IP Updates

We Serve the Latest News of IP Industry
for Your Reference

Spreadtrum Received 24 Million Compensation for Mobile Phone Baseband Chip Patent Infringement

Tianjin No.3 Intermediate People's Court had recently reached the first-instance judgment, finding that the ASR3601 baseband chip produced and sold by the defendant Aojie Technology Co., Ltd. infringed the invention patent right of the plaintiff Spreadtrum Communication (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., and ordered the defendant to immediately stop the infringement and pay the plaintiff the economic losses of 24.31 million yuan and reasonable expenses of 100,000 yuan.

On December 22, 2020, the plaintiff Spreadtrum Communication (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. sued Aojie Technology Co., Ltd. to Tianjin No.3 Intermediate People's Court for infringement of ASR3601 baseband chip.

In the course of litigation, the plaintiff and the defendant both submitted the Intellectual Property Appraisal Opinion, which became the key to the case. The plaintiff submitted the "Intellectual Property Appraisal Opinion" issued by China Information and Communication Research Institute, and held that the accused infringing chip completely covers the technical scheme of the invention patent involved and has fallen into the protection scope of the invention patent involved, hence constituting the identical infringement. The Intellectual Property Appraisal Opinion issued by Shanghai Silicon Intellectual Property Trading Center submitted by the defendant concluded that the alleged infringing products are neither identical with nor equal to all the independent claims of the patent involved, and do not fall into the scope of patent protection involved. The appraisal opinions submitted by the two parties are completely controversial to each other.

According to Article 23 of Several Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Evidence in Civil Procedures Involving Intellectual Property Rights, the people's court shall examine the appraisal opinions in light of the following factors: (1) whether the appraiser has corresponding qualifications; (2) whether the appraiser has the knowledge, experience and skills to solve relevant specialized problems; (3) whether the methods and procedures adopted by the appraisers are standardized and whether the technical means are reliable; (4) whether the materials submitted for inspection have been cross-examined by the parties and meet the conditions for appraisal; (5) whether the appraisal opinions are well-grounded; (6) whether there is any statutory circumstance under which the appraiser shall recuse himself from the appraisal; and (7) whether the appraiser has engaged in malpractices for personal gains or other circumstances that may affect the impartiality during the process of appraisal.

According to the judgment of the first instance, the court found that the infringement was established, and the Intellectual Property Appraisal Opinion issued by China ICT Institute was convincing. On the other hand, the Intellectual Property Appraisal Opinion issued by Shanghai Silicon Intellectual Property Trading Center submitted by the defendant was not recognized by the court.

Comment: Intellectual property appraisal opinions play an important role in intellectual property infringement litigation, especially in communication patent infringement cases with complicated technical facts. 

In recent years, there are many intellectual property appraisal opinions with opposite conclusions in some patent infringement cases. In this kind of cases, whether the intellectual property appraisal procedure is legal, whether the appraisal materials are true and have been cross-examined, whether the appraisal method is scientific, and whether the appraisal basis is sufficient will become the focus of disputes between both parties and the court.