“337 investigation” of China beat the United States Energizer batteries sued ITC
Monday, June 29th, 2009“337 investigation” of China beat the United States Energizer batteries sued ITC
United States International Trade Commission (US International TradeCommission, referred to as ITC) formally announced that 337 of China’s laptop battery of the final investigation finds that: the plaintiff United States Energizer Holdings Inc. (United States Energizer) owned the patent is invalid patents, including Fujian Nanping Nanfu Battery Co., Ltd., including seven Chinese battery companies did not constitute patent infringement - this means that such batteries in China to enter the U.S. market in future will no longer face a patent infringement lawsuit.
It is understood that it is facing in recent years, Chinese enterprises, “337″ investigation of cases the only final victory. Prior to 1997, the United States accused China of a business and food Hangzhou and Hangzhou, the three plants and food additives, such as the use of its patented production process and brought saccharin “337 investigation” applications, ITC investigation in this case when there is insufficient evidence convicted of being sued Chinese companies infringing products.
“It’s the Chinese enterprises are encouraged that China has been by the United States anti-dumping proceedings, Section 337 of the victims of the investigation.” China Battery Industry Association executive vice chairman and secretary general, said WANG Jingzhong. It is, ITC2003 launched in the global 11 “Section 337″ investigation involving Chinese enterprises dell battery and 4 from the same period in our country for the United States the biggest victim of Section 337 investigations. “Responding to too many failed, many Chinese companies have produced a huge psychological shadow.”
But all is far from that moment rejoicing. October 10, the United States Energizer Federal Circuit to the United States courts, but this time the defendant has become ITC - Energizer believes that the U.S. ITC to judge wrong, I hope to form a court to force a retrial of China ITC battery 7 investigation of 337 enterprises.
“Indeed there are certain variables.” October 25, is responsible for external battery Nanfu Kang Jin Wei of Legal Affairs, told reporters. Kang said that ITC was prosecuted after the Nanfu battery and other Chinese enterprises to collect more evidence in order to provide to the ITC as the evidence submitted to the court.
WANG Jingzhong but obviously a lot easier, “the most difficult time has passed, in favor of the possibility of a large.” In the previous case, the ITC through the prosecution and force it to change the final decision of the case very small. Including 1997’s “saccharin case,” the prosecution’s subsequent appeal was also dismissed.
7 battery were “337 big stick”
Time back to May 2003, the United States respectively Energizer seven companies, including China, including 24 batteries outside the United States brought to the ITC, a cause of action is a mercury-free alkaline manganese batteries are infringed patent request ITC to launch investigations and issued requests for ITC exclusion order to prohibit the production of these enterprises are mercury-free alkaline manganese batteries into the U.S. market.
It is understood that the United States “Section 337 of the Tariff Act” the United States of unfair trade imports into two categories: general unfair trade and unfair trade-related intellectual property rights. The latter refers to all people, the importer or underwriters to the United States for the import and sale or sold in the United States after importation is a violation of U.S. law to protect copyright, patents, trademarks, layout-designs of integrated circuits and design the right the behavior of the product.
In accordance with “Section 337″ provisions, as long as the United States and the industry or related industries in the process of establishing the industry, the intellectual property rights constitute unfair trade practices illegal, rather than its cause harm to U.S. industry for the element.
“If the survey shows there is a breach of Section 337, and the other party was unwilling to reconciliation can be based on the terms of products imported into the U.S. market.” Shanghai WTO Affairs Consultation Center Consulting Ying told reporters.
Statistics show that the United States Energizer is the world’s largest manufacturers of primary batteries, 2003 sales of 2.23 billion U.S. dollars. And prosecute violations of the code for the 5,464,709 patent (the “709 patent”), the United States in 1991 Energizer applications received in 1995 the approval of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, which is valid until 2011.
Nanfu battery together with the emergence of litigation in the United States list of Energizer were: Zhenglong Guangdong Co., Ltd., Sichuan Changhong Electric Co., Ltd., Guangzhou Tiger Head Battery Group, Ningbo Baowang Battery Co., Ltd., Zhejiang Special Battery Co., Ltd., Bank of China (Ningbo) Battery Co., Ltd.. In other words, if the United States the success of Energizer proceedings, the seven companies before 2011 there is no way to export to the U.S. market for mercury-free alkaline manganese batteries.
“It’s like most of the car has four wheels, this also is a patent?” Jin Kang, the mercury-free alkaline manganese battery production technology is not an original, or which company is unique, and therefore include Nanfu Chinese enterprises, including the battery did not apply in a similar domestic patent protection.
Energizer of the U.S. litigation, Kang Jin Wei was very sudden, even though the battery Nanfu now exported to the United States to go mercury-free alkaline manganese batteries millions of dollars a year, but “does not mean that now is not the future value of the exports are not large. ” 2003
Nanfu battery in sales revenue 682 million yuan, is the nation’s largest alkaline manganese battery production base. At the same China Battery Industry Association, after consultation Nanfu batteries, such as seven Chinese enterprises responding to the decision.
Half-way break an agreement the international united front
“This is a question of fair trade.” Waving the United States of 337 Energizer stick, WANG Jingzhong appears quite angry, and he is even more worrying is that although China is now one-year battery export to the U.S. market only a few tens of millions of batteries U.S., China battery if unsuccessful in this litigation, “Japanese and European companies, is likely to follow-up.”
China Battery Industry Association, according to statistics, the current global output of about one year battery 450,000,000,000 only, while the output of China reached 100 million more than 200, because of Chinese-made battery of good quality and low prices in the global market have a considerable competitive edge.
Energizer Before the United States are also to set up plant in Tianjin batteries, in order to reduce its production costs, the annual production is about more than 100 million only.
“U.S. companies must give a warning to Chinese companies to fight the lawsuit is not a winning one,” lawyers in the same year, China dell inspiron 600m battery, dell latitude d500 battery Industry Association, began consultations with the members, the final decision, from the list of the seven cell enterprises responsible for 70% of the cost of litigation, and the remaining 30% of legal fees by the China Battery Industry Association member units to pay the other, “Today the prosecution of these seven companies, and perhaps tomorrow will be the prosecution of other battery companies in China,” said China’s WANG Jingzhong Other battery companies have become so experienced threat.
In addition to domestic alliance, the Chinese battery companies have begun to seek help in the international market as well as the subsequent prosecution of all the countries of the battery companies to join together to discuss forming a “united front.”
However, before the start of the trial early in March this year, Singapore’s Kingsoft (Golden Power) as well as Japan’s Fuji, Hitachi Maxell, such as taking the lead with the United States amounted to become the reconciliation efforts, millions of dollars to cover the cost of compensation in exchange for the United States set aside the proceedings Energizer .
“At the time of China’s battery considerable pressure.” WANG Jingzhong recalls. In this case, the Chinese battery companies have begun to seek the possibility of reconciliation, but the United States Energizer the terms of settlement proposed by the Chinese battery company has been dumbfounded: not only have to pay millions of dollars in compensation, but also charge a few cents for each battery patent fees, at the same time requested by a designated sales agents.
Department of Commerce: Tips to avoid the United States “Section 337″
The United States “Section 337″ was enacted since 1930 had given rise to much criticism since. Anti-dumping cases and the difference is that in the “337 investigation” in the United States does not need to prove that the domestic industry has suffered in any way, and just to prove the fact that imports of infringing products, and the United States can indeed related industries. Therefore, U.S. companies, the name “337 investigation” relatively low threshold, while for the enterprises involved in the case of anti-dumping suits than more difficult. At present, China has a growing number of enterprises have become the United States “Section 337″ of the victims, to deal with the United States “Section 337″ has become an urgent task.
Secretary for the Ministry of Commerce Industry Injury after Wang Qinhua how to deal with domestic enterprises, “Section 337″ was given three suggestions:
First of all, the export enterprises should refrain from violations of intellectual property rights of others, especially in OEM, OEM’s foreign trade export enterprises should pay attention to whether or not under the single ownership of the foreign products, trade marks, patents, copyrights and other rights documents. If the rights of foreign investors who are neither authorized nor appropriate supporting documents, should be considered legal risks, should be entered into any contract relating to intellectual property rights violations by the foreign investors should be responsible and compensate the loss of one’s own terms.
Secondly, in the prosecution by the U.S. manufacturers, Chinese enterprises should take the initiative to respond in time. Enterprise could be entrusted to trademarks and patents in the area of the law firm expertise, and actively collect evidence, take part in responding to, and actively defend the other dell latitude d505 battery, dell latitude d510 battery party to prove that intellectual property is invalid and so on, to win favor.
In addition, the loss of domestic enterprises in order to avoid the loss of the U.S. market, may consider payment of compensation to reach a settlement with the American Enterprise Institute.
In recent years, domestic enterprises face the United States to investigate the case of Section 337 (incomplete):
◎ 1995 years, ITC in relation to the United States I lost the case of special magnet to Beijing San Huan New Materials Cornett Ningbo high-tech companies and industrial companies to start “337 investigation” procedure in 1999, the parties reached a settlement, and a common request of ITC orders revoked.
◎ 1997, the United States accused China of a business and food Hangzhou and Hangzhou, the three plants and food additives, such as the use of its patented production process and brought saccharin “337 investigation” application. ITC at the end of the case investigation found insufficient evidence being sued Chinese companies infringing products. Later, the prosecution’s appeal was also dismissed.
◎ 2003 on 4 day 2 years, ITC to Beiqi Futian Automobile Co., Ltd. US-bound production of agricultural tractors and mower are suspected of infringing intellectual property rights of an American company may be in violation of “Section 337″ as an excuse to start the company, ” 337 investigation. ”
◎ 2003 on 7 day 2 years, ITC also announced that Deere & Company to apply for the United States of Jiangling Motors Corporation three Chinese companies to start the “337 investigation” on the grounds that these companies export or sale of Deere farm vehicles suspected of infringing the company’s registered logo.
◎ 2003 on 3 day 3 years, ITC to include seven Chinese companies, including 15 companies suspected of violations of the U.S. pharmaceutical company Pfizer’s “Viagra” patent and the “337 investigation.”
◎ 2003 years 5 months, Nanfu Battery Co., Ltd. and so on seven well-known Chinese enterprises due to suspected violations of the United States Energizer and Eveready’s mercury-free alkaline battery patent was “337 investigation.”
◎ 2004 years 3 11, the United States Zoran Zoran, Oak Oak chips in the two companies of patent infringement will be 12 from six countries and regions, business divisions on the ITC, the investigation and made 337 applications for new branches 10 players, such as domestic enterprises in the cases of the accused.
◎ 2004 years 7 20, Ningbo Group 4 pens and other enterprises, by the U.S. company sanford stationery business out on the “337 investigation” of the dock, sanford Beifa allegations, such as products sold in the United States violated its “commercial Appearance. ”
Approximation notebook fuel cell in 2005 New Prospect
The working principle of the fuel cell: oxygen and hydrogen into water, is environmentally friendly. Oxygen directly from the air, and hydrogen can be used in place of a liquid, such as alcohol. Each fuel cell can provide 0.4V voltage, if the notebook according to the current demand on the voltage of about 6V, then the group will need to fuel cell 15. The right side of the figure for the fuel cell group of the physical model. Fuel Cell Group schematics, drawing air through an air pump to be oxygen, and a fuel pump through the extraction, after the chemical reaction required for electricity and reaction product of water. In addition, there are two drawbacks of fuel cells, from a start-up time, it needs a warm-up time to meet our power requirements. In addition, it can not use the process to provide a very stable output, the middle of a certain stage there will be a substantial decline, if these two issues are not resolved then it is difficult to be applied to real practice. In understanding the principles of the relevant knowledge, let us not talk about the WPC EXPO exhibition research and development of new products that you use this fuel cell NEC notebooks. Rear fuel cell using the program. R & D compared to last year’s models, this new more streamlined in appearance. But the volume is not so satisfactory.
This fuel cell can support 10-hour notebook working hours. It is still the way of fuel injection is also used a whole can only be replaced in the near future dell latitude d520 battery, dell latitude d600 battery, fuel cells can replace single-core, but depends on the relevant provisions of local law.