feature in claim 1 of the patent involved not only defined the positional and structural relations of the safety clasp and the locking component but also described the function of the safety clasp, and such function played a defining role in determining the positional and structural relations of the safety clasp and the locking component. The aforesaid technical feature was not a functional feature. The definition of positional and structural relations and the definition of function should be both taken into consideration in the determination of infringement. In this case, there was a pair of bumps vertical to the side wall on the internal surface of both side walls of the safety clasp of the alleged infringing product. When the safety clasp was in the closed position, the bumps on the side walls faced the external surface of the elastic component, which may produce the effects of restricting the deformed opening of the elastic component, locking the elastic component, and preventing the wiper arm from ejecting from the elastic component. When the safety clasp of the alleged infringing product was in the closed position, the bumps vertical to the side walls on the internal surface of both side walls of the safety clasp faced the external surface of the elastic deformation, which was a form of “the said safety clasp is extended … by facing the said locking component” as mentioned in claim 1 of the patent involved and may also realize the function of “preventing the elastic deformation of the said locking component and locking the said connector.” Therefore, the alleged infringing product had the aforesaid technical feature and fell within the protection scope in claim 1 of the patent involved. On the basis of affirming the aforesaid feature as a functional feature, the court of first instance determined that the alleged infringing product had a technical feature identical with the aforesaid feature. Although the comparison methods and conclusions were different to some extent, the resulting infringement determination was not affected.

II. Specific handling of the application for an interim injunction in this case

The special circumstance requiring consideration in this case was that although the court of first instance had entered an interlocutory judgment ordering cessation of infringement, because the judgment had not taken effect, the patentee insisted on applying for an injunction in the original trial. The court of second instance may handle the injunction application by taking into account of the following circumstances: Where the patentee applied for an injunction in case of urgency or when any other damage may occur, but the court of second instance could not enter a final judgment within the time limit for handling the injunction application, the court of second instance should separately handle the injunction application and enter a ruling in a timely manner according to the law; and if the conditions for an injunction were met, should take the injunction measure in a timely manner. Since the original judgment had affirmed the infringement, the court of second instance may examine the injunction application on the basis of the facts of the case and should not require the provision of security. If the court of second instance could enter a final judgment within the time limit for handling the injunction application, it may enter the judgment in a timely manner and reject the injunction application. In this case, Valeo insisted on applying for an interim injunction ordering Lukasi Company and Fuke Company to cease infringement upon the patent involved, but the evidence submitted by Valeo was insufficient to prove the occurrence of any urgency that may cause damage to it. As the Supreme People's Court entered a judgment in court, which has since taken effect, it was unnecessary to enter another ruling to order Lukasi Company and Fuke Company to cease infringement upon the patent involved. Therefore, Valeo's application for an interim injunction should not be supported.

(Judges of the effective judgment: Luo Dongchuan, Wang Chuang, Zhu Li, Xu Zhuobin, and Ren Xiaolan)