Type-C docking station adaptive power supply patent protection case

Preface

In recent days, , It was learned from the industry that Shenzhen lederi Technology Co., Ltd. sued a company in Shenzhen for more than a year USB-C Docking station infringement , Finally, the end is drawn .

  The case has gone through two sessions , After mediation presided over by Shenzhen intermediate people's court , The two sides finally reached a settlement , The defendant promises to recommend the plaintiff's patented products to its OEM . This also means that subsequent related foundries will face corresponding legal risks if they do not use the plaintiff's patented chips .

2021 year 3 month , The plaintiff, Shenzhen lederi Technology Co., Ltd., sold on the JD platform as the defendant USB-C The interface docking station infringed the plaintiff's right to 2012 year 1 The invention patent applied for in January 《 An adaptive power supply method 》 citing , A petition appealed the defendant to the Shenzhen intermediate people's court .

Shenzhen lederi Technology Co., Ltd , It is a national high-tech enterprise founded by Shenzhen high-level talent team , It is also the earliest in China to engage in USB PD One of the companies engaged in the research and development of protocol related chips . The charging head network can be known through enterprise query , Liderui technology has 80 Patent information , This includes a large number of and USB-C Interface and USB PD Patents related to the application of the protocol .

among , The longest applied patent is 《 An adaptive power supply method 》, The application time of this patent is , Than USB-C The standard was released more than a year ahead of schedule , Therefore, it has become one of the basic patents of domestic enterprises in the field of intelligent power supply .

at present , The company is located in USB-C Interface controller chip field , With domestic leading advantages . What the company developed USB-C The interface chip products have been successfully obtained by Huawei 、 samsung 、 millet 、 The elite 、 Batch orders of well-known brands at home and abroad, such as MSI .

Affected by the epidemic , One year after the case was accepted , On 2022 year 4 month 24 Japan , The trial was held in the third Hall of Shenzhen intermediate people's court , The presiding judge is a judge who has been granted by the Supreme People's court “ National expert in judicial practice ” Judge zhujianjun, doctor of law . Court trial , Judge Zhu showed a very high level of intellectual property trial , Together with the plaintiff and the defendant, the court thoroughly interpreted the highly complex invention patent and the corresponding relationship between the patent and the plaintiff's evidence .

Facing such a professional judge , The defendant gave up what he had prepared in court “ Prior art defense ”. When the judge asks whether to conduct technical appraisal on the defense patent adduced , The defendant's lawyer made it clear that , Abandon technical qualification . And the plaintiff also through judge Zhu's in-depth interpretation , Further clarify the scope of protection of the patent involved and the key points of proof for the patent .

As a nationally renowned trial expert , Showing admirable professionalism and humility , He expressed his admiration for the entrepreneurs in Shenzhen , And understand the current situation of the two enterprises , Both the plaintiff and the defendant have been asked for their willingness to settle . After all , Under the epidemic , Win win cooperation is the way for enterprises to survive and develop . But because of this trial , The two sides had their first confrontation , Are not ready for reconciliation . therefore , After the morning and afternoon court debates , May the judge announce an adjournment . Give both the plaintiff and the defendant enough time , Further understand and communicate the case .

 

2021 year 5 month 12 Japan , The case was held for the second time . After full preparation during the recess , The two sides once again had a heated debate , Especially about whether the docking station belongs to the distributor .

The defendant held that , The docking station is just a function expansion of the computer , Do not have the characteristics of distributor , The plaintiff held that , In addition to the function expansion of the computer, the docking station , It also distributes power to computers and other external devices in the docking station , And the function of power distribution , In line with the general interpretation of the distributor , And said , The invention is patented , It is the basic patent of mainland enterprises in the field of intelligent power supply , Completely covered USB PD Agreed power supply process , Whether the docking station itself is used as an electrical appliance , Or as a part of electrical appliances , Can not be separated from the scope of protection of this patent .

Judge Zhu also put forward his own opinions on the opinions of both sides . And once again asked the two sides to reconcile . It can be said that for the win-win of the enterprise , I wish the judge has broken his heart . In order to maximize the positive effect of this case , And under the condition that the court resources are scarce , Avoid the case from going to the second instance and the final instance , There was no judgment in court in the second trial .

 

2022 year 5 month 24 Japan , The case has finally come to the best conclusion , Judge Zhu has arranged a mediation court in the third division of Shenzhen intermediate people's court , Let both sides be at peace , Negotiate with a relaxed mind , Not debate . The plaintiff's legal representative communicated directly with the defendant's representative .

The defendant said , Our company doesn't actually produce docking station products , The docking station products sold on JD platform are all commissioned to be produced by the OEM , The defendant company only carries out OEM sales , What the plaintiff claims , Use the plaintiff's patented chip product in the docking station , I have no factory , Unable to execute , But willing to promise , Recommend the plaintiff's patented chip products to its own OEM , And it is not limited to its own OEM , And to my friends , partners , Make recommendations .

After honest communication , The plaintiff also learned more . It took more than a year from filing a lawsuit to holding a court session , The defendant did report to several enterprises in Shenzhen , Including the OEM of the defendant's docking station products , Recommended the plaintiff's patented product , And has made substantial progress , It is a reliable partner of the plaintiff .

This prosecution , In fact, the plaintiff has achieved the purpose of protecting its own patent and product rights . thus , The two sides have reached an agreement on reconciliation . I wish the judge would be happy to see his success , And finished in court 《 Civil conciliation statement 》 Let both parties sign .

summary

Through this case , We can see that , Even in the face of very complex industry segments, basic invention patents , The court is very serious about intellectual property protection , The trial level is very high . Shenzhen intermediate people's court is the senior court of Shenzhen intellectual property cases , I wish the judge such a strong view of the overall situation , At the same time, judges with great attainments in law and intellectual property , It is a strong backing for Shenzhen enterprises in intellectual property protection .

USB-C Docking stations have become laptops 、 One of the most frequently used digital accessories for tablet computers , The market application scenarios of such products are rich , There are many enterprises engaged in the industrial chain .USB-C The first judgment of docking station intellectual property case has been announced , Let the industry pay attention to the intellectual property rights of this category , At the same time, it triggered a heated discussion in the industry .