In the dispute between the appellant Shenzhen Weimeng Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Weimeng Company), the appellee Shenzhen Dunjun Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Dunjun Company) and the defendant Quanzhou Guanfeng Network Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Guanfeng Company), an invention patent with patent number ZL02123502.3 and the title of "A Simple Method for Accessing the Portal Website of Network Operators" is involved (hereinafter referred to as the patent involved).

Dunjun Company believed that, Weimeng Company and Guanfeng Company produced and sold the related wireless router products using the technical solutions of the involved without permission, which infringed its invention patent right. Thus Dujun Company filed a lawsuit with Quanzhou Intermediate People's Court (hereinafter referred to as the court of first instance), requesting that Weimeng Company and Guanfeng Company stop the infringement and compensate for economic losses and reasonable expenses for safeguarding rights, totaling 10 million yuan.

The court of first instance held that: all the alleged infringing products fell within the scope of patent protection involved. The seller Guanfeng Company's legal source defense is established and is not liable for compensation. Considering the net profit of the manufacturer Weimeng Company, the number of product models falling within the scope of patent protection, the online sales of the alleged infringing products and the duration of infringement, it was decided that Weimeng Company and Guanfeng Company should immediately stop infringing the patent rights involved, and Weimeng Company should compensate Dunjun Company for economic losses and reasonable expenses for safeguarding rights, totaling 10 million yuan.

Weimeng Company refused to accept the judgment and appealed to the Supreme People's Court.

The Supreme Court held in the trial of second instance that: 

(1) Dunjun Company has fulfilled its obligation of actively rendering the proof for its infringement compensation claim;

(2) The amount of compensation claimed by Dunjun Company has a factual basis; 

(3) Weimeng Company shall bear adverse consequences for its delay in giving evidence. 

On December 30, 2020, the court of second instance rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.

In patent infringement litigation, if the obligee has fulfilled his duty of actively rendering the proof, and has submitted the evidence related to infringement profit as well as the reasonable calculation conducted on the basis of the evidence to support the amount of compensation claimed, the court should support the obligee. If the accused infringer disagrees with the court’s decision, he shall submit counter-evidence sufficient to overturn the aforesaid facts. The court may also order the accused infringer to submit corresponding evidential materials that can truly and completely reflect the basic facts of the scale of the accused infringement. If the accused infringer is reluctant to give evidence or the evidence provided is not sufficient, he shall bear the corresponding adverse consequences.