With the use of mercury-containing button battery volume and the increasing volume of waste, waste batteries, mercury pollution of the environment have long been prey to human life. China has independently developed by mercury free button IBM ThinkPad R40 battery patent, has passed the edge of life and death are in the 8th grade.
The patent was twice the national commission to review patents declared invalid. Court of Beijing Municipal Higher People’s appellate decision reversing the final two review committee of the patent. In September 2009, the Committee for reconsideration of patent has announced third of mercury-free button battery patent is invalid, the patent owner of the Third Committee of patent examination through the courts. The case is currently pending under the Municipal Court of Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People.
The patented technology is no longer a secret at all
Why was there for mercury free button 6Y270 batteries have been repeatedly declared the patent invalid, the reporter interviewed a number of contacts of the National Committee of patent examination and in accordance with the requirements of the other one fax overview of the interview, but last Friday the review of patent maintenance staff comfortable and refused to talk with reporters.
According to reports, in accordance with our rules of patent protection, patent protection is a patented invention, the disclosure of patented technology for the premise that the inventor in patent applications at the same time, to declare his own secrets patented technology released. That is, if the patent is declared invalid, the inventor is not a secret at all, other manufacturers can not put any development funds for free public use of the technology of others rather than held accountable under the law does not take responsibility.
10-year patent protection period expires
Mercury-free button on the advice of the Dell Inspiron 5150 battery patent license after a new series of battery companies and individuals have begun to review patent Council to submit an application to declare the patent invalid mercury-free button batteries.
May 31, 2004, the National Review of patents by companies both batteries apply to mercury free button batteries are not creative, and said the entire patent is invalid. Guangdong Enterprises to court Leader, December 20, 2005, the Municipal Court of Beijing Higher People’s Committee Final Appeal Decision loses patent review, the court concluded that mercury free button batteries all valid patents.
June 19, 2009, the State Committee of patent review a decision for the third time, mercury free button batteries are not creative, and said all the patent is invalid. In October 2009, Guangdong New Leaders of the Third Committee of patent examination to trial, asked the court to revoke the decision of no review committee and the patent void. Currently, mercury free button batteries 10 years patent protection period is about to expire, the ultimate fate of the concern of the patent.
“Judicial finality” Why is it difficult to aim?
An interview with experts in intellectual property. Experts in the field, the original court in Beijing, a tribunal of senior judges to know Middle Guang Liang Zhang told reporters at the WTO, the case involves a patent license utility model and maintenance procedures, that “the administrative end, the National Patent Review Board makes its decision direct force VGP-BPS9 of law, the parties have no right to initiate an administrative procedure.
According to international standards, China “Patent Law” was amended accordingly, and the change of purpose Executive “for” judicial finality “that is made by the administrative department of intellectual property satisfied with the decision, Parties have the right to bring an administrative lawsuit. The final decision by the court.
Then, the objective “legal” Why is it difficult to aim? In this regard, Guang-Liang Zhang said that the cycle of litigation to patent litigation, the question, “Patent Law”, the experts, when it is high, but because of the final amendment of the law make no explicit provision leads to a continuation patent is conclusive case 3. Mr. Zhang, that under such circumstances, how to protect the rights of the patented invention is BATCL50L indeed worth exploring.