Resources
Apr 21,2020
Express n° 8 Case: PT ∣ SPC Revives 3.59 Million Award Upon the Finding of Making, Selling and Offering to Sell Infringing Product
Total word count:1289
The Supreme People’s Court of PRC (“SPC”) overturned a Beijing High People’s Court’s decision, and ruled in the final judgement that Qingdao DEX Machinery Co., Ltd. (“DEX”) shall compensate 3.608 million yuan damages for making, offering to sell, and selling a mixer that infringes a Chinese patent owned by Qingdao CO-NELE Machinery Co., Ltd. (“CO-NELE”), one of the best concrete machinery manufactures in China.
The main issue of the case is whether DEX has produced and sold infringing products. The SPC first confirmed that DEX possessed evidence to prove the existence of infringement but refused to provide them when receiving the evidence preservation ruling issued by the Beijing IP Court without any difficulties or reasonable reasons. Therefore, the SPC held that CO-NELE has fulfilled the burden of proof while DEX should bear unfavorable outcomes for its spoliation of evidence.
Besides, the SPC affirmed the fact finding in an effective previous judgement. Since the time of the infringement shown by the evidence in this case, including the news on the hot sales of infringing products on DEX’s website, was close to the time of that previous case, in the absence of counter evidence indicating DEX’s suspension of production, the SPC held that there was high probability that DEX has produced and sold the accused infringing products.
In conclusion, based on DEX’s spoliation of evidence and the presumption of adverse inference, the SPC supported CO-NELE’s damage claim.
The main issue of the case is whether DEX has produced and sold infringing products. The SPC first confirmed that DEX possessed evidence to prove the existence of infringement but refused to provide them when receiving the evidence preservation ruling issued by the Beijing IP Court without any difficulties or reasonable reasons. Therefore, the SPC held that CO-NELE has fulfilled the burden of proof while DEX should bear unfavorable outcomes for its spoliation of evidence.
Besides, the SPC affirmed the fact finding in an effective previous judgement. Since the time of the infringement shown by the evidence in this case, including the news on the hot sales of infringing products on DEX’s website, was close to the time of that previous case, in the absence of counter evidence indicating DEX’s suspension of production, the SPC held that there was high probability that DEX has produced and sold the accused infringing products.
In conclusion, based on DEX’s spoliation of evidence and the presumption of adverse inference, the SPC supported CO-NELE’s damage claim.