In a retrial of a patent infringement dispute concerning pile drivers, Mr. Li contested claims by a crane machinery manufacturer, which held the patent for the "PLC control variable frequency pile driver". The manufacturer alleged that the PLC controller in pile drivers made and sold by Mr. Li encroached on its patent rights.

After unfavourable outcomes in both first and second instance trials, Mr. Li engaged Globe-Law Lawyers’ team, headed by Grace Wang Haiyan, to petition for a retrial at the Supreme People's Court of China.

Case challenges

The complexity of the case stemmed from the need for a nuanced understanding of the product's componentry, technical specifications, and the extent of its patent protection. The second instance judgment bench confirmed that the claimant successfully met the initial burden of proof, thereby shifting the burden of proof onto the defendant.

Lawyers from Globe-Law, upon in-depth review of working videos of the pile driver in question, identified significant errors in the earlier judgments that breached the statutory requirement to consider all technical features of the patent in infringement cases and the onus on the claimant to prove their case.

Besides, Mr. Li faced severe repercussions from the second instance ruling, including substantial compensation payments and the potential cessation of production, which risked workforce unemployment and the continuation of business operations.

Despite these challenges, Globe-Law Lawyers meticulously re-evaluated the evidence, revised the previous legal strategies, and engaged constructively with the Supreme Court's bench. This resulted in the Supreme Court accepting the retrial arguments, leading to the appointment of the High Court of Shandong Province to rehear the case. The High Court subsequently cancelled the first and second instance judgments and dismissed all claims from the crane machinery manufacturer.

Legal work

The legal team at Globe-Law Lawyers adeptly applied litigation evidence rules, focusing on the careful analysis of preserved working videos of the alleged infringing pile driver. They highlighted the claimant's failure to prove the operational process of the pile driver's PLC controller, which ultimately resulted in the burden of proof falling back on the manufacturer.

Employing the legal argument that one part cannot represent the whole, and refuting presumptive reasoning utilised in previous judgments, the legal team demonstrated that the decisions made during the first and second instances contravened the fundamental patent law principle mandating consideration of all technical features in infringement disputes.