Eastern China Court Dismisses Patent Infringement Claim for 1 Million Yuan Over Anti-Radiation Clothing

Eastern China Court Dismisses Patent Infringement Claim for 1 Million Yuan Over Anti-Radiation Clothing

Case Overview
A patent holder brought a lawsuit against a manufacturer and a retailer, alleging that their anti-radiation clothing infringed his utility model patent for electromagnetic pollution protection garments. The court dismissed the claim, finding that the plaintiff failed to prove that the accused product contained the specific technical feature of high magnetic permeability with no residual magnetism as required by the patent claim.

Case Background and Facts
Mr. Bai, the plaintiff, owned a utility model patent titled Anti-Electromagnetic Pollution Garment, granted by the national patent office on December 20, 2006, with a filing date of May 8, 2002. The patent claimed a garment with a shielding metal mesh or film made from metal filaments or powder that had high magnetic permeability and no residual magnetism. In May 2010, Mr. Bai purchased a piece of anti-radiation clothing from a retail center in Eastern China. The clothing was manufactured by a Shanghai-based company. Mr. Bai alleged that the technology used in the garment fell within the scope of his patent and sued both the retailer and the manufacturer, demanding that the manufacturer cease production and sales and pay 1 million yuan in damages. The manufacturer argued that the patent was scientifically unsound, that the accused product used stainless steel which is not a high-permeability metal, that the technology was prior art, and that they had a prior use right.

Court Proceedings and Evidence
The court held two public hearings. Both parties agreed that Mr. Bai owned the patent and that the manufacturer had the right to use the Tianxiang trademark. Mr. Bai presented the patent certificate and specification. The patent claim described a garment with a shielding layer made of metal filaments or powder with high magnetic permeability and no residual magnetism, citing examples like copper wire or soft iron powder. The accused product, a Tianxiang-brand anti-radiation top, used a metal protective mesh made of stainless steel fibers. The manufacturer argued that stainless steel is not a metal with high magnetic permeability and that Mr. Bai provided no evidence to prove otherwise.

Court Findings and Judgment
The court compared the technical features of the patent with those of the accused product. The patent required a shielding metal mesh or film made from metal filaments or powder that had high magnetic permeability and no residual magnetism. The accused product used stainless steel fibers. The court noted that Mr. Bai himself stated that stainless steel is not necessarily a metal with high magnetic permeability and that the iron content affects the permeability level. Because Mr. Bai did not define the standard for high magnetic permeability in the patent and did not prove that the stainless steel in the accused product met that standard, the court held that Mr. Bai failed to prove that the accused product fell within the scope of his patent. The court dismissed all claims and ordered Mr. Bai to bear the court costs of 13,800 yuan.

Key Legal Principles
The court applied the principle that in patent infringement cases, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the accused product or process falls within the scope of the patent claims. The scope of protection for a utility model patent is determined by the content of the claims, and the specification and drawings can be used to interpret the claims. If the plaintiff cannot prove that all technical features of the patent claim are present in the accused product, the infringement claim must fail.

Practical Insights
This case demonstrates the critical importance of precise claim drafting in patent litigation. A patentee must clearly define all technical features, especially those involving measurable properties like magnetic permeability. Without a clear standard or benchmark for what constitutes high permeability, it becomes nearly impossible to prove infringement. Businesses facing patent infringement allegations should carefully analyze whether the accused product actually incorporates every element of the patent claim. For consumers, this case shows that not all anti-radiation clothing is the same, and patent disputes often hinge on technical details rather than general product function.

Legal References
Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China (2007 Revision), Article 134, Paragraph 1. Patent Law of the People’s Republic of China (2008 Revision), Article 56, Paragraph 1.

Disclaimer
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified attorney for specific legal matters.