http://www.rqlianlunc.com/news/372.html http://www.rqlianlunc.com/news/123.html http://www.rqlianlunc.com/news/106.html http://www.rqlianlunc.com/news/364.html http://www.rqlianlunc.com/news/367.html

真人百家乐娱乐好玩吗,澳盈88信誉,瑞丰国际备用网

2016-07-26 10:28:21 首页    参与评论310人

     婚前公公说不会麻烦我们,结果一结婚就各种亲戚的事,生了女儿不给帮忙,才50多点就要把所有家务事给我做,回去一趟累的很,却不让儿子动手做家务,说是男人不能干这些,我现在还得想着给他们在城市买个房子,要是城里公婆就不会有这么大压力了,说出来都是我年轻时太天真,以为农村人厚道,其实不是,是很封建,对女人很低看,城乡观念的差别是矛盾的根源,他们没有在城市生活过,觉对不考虑儿子媳妇的难处,一味的刁难和提他们的要求,刚结婚时竟然要求我们把一半工资给他们,让我们用剩下的一千元钱生活,我当时因为觉的他们是农村可怜,抵制我多么好的妻子啊,为什么人的反差那么大,我得了肾衰竭才一年多,也才半年多没上班,妻子对我的冷漠,最主要她太看重钱了,到目前也没欠多少钱啊,一说到钱,她就叫我去死,真的死的心都有了,唉……这男人有精神病吧,29岁还是究研学历爱上一个四十多岁的女人

     我身为长春人,深深的爱着这里。可以有些事不是让别人明白,理解,只要你做到了,人家自然能看到,为什么非要说出来。你要是经济发展超过浙江,江苏,没人说你这些那些。东北人!加油吧!希望每天省政府门口少几个告状的。你把坏人打伤了或死了,你还得但责.

     好感动,我的一个女儿也送到了河北易县,生于农历二千年十一月二十三日十点四十八生,现在也十六岁了,我从来没有见过面,那边的名字叫柴苗苗,不知道柴苗苗知道不知道自己是抱养的不

       看到永强这样子,我们心里都有点不好受,如果犯傻的人是谢广坤就好了。期待乡9把真情继续演下去。在美国东海岸的小伙伴都收到了 给家里的却了无音信 想家了。。本人就是喜欢不段的尝试。成功者、必须承受无数次失败、经过时间的磨练方能懂得用之之道

       南无阿弥陀佛 南无阿弥陀佛 南无阿弥陀佛 南无阿弥陀佛 南无阿弥陀佛 南无阿弥陀佛 南无阿弥陀佛 南无阿弥陀佛 南无阿弥陀佛 南无阿弥陀佛 南无阿弥陀佛 南无阿弥陀佛 南无阿弥陀佛 南无阿弥陀佛 南无阿弥陀佛 南无阿弥陀佛 南无阿弥陀佛 南无阿弥陀佛 南无阿弥陀佛 南无阿弥陀佛 南无阿弥陀佛 南无阿弥陀佛 南无阿弥陀佛 南无阿弥陀佛 南无阿弥陀佛 南无阿弥陀佛 南无阿弥陀佛 南无阿弥陀佛 南无阿弥陀佛 南无阿弥陀佛 南无阿弥陀佛 南无阿弥陀佛 南无阿弥陀佛 南无阿弥陀佛 南无阿弥陀佛 南无阿弥陀佛 南无阿重庆荣昌人民发来贺电,祝福川队再接再厉赢下辽宁拳击队~宇宙智能生物研究所 中国UFO基地

     没有人觉得凤凤其实在他家也没人关心没人爱吗?说是帮忙照顾孩子,其实就是被当小保姆使唤吧,照顾不好还得挨打,离家出走一夜没回家养父也没管也没去找啊关键是没人管,可是咱大天朝有庞大的医监部门,它们拿着很高的俸禄什么事也不做。第一,觉得袁梦没能来很可惜,林真的就那么看不起袁梦吗?而且不要人家就算了,还说“木桶效应”,说不允许有失败的因素存在,袁梦挑战成功,而且也愿意再接受挑战检测,我很不明白为什么林建东都没让袁梦参加国际挑战赛就说人家是失败的因素,替袁梦可惜,因为林建东对袁梦的说辞替袁梦抱不平;第二、国人把胜负看太重了,林建东 申一帆 还有好多好多人 带着太多的别的情绪来看节目看比赛了,最开始我以为这只是一个让大家看到人的潜力无极限的节目,现在觉得火药味重得已经快要盖过节目本身了,只是竞技,赢了大家会感叹大脑的神奇,输了也不会

     尊敬老人必须的!可是很多老不死的超级不要脸,见过得举手要规范而不是禁止,有市场必然是有需求,出现问题只会一味地禁止社会怎么能够进步啊这就是三十多年改革开放的结果,人们由道德向金钱快速转变的一个过程和缩影。其实,还是有很多人想施救的,只是,怕惹麻烦而已……

     我现在终于知道了,一定要嫁给爱自己比我爱他多得多的人。

    

国内新闻 国外新闻 实时评论 友情链接
娱乐城开户送钱 2016-07-26
投注平台网 2014-07-26
博彩网站 2016-07-26
网络博彩群 2014-07-26
合乐娱乐 2016-07-26
多乐彩大赢家 2013-07-26
CHINT v. SCHNEIDER on Patent Infringement --- China Intellectual Property



CHINT v. SCHNEIDER on Patent Infringement

2008-2-1Harry Yang, China IP,[Patent]

A first-instance judgment rendered by the Wenzhou Intermediate People's Court on September 26, 2007 ordered defendant SCHNEIDER Electric Low Voltage (Tianjin) Co., Ltd. (SELV) - a joint venture of SCHNEIDER Electric – to pay RMB 330 million in damages to Chinese plaintiff, CHINT, labeling it the "No. 1 Case of Patent Infringement in China". Rarely in China, do awards in patent cases exceed RMB10 million. Generally, compensation ranges in the hundreds of thousands RMB or less. In the Provisions Regarding Law Application in Cases concerning Patent Disputes from the Supreme People's Court it provides that a maximum of RMB 500,000  in damages may be given where the loss incurred by the infringed or the benefit received by the infringer is difficult to determine, and no patent royalties can be referenced. Consequently, the case has caught the attention of people everywhere. EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson at the E.U.-China Summit 2007 said, "I regard the SCHNEIDER case as a test case of the level playing field in China on intellectual property protection that we want to see".

As one of the largest producers and sellers of electrical apparatuses for industrial use in China, the CHINT Group leads the electrical transmission and distribution industries in the nation, with assets over RMB 5 billion and sales income in 2006 of RMB 18 billion. SELV is an equity joint venture established by SCHNEIDER Electric. The parent company is a multinational company incorporated in France, and listed as one of the World's Top 500 organizations, with the core business in electrical distribution, automation, and control. SCHNEIDER entered China in 1979 with a current investment totaling RMB 5 billion.

A "miniature low-voltage circuit breaker", is the patented product in dispute. It is a regular air switch widely used in the building industry and civil residences, which has replaced the traditional fuse. SCHNEIDER launched its Merlin Gerin mini circuit breaker C45 in Europe in the 1980s. The next generation C60 was introduced in China in 1993. Chinese manufacturers of miniature low-voltage circuit breaker include the CHINT Group (incorporated in 1984), DELIXI Group, and China People Electric Appliance Group, among others.

It was alleged that the fast-closing contact mechanism (FCCM), included in the mini circuit breaker C65 of SCHNEIDER, had encroached on a CHINT utility model patent. However, according to Chu Yuansheng, legal counsel for SCHNEIDER, "the company (SCHNEIDER) began to sell the C60 products in Europe since 1991, which contained a few inventions (see Figure 1) including FCCM for the first time. In December 1996, it had the improvement patent of the C60 registered in France (FR9616151), with attached figures indicating the technical scheme of FCCM. At the end of 1997, it also applied for a patent for the improvement invention in the C60 in China (No. 97125489.3), claiming the priority date to be December 23, 1996. In 1999, SELV was authorized to use the improvement patent in the C60 and produce the mini circuit breaker C65."

The case is only one of the several actions between CHINT and SCHNEIDER. SCHNEIDER has filed nearly 20 law suits against CHINT since 1993. The case in point is deemed as a response from CHINT. "SCHNEIDER proposed to acquire 80%, 51% and 50% of the CHINT equities in 1994, 1998 and 2004, which were all rejected by CHINT", said Xu Zhiwu, legal counsel for CHINT. "SCHNEIDER would sue CHINT in any country for infringement every time it was refused by CHINT. The lawsuit does not mean that CHINT is the real infringer, and the intellectual property right has been used by the multinational company as a weapon to contain or press CHINT so that CHINT agrees to the acquisition. Finding CHINT unsubdued, SCHNEIDER moves to obstruct CHINT products from being published or sold in the market, with an end to eradicate the Chinese leading player in the electric industry. For instance, SCHNEIDER had ‘SCHINT' registered maliciously in 1999 in France, Russia, Brazil, etc., over ten countries in all, soon after CHINT had ‘CHINT' registered as a trademark in 1998. This is a good indication of SCHNEIDER to contain and press CHINT. Failing to acquire CHINT, SCHNEIDER turned to Delixi Group - another low-voltage appliance manufacturer in China – to establish Delixi Electric on November 16, 2007. SCHNEIDER and Delixi each hold 50% of the equities in the new joint venture with the total investment of RMB 1.8 billion."

The background of the case is complicated. China IP has collected information from both parties including the following facts:

Since 2004, SCHNEIDER has filed nearly 20 patent-related lawsuits against a number of CHINT products in Germany, Italy, France, and other countries in Europe. Several are still being litigated. Among them, 

March 2005: SCHNEIDER filed a lawsuit against CHINT for patent infringement with a German court CHINT filed an answer and cross complaint to invalidate the SCHNEIDER patent with the Federal Patent Court. The Federal Patent Court declared the Schneider patent void and the action was soon withdrawn by SCHNEIDER.

November 2005: SCHNEIDER filed a lawsuit against CHINT claiming design patent infringement with a court in Venice, Italy. CHINT answered. SCHNEIDER later withdrew the action.

March 2006: SCHNEIDER filed a complaint against CHINT on three counts patent infringement. The judgments given by the Tribunal de Grande Instance (first instance) and the Appellate Court Paris (second instance) rejected the allegations SCHNEIDER and ordered it to compensate CHINT for losses. The case is still under appeal. The Tribunal de Grande Instance ordered SCHNEIDER to pay Euro 10,000 in damages to CHINT. The award was increased to Euro 15,000 by the Paris Appellate Court. The symbolic compensation makes us understand SCHNEIDER's real end - to use the intellectual property right as a weapon and obstruct the publication and distribution of CHINT products in Europe. Although CHINT has won the cases above, it has lost the opportunity of timely entrance into the European market. 

SCHNEIDER has provided the following regarding litigations between the two companies:

SCHNEIDER sued CHINT in 2005 and 2006 for product infringement of Schneider's GV2 switch, Compact molded case switch, LRD thermal relay and mini circuit breaker C60, among others. The court in Venice, Italy issued a provisional injunction against the alleged infringing products of CHINT. The Appellate Court Düsseldorf also issued a provisional injunction against all alleged infringing products by CHINT, and affirmed the allegation in the first and second-instance trial regarding some of the alleged infringing products. The Supreme Court of Paris has been hearing a case regarding CHINT's alleged infringement of three patents concerning SCHNEIDER'S C60 products.

1. Two rulings in France: the court of first instance and the court of appeal reject SCHNEIDER's application for interim injunctions on NB1-63 mini circuit breaker (or the imitation of the C60). Statistically about 80% of interim injunction applications would be rejected. Presently, the case in point is being tried by the Paris Court of First Instance.

2. One judgment in Germany: the Federal Patent Court decides that a patent relating to GV2 is void (however, the same court determined the patent as valid in another case between SCHNEIDER and Siemens. The patent was also declared valid by SIPO of China). Now the case has been brought to the Supreme Court.

Certainly a Chinese court of law should determine patent infringement on the basis of the current laws and regulations and whether intellectual property rights have been used to compete against potential competitors. Regarding the case at bar, the first-instance judgment from the intermediate court of Wenzhou focused mostly on three points in dispute:

1. Whether SCHNEIDER may use earlier implementation as a defense

The first-instance judgment holds that although it is not explicitly provided in law, the defense on account of earlier implementation of a patent may be admissible since such a defense has the same jurisprudential basis as the prior art defense; the standard on novelty in the patent examination directive should be applied to determine on the technical content disclosed in the earlier patent application as a comparative document; and SCHNEIDER's defense of earlier implementation cannot sustain itself because the earlier patent (ZL97125489.3) does not disclose all the technical features of the alleged infringing product corresponding to the patented technical scheme.

2. Whether the alleged infringing product falls under patent protection

The first-instance judgment holds that for the "locking paw" as stated by SELV, alias "rocking arm" as in the Patent Claim, the alleged infringing product includes the technical features in Claim 1 and 2; for the "resilient tadpole-shaped piece which accumulates energy and resets elastically" as stated by SELV, which is a curved limiter, the alleged infringing product includes the technical features in Claim 2 regarding the curved limiter; for the "closing arm" as stated by SELV, which is a contact support, the alleged infringing product includes the technical features in Claim 1 and 2; to sum up, the infringing product is found to include all the necessary features in Claim 1 and 2 and falls into the protection for the utility model.

3. The amount of compensation

The first-instance judgment holds that the commercial facts of SELV be used to calculate the profit of SELV from the infringement, as SELV does not provide the cost book; the amount of compensation is determined to be RMB 355,939,206.25 on account of the operating profit of SELV from August 2, 2004 until July 31, 2006; since this amount is higher than that claimed by CHINT which is RMB 334,869,872, RMB 334,869,872 is awarded.

The judgment of first instance has been appealed to the Higher Court of Zhejiang Province. Because of the complexity and the wide attention to the case. The second-instance trial may prove to be costly in time. The first-instance judgment, has brought several disputed legal issues to the surface, including;  the suspension of judicial proceedings involving utility model infringement because of patent invalidation, the grade jurisdiction for patent infringement involving subject matter in a large volume, technical comparison and questions for the defense of earlier implementation, and the compensation amount for utility model infringement. With these questions in mind, we invite lawyers from law firms globally to comment.

                                                                                      (Translated by Ren Qingtao)

Member Message


Only our members can leave a message,so please register or login.

International IP Firms
Inquiry and Assessment

Article Search

Keywords:

People watch

Online Survey

In your opinion, which is the most important factor that influences IP pledge loan evaluation?

Control over several core technologies for one product by different right owners
Stability of ownership of the pledge
Ownership and effectiveness of the pledge