To judge whether the act constitutes extortion, it is necessary to not only examine whether the actor has the purpose of illegally taking possession of the property, but also accurately scrutinize whether the actor conducted threating or intimidation.įirstly, on the subjective aspect, the existing evidence can only identify that the payment obtained by Li is the patent license fee, and cannot be used to ascertain that Li has the purpose of illegal possession.įurther, the patents involved in the case are legal and effective, and there is no evidence showing that Li obtained these patent rights through plagiarism, fraud, theft and other illegal means.īesides, the court also mentioned that ” it cannot be deemed that Li has the purpose of illegal possession simply because he filed a lawsuit at the sensitive time point of the accused company’s preparing for IPO or fundraising”. Whether the fact 1-A,2,3,4 constitute extortion? Hongyan was forced to sign a patent license contract and paid 50 thousand RMB to Kedou. 4.The facts-Part 4įrom 2015 to 2016, Li sued Hongyan company for infringing patent rights in the name of Ke Dou. Gubei was forced to sign a patent license contract and paid 225 thousand RMB to Kedou. Furthermore, he lodged complaints with Taobao and other online shopping platforms, resulting in removal of Gubei’s products. 3.The facts-Part 3Īt Gubei company’s critical fundraising stage, Li brought multiple lawsuits against it on the ground of infringing patent rights in the name of Kedou, before Shanghai IP court from 2015 to 2017.
Intretech was forced to sign a settlement agreement with Benxing company and paid 288 thousand RMB. (hereafter referred to as Intretech) was in the process of applying for listing on the main board of Shenzhen stock market, Li filed a lawsuit against it on the ground of infringing patent right before Xiamen intermediate court in the name of Benxing company and informed CSRC. On October 2017, when Xiamen Intretech Inc. IReader actually paid 100 thousand RMB afterward. IReader was forced to sign a settlement agreement with a commitnment to pay Budao company 800 thousand RMB. B) At the end of July 2017, Li made up a fake contract with a signature date on 2016 which stipulated that Kedou had exclusively licensed its patents to Budao company (legal representative: Xingwu Li, Xingwen Li’s brother) which is actually under Li’s Then Li filed a patent infringement lawsuit against IReader before Beijing IP court in the name of Budao company and informed the China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC).IReader actually paid 500 thousand RMB afterwards. The contract stipulated that IReader had obtained rights to use all of the patents and patent applications which belong to Ked IReader should pay Kedou 800 thousand RMB license fee. IReader was forced to sign a patent license contract with Kedou(because according to ChinaSecurity Law, the Intellectual Property that Security issuer has obtained or been using should not have substantial legal risk). (hereafter referred to as Kedou) which operated by himself. (hereafter referred to as IReader) was at the time of IPO, Li filed several patent infringement lawsuits against it in the name of Shanghai Kedou Electronic Technology Co., Ltd. A) From March to July 2017, when IReader Technology Co., Ltd.
The Public Prosecution Service (Shanghai Pudong District People’s Procuratorate) accused Xingwen Li of threatening companies to sign a license or settlement agreement by filing patent infringement lawsuits which would have a substantially adverse impact on their operation, listing or financing to extort a large amount of money. This article aims to outline the judgment made by Shanghai Pudong district court to offer a reference to the audiences that may be interested in this type of cases. A recent patent infringement case in China has raised a heated discussion on whether the patent owner’s action is justified patent execution or extortion – as it is happening right at the eve of the accused infringer’s IPO event.
0 kommentar(er)
