Second instance on patent infringement dispute between Shimano Inc. and Chinese company held in Tianjin

On March 5, the Tianjin Higher People's Court held the second instance on the patent infringement case between Japanese Shimano Inc. and a Chinese bicycle company in Cixi of Zhejiang Province.

On 31 February 1994, Shimano Inc. filed an application for a patent for invention named "Rear Changer Device" which was granted with the patent right on 30 August 2006. In January 2007, at the 7th China North International Cycle Show held in Tianjin, Shimano Inc. suspected that the rear changer device for the bicycle manufactured by the defendant infringed its patent right. Then Shimano Inc. filed an application for conservation of evidence and bought two sets of the infringing rear changer device at the Tianjin office of the defendant.

The plaintiff held that the technical features of the defendant's product fell into the scope of protection of its patent for invention and infringed its patent right. Therefore, the plaintiff requested the defendant to stop the infringement and make compensation.

According to the first instance court, there was high probability, showed by the plaintiff's evidence, that the involving rear changer device for bicycle was manufactured and sold by the defendant. Comparing the technical features of the defendant's product with those of the plaintiff's patented technology, the court held that all the technical features of the defendant's product fell into the scope of protection of the plaintiff's patent. The first instance court, therefore, ruled that the defendant should stop manufacturing, selling or offering to sell the infringing products, destroy the infringing products in storage as well as the mould for manufacturing the infringing products, and compensate RMB 110,000 to the plaintiff.

The defendant refused to accept the first instance judgment and appealed to the Tianjin Higher People's Court. The appellant stated that, since the appellee did not have enough evidence to prove the appellant's infringing act, the court should not base the judgment on the "preponderance of evidence." The court did not announce the judgment after the trial.