20
2025-03
司法智慧破解抽象专利侵权判定与定价难题，无效决定重申确权程序中保护范围方为核心
本案涉及一件题为“一种V‑BY‑ONE信号处理方法及装置”的中国发明专利，保护8K或10K超高分辨率的液晶屏生产过程中对面板进行发光显示检测的技术。2020年，专利权人发现一公司将涉嫌侵权的设备销售给专利权人的同一客户，于是向苏州中院提起诉讼，相应判决在二审（（2022）最高法知民终1226号）后被维持有效。本案在无产品实物的情况下实现了技术特征比对及侵权判定，并确认涉案专利技术在实现专利产品利润中的贡献率进而确认赔偿额。同时，在无效程序中对修改超范围的认定和影响也具有指导意义，值得关注。
This is a Chinese invention patent titled "V-BY-ONE Signal Processing Method and Device", which relates to luminous display inspection technology for panels during the manufacturing of 8K or 10K ultra-high-resolution LCD screens. In 2020, the patent holder discovered that a company was selling a piece of equipment that may fall within the patent protection scope to an important client of the patent holder. Consequently, the patent holder filed a lawsuit with the Suzhou Intermediate People's Court. In this infringement lawsuit, the determination of whether an infringement occurred was achieved through technical feature comparison in the absence of physical product samples. Meanwhile, the determination of the contribution rate of the involved patent technology in realizing the profit of the patented product, and the recognition and impact of amendments beyond the scope during the invalidation process, all have guiding significance.
（1）无产品实物的技术特征比对及侵权判定
Technical Feature Comparison and Infringement Determination in the Absence of Physical Products
涉嫌侵权产品属于定制产品，原告无法通过市场渠道取得可用于取证的实体产品。而且，涉案专利技术系以软件形式实现的技术方案，通过软件加载至硬件设备的方式实施，直接技术特征比对较为困难。本案中，原告采取现场实验验证的举证策略，结合操作手册及被告同型号产品的专利申请文件，成功完成与涉案专利的技术特征比对。最终，法院认定侵权成立。
The suspected infringing product was a custom-made product, and the plaintiff could not purchase a physical product for evidence from the market. Additionally, the patented technology is a software-based solution embedded in programmable logic devices, not a tangible and perceivable object, and is implemented in actual applications in the form of software loading onto hardware. How to present and cross-examine evidence became a challenge in this case. The plaintiff adopted a solution of conducting experiments at the buyer's site, supplemented with operation manuals and patent documents applied for by the defendant for the same model, etc. to achieve a comparison with the involved patent and ultimately confirm the infringement.
（2）合理利润及实际损失的确定
Determination of Reasonable Profit and Actual Damages
关于赔偿金额的计算，《最高人民法院关于审理专利纠纷案件适用法律问题的若干规定》第十四条规定：“专利法第六十五条规定的权利人因被侵权所受到的实际损失可以根据专利权人的专利产品因侵权所造成销售量减少的总数乘以每件专利产品的合理利润所得之积计算。权利人销售量减少的总数难以确定的，侵权产品在市场上销售的总数乘以每件专利产品的合理利润所得之积可以视为权利人因被侵权所受到的实际损失。”
Article 14 of the "Several Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Applying the Law in Adjudicating Patent Disputes" stipulates: "The actual loss suffered by the right holder due to the infringement as stipulated in Article 65 of the Patent Law can be calculated by multiplying the total number of the right holder's patent products reduced in sales due to the infringement by the reasonable profit of each patent product. If it is difficult to determine the total number of the right holder's patent products reduced in sales, the total number of the infringing products sold in the market multiplied by the reasonable profit of each patent product can be regarded as the actual loss suffered by the right holder due to the infringement."
本案中，法院采用四元计算模型：实际损失=侵权产品销量A×专利产品单价B×合理利润率C×专利技术贡献率D。双方对侵权产品的销售数量A（260套）并无争议，产品单价B（124,000元/套）和专利产品利润率C（36.08%）分别依据原告公开数据确定。而在确定专利技术对专利产品增量价值的贡献率D时：
In this case, since both parties had no dispute over the sales quantity A (260 sets) of the infringing product, how to determine the reasonable profit E became the focus of the case. The judge pointed out that the selling price B of the entire testing system as the patented product should be used as the basis for calculation, and the reasonable profit E for each patented product should be accurately determined by multiplying the selling price B of the patented product by the profit margin C of the patented product and the contribution rate D of the patented technology to the actual damages of the patented product. Since the plaintiff is a listed company, the product selling price B (124,000 yuan/set) and the profit margin C of the patented product (36.08%) were determined based on disclosed information. In determining the contribution rate D of the patented technology to the actual damages of the patented product, a two-step method is adopted. First presuming a baseline contribution rate based on signal quantity, then adjusting it via comprehensive factors :
基准贡献率的推定：根据产品支持的信号数量来推定每种信号在实现整体产品利润中的基准贡献率。本案中，专利产品及被诉侵权产品都可支持包括V-BY-ONE在内的三种信号检测，在未对每种信号检测方法进行价值评估的情况下，推定按照每种信号各占1/3的比例确定单种信号检测方法在实现整体产品利润中的基准贡献率。
Baseline Contribution Rate: The baseline contribution rate of each type of signal to the overall product profit is inferred based on the number of signals supported by the product. In this case, both the patented product and the accused infringing product can support three types of signal testing, including V-BY-ONE. Without evaluating the value of each signal testing method, it is presumed that each signal testing method contributes 1/3 to the overall product profit.
基准贡献率的校正：适用综合要素分析法，对根据第一步推定的基准贡献率进行校正。涉案专利为发明专利且剩余有效期较长，专利技术创新程度较高，专利技术相对于现有技术具有较为明显的技术优势和技术效果，整机产品因专利技术产生的盈利能力强等因素，可以确定涉案专利技术在实现产品整体利润中所发挥的贡献应高于其他两种信号检测方法。最终，法院全面衡量各要素校正后确定，涉案专利技术在实现专利产品利润中的贡献率D为55%。
Correction of Baseline Contribution Rate: The comprehensive element analysis method is applied to adjust the baseline contribution rate inferred in the first step. The involved patent is an invention with a long remaining validity period, a high degree of technical innovation, and a significant technical advantage and effect compared to existing technologies. The profitability of the entire product due to the patented technology is strong. Therefore, it can be determined that the contribution of the involved patented technology to the overall product profit should be higher than the other two signal testing methods. Ultimately, the court comprehensively weighed all factors and determined that the contribution rate D of the involved patented technology to the profit of the patented product is 55%.
最终，法官认定的原告因侵权行为的实际损失为：
A×B×C×D=260×124,000×36.08%×55%=6,397,706元
Finally, the actual damages of the plaintiff due to the infringement behavior recognized by the judge is A × B × C × D = 260 × 124,000 × 36.08% × 55% = 6,397,706 yuan.
（3）说明书的超范围修改对权利有效性的影响
Impact of Amendments Beyond Scope in the Specification on Patent Validity
专利法第第三十三条规定：申请人可以对其专利申请文件进行修改，但是，对发明和实用新型专利申请文件的修改不得超出原说明书和权利要求书记载的范围，对外观设计专利申请文件的修改不得超出原图片或者照片表示的范围。
According to Article 33, an applicant may amend his or its patent application, however, the amendment to the patent application for an invention or utility model may not go beyond the scope of disclosure contained in the original description and claims, and the amendment to the patent application for a design may not go beyond the scope of the disclosure as shown in the original drawings or photographs.
在应对诉讼时，被告对涉案专利发起了两轮的无效请求，都以维持专利全部有效告终。值得关注的是第二个无效请求审查。专利授权后，专利权人对说明书进行了两处类似的修改，其中一处将“V-BY-ONE信号源为4个V-BY-ONE信号处理装置分别发送4lane 10K的V-BY-ONE源图像信号”修改为“V-BY-ONE信号源为4个V-BY-ONE信号处理装置分别发送4lane 5K的V-BY-ONE源图像信号”。对于这两处修改，合议组认为它们都不满足专利法第33条的规定，属于超范围的修改。但是，合议组认为，“由于说明书修改超范围的内容不影响权利要求的保护范围的确定”，维持了涉案专利全部有效。
The defendant made two separate Invalidation Requests, both of which concluded with the patent being fully valid. Notably, the second Invalidation Request is worth noting. After the patent was granted, the patent holder made two similar amendments to the description, one of which was to change "V-BY-ONE signal source sends 4lane 10K V-BY-ONE source image signal to 4 V-BY-ONE signal processing devices" to "V-BY-ONE signal source sends 4lane 5K V-BY-ONE source image signal to 4 V-BY-ONE signal processing devices." The Board found that neither of these amendments met the requirements of Article 33 of the Patent Law. However, the Board believed that "the amendments beyond the scope in the disclosure did NOT affect the determination of the protection scope of the claims," and the patent remained valid.
这一决定具有一定的指导意义，明确了专利无效审查中的"保护范围核心论"审查标准，强调了在专利无效程序中，说明书的修改是否影响权利要求保护范围的确定是判断专利有效性的关键因素，这对于今后类似案件的审理和专利权人的专利管理都具有重要的参考价值。
This judgment has significant guiding significance, emphasizing that in the invalidation procedure of patents, whether the amendments in the description affect the determination of the scope of protection of the claims is the key factor in determining whether the patent is valid. This has important reference value for the adjudication of similar cases in the future and the patent management of patent holders.
作者：冯尚杰
creatorip,创元专利
暂无数据
关注我们
