Huajin helped Chinese manufacturing companies to obtain the US 337 case victory ruling
A few days ago, Huajin Zeng Yanhui’s lawyer team agent
China Catering Equipment Manufacturing Exporter “Le Bena” and “Liangsheng” on the US International Trade Commission proposed a preliminary ruling of 337 investigations
In order to protect Chinese national brands and promote “dual -cycle” to achieve “dual -drives” and escort Chinese enterprises “going global”.
>>> Introduction to Case
· About “Le Bena” and “Liangsheng”:
Located in Huadu District, Guangzhou, it is a world -class commercial kitchen equipment manufacturing enterprise dedicated to becoming a world -class commercial kitchen equipment. The product line revolves around European and American high -end commercial catering kitchen equipment. It can provide domestic first -class Western food equipment for catering companies. 80%of export products are sold To the European and American markets, followed by Southeast Asia, Latin America, and Africa, with a total of 60 countries and regions. The Western food equipment of “Lebona” has a price advantage, the quality of the product is better than its peers, and has a good customer evaluation among European and American customers.
“Liang Sheng” is a trading company responsible for overseas sales of “Lebona” catering equipment products.
· 337 Survey:
May 30, 2019
, Three Catering Equipment Companies in Telawa, USA
Illinois Tool Works Inc., VESTA GLOBAL LIMITED, VES
A surveys of the US International Trade Commission (“ITC”) were proposed to investigate 337, accusing the 7 defendants (Chinese enterprises and individuals) produced and sold for some catering equipment products and components of Chinese companies and their parts invaded their business secrets and violated the United States’ 337 clauses. The request to start the 337 investigation and issue a limited exclusion order and ban order, and the illegal catering equipment and parts are prohibited from entering the US market.
June 27, 2019,
After nearly a month of file review, the ITC announcement announced the launch of the investigation.
ITC’s final fixing notice reduced the two individual defendants based on the plaintiff’s complaint, listed only 5 defendants, including:
Guangzhourebenet Catering Equipment, Manufacturing Co.
Guangzhou Liangshng Trading Co., LTD. (Guangzhou Liangsheng Trading Co., Ltd., referred to as “Liangsheng”)
Three Chinese catering equipment companies and two natural people in China.
After receiving the investigation, Le Bena faced the low -winning business secrets 337 investigation and high cost of response, and after careful consideration, it decided to adopt a positive response to safeguard their rights and interests.
>>> Highlights of Cases
Quickly form a team of Sino -US United Lawyers actively responding to the lawsuit
During the filing stage,
With the help of Government departments at all levels (the Ministry of Commerce, the Ministry of Commerce, the Guangdong Provincial Department of Commerce, the Intellectual Property Office, the Guangzhou Municipal Commerce Bureau and the Intellectual Property Office), they preliminarily understand the basic rules of the 337 survey and the importance of the 337 survey to the enterprise. , Choosing to help Chinese companies have rich experience in responding to 337 survey experience
Huajin Law Firm
As the Chinese lawyer team of Lebona, it provides full consulting services for the case and provides solid professional forces for responding to the case.
In order to solve different obstacles of the laws, processes, language, etc., China and the United States, China, and the United States,
Huajin Law Firm helped Lebona quickly choose the national ranking Fili Law Firm to jointly form a Sino -US United Lawyer Team
The Huajin lawyer team fully analyzed the plaintiff’s complaint and found that there were many unreasonable allegations and severe flaws in the plaintiff’s complaint. After discussing and confirming the team of Lawyer Fei, they were submitted to the judge. , Actively withdraw the allegations of the two natural person defendants in China, and other allegations of insufficient evidence in the complaint.
In -depth analysis of the plaintiff’s intention to formulate an active defense strategy
During the evidence instruction stage,
The plaintiff’s law firm made full use of the particularity of the 337 survey procedure, and the purpose of delaying time, increasing the defendant’s response workload, and destroying the integrity of Chinese enterprises within the scope of the rules permit, and frequently responded to the defendant’s setting. The Huajin lawyer team explained to Lebina in time to explain the similarities and differences in the understanding of Chinese and American companies, and reduce Lebina’s psychological pressure. Entering the team of lawyers jointly analyzed the true purpose of each means of the plaintiff, resolved the obstacles to the obstacles to ensure that the judge objectively judged the integrity of the defendant Lebona, and strived for fair and reasonable the right to respond to Chinese companies.
In the preparation of the trial stage,
Before the case filed the case, the team decided to take the “non -establishment of the United States industry” as the main defense point to respond. The team through good trust and communication to avoid being disturbed by the lawsuit strategy of the plaintiff’s lawyer team. Finding the plaintiff’s evidence vulnerability to actively defense, and finally received the judge’s approval.
>>> Judgment results
The original defendant’s focus on the focus of “whether damage to the US industry” was carried out for one year of evidence and qualifications.
In July 2020, the judge issued a preliminary ruling order to support motions for no substantial damage to domestic industries in the United States.
The exporter “Le Bena” and “Liangsheng” of Chinese catering equipment manufacturers won a preliminary ruling.
>>> The organizer introduction
Senior partner lawyer of Huajin Law Firm
In the 23rd years of the intellectual property service industry, he has a solid theoretical basis of intellectual property law and many years of intellectual property practical experience, good at the patent proceedings in the field of machinery and electronics, a large number of patent applications and infringement lawsuits, in intellectual property lawsuits, in intellectual property litigation lawsuits And have rich experience in corporate scientific and technological innovation strategies, intellectual property strategic planning, and standardized management.
The case of more than 400 intellectual property litigation was held, which covered the type of patent infringement and trademark infringement lawsuits, especially the large number of foreign -related cases. Among them, the agent Guangdong Hongli Machinery Co., Ltd. and Shundeli*Precision Machinery Co., Ltd. and Xiong Mou and other violations of business secret disputes “were selected into the” 2017 Guangdong Lawyer Top Ten Top Ten Intellectual Property Cases; Among the three patent infringement disputes of Ningbo Oaks Air Conditioning Co., Ltd., Oaks compensated Gree Electric’s economic loss of 46 million yuan, refreshing a new record of patent infringement compensation for the home appliance industry.
“World Trademark Review” WTR1000 on the list, member of the International Trademark Association Law and Regulations Professional Committee, member of the European Trademark Rights Association, member of the American Intellectual Property Law Association, deputy director Deputy Director of Professional Committee. Focus on the full chain of intellectual property rights, confirmation, power, use, rights protection legal business, and acting with a large number of trademark disputes and litigation cases. Coach, etc. He has won the honorary titles such as the Guangdong Lawyers Association, the “Typical Case Award” of the Guangzhou Lawyers Association, the “Business Achievement Award”, and the “Outstanding Member of the Professional Committee”.
Senior manager of Huajin Intellectual Property Operation Division
He has more than ten years of practical experience in intellectual property companies, and has worked in Foxconn Technology Group and a smart hardware company in Hangzhou. Good at overseas lawsuits, 5 cases of the US local courts and 337 investigations in the United States are settled in reconciliation and victory. There are more than 200 cases of litigation cases, more than 30 invalid cases, and there are no failures. The case of the rights protection system, the case responsible for the “Qingfeng Action” of China Customs was rated as the “Top Ten Classic Cases of China Customs Intellectual Property Protection in 2016”, and is the only patent protection case in the top ten classic cases. At present, focusing on helping enterprises conduct 337 investigation lawsuits and assist enterprises to respond to 337 investigations.
US 337 Survey
The 337 survey refers to the US International Trade Commission (ITC for short) and the investigation of the US “Tariff Act of 1930) and related amendments based on the US” Tariff Act of 1930) and related amendments. Essence
The target of the 337 survey is the act of infringing American intellectual property rights in imported products and other unfair competition in import trade. The purpose is to prohibit all unfair competition or any unfair trade behavior in US export products.
· Investigation agency
The US International Trade Commission (ITC) is responsible for conducting 337 investigations. ITC is an independent quasi -judicial federal institution in the United States and has a wide range of investigation of trade -related affairs.
Its functions mainly include:
Import surveys based on intellectual property rights and adopt sanctions; industrial and economic analysis; domestic industrial damage investigation in anti -dumping and anti -subsidy surveys; surveys of protection measures; trade information services; trade policy support; maintenance of US customs tariffs.
ITC has a total of 6 members, each term of 9 years.
· Investigation object
According to US laws, the “Article 337” survey is the unfair trade of general unfair trade and related intellectual property rights.
In general, there are two aspects of the law of improper trade: there are two aspects:
(1) There are related industries in the United States, or the industry is being established;
(2) The damage has reached a certain degree, that is, damage or damage the relevant industries of the United States, or prevents the establishment of related industries in the United States, or suppress and manipulates the US business and trade.
The legal composition of unfair trade in intellectual property rights also includes two aspects:
(1) Imported products infringe up the U.S. patent rights, copyrights, trademark rights and other exclusive rights;
(2) The existence of related industries or related industries in the United States is under construction.
Most of the 337 surveys involving American intellectual property rights in practice are mostly for patent or trademark infringement. A few investigations also involve copyright, industrial design, and integrated circuit cloth design infringement behavior. Other forms of unfair competition include infringing business secrets, counterfeiting operations, false advertisements, and violations of antitrust laws.
· Investigation procedure
The main procedures for the 337 survey include:
Application, case, responding, hearing, pre -hearing, evidence collection, hearing, preliminary ruling of administrative judges, reconsideration and final ruling, presidential review. If any party is not convinced by the results of the ITC ruling, they can appeal to the Federal Federal Circuit Court.
According to the provisions of Section 337 of the 1930 Tariffs in the United States, the US International Trade Commission shall complete a 337 investigation and make a ruling in the “early and feasible time”. In practice, the US International Trade Commission generally end the investigation within 12-15 months, and complex cases may be extended to 18 months.
· Trade sanctions
337 Survey 337 belongs to the local “administrative relief” of the United States. Since the promulgation, it has been revised many times. It is currently required to authorize the US International Trade Commission to investigate and tailor the unfair trade practices in imports.
Article 337 is the most internationally variable and lethal trade protection method in the world. Any foreign export product that is 337 investigating and determining that the existence of infringement will be prohibited from importing products involved in the case by issuing prohibitions. , And it cannot be avoided.
In addition, Article 337 has spanned national borders, and infringements in the world may be pursued, including non -export behavior. According to the “337” survey generally, a losing lawsuit also withdrawn from other companies that produce the products in the country.
Senior partner lawyer of Huajin Law Firm