Back Case
Junzhiquan Helps Netac Win "99 Patent" Case and Get Compensation of RMB 40 million
2018.08.07
Guangdong Junzhiquan Law Firm was entrusted by Netac Technology Co., Ltd. to file a lawsuit against Beijing Watertek Information Technology Co., Ltd., Agricultural Bank of China Co., Ltd., etc. for invention patent infringement. Eventually, Junzhiquan helped Netac get a compensation of RMB 40 million.
Liu Jun, a lawyer from Guangdong Junzhiquan Law Firm, represented Netac in the "99 patent" infringement case in 2002. The case was hailed as the No. 1 IP case in China's IT industry. Since 2002, the patent has been the core in Netac's patent operations, as it has helped Netac rack up considerate revenue from patent operations. This patent remains valid to this day despite the past 17 invalidation requests.
On May 15, 2012, Netac filed a lawsuit with the Nanning Intermediate People's Court, requesting:
1. the three Defendants, including Watertek and Agricultural Bank of China, to immediately cease infringing on Netac's patent titled Electronic Flash External Storage Method for Data Processing System and Its Device (patent No.: 99117225.6);
2. the Defendant Watertek to immediately cease manufacturing, selling, and offering to sale the ComyiKEY220 products that infringed Netac's patent, and cease using the same method used for Netac's patent;
3. the Defendant Agricultural Bank of Chian to immediately cease selling and offering to sell the ComeiKEY220 products, and the Beihai Industrial Park Branch thereof to immediately cease selling the ComeiKEY220 products;
4. the three Defendants to jointly compensate for Netac's economic losses totaling RMB 60 million;
5. the three Defendants to jointly bear the litigation costs in this case.
This case has lasted more than six (6) years and gone through jurisdictional objection, first instance, second instance, and remand for retrial. On July 9 this year, the Nanning Intermediate People's Court finally made a Written Civil Judgment ((2016) Gui 01 Minchu No. 577) for the case, which ordered:
1. the Defendants Beijing Watertek Information Technology Co., Ltd., Agricultural Bank of China Co., Ltd., and Agricultural Bank of China Co., Ltd., Beihai Industrial Park Branch to immediately cease infringing the invention patent No. 99117225.6 of the Plaintiff Shenzhen Netac Technology Co., Ltd., that is, the Defendant Beijing Watertek Information Technology Co., Ltd. should immediately cease using the method used by Netac in the invention patent No. ZL99117225.6, and immediately cease manufacturing, selling, and offering to sell the infringing ComyiKEY220 products; and the Defendants China Agriculture Bank Co., Ltd. and the Beihai Industrial Park Branch thereof should immediately cease using the infringing ComeiKEY220 products;
2. the Defendant Beijing Watertek Information Technology Co., Ltd. to compensate the Plaintiff Shenzhen Netac Technology Co., Ltd. for economic losses of RMB 40 million;
3. that other claims of the Plaintiff Shenzhen Netac Technology Co., Ltd. are dismissed.
The case acceptance fee of RMB 341,800 shall be borne by the Defendant Beijing Xuanji Information Technology Co., Ltd.
A brief review of the case:
Liu Jun, a lawyer from Guangdong Junzhiquan Law Firm, represented Netac in the "99 patent" infringement case in 2002. The case was hailed as the No. 1 IP case in China's IT industry. Since 2002, the patent has been the core in Netac's patent operations, as it has helped Netac rack up considerate revenue from patent operations. This patent remains valid to this day despite the past 17 invalidation requests.
On May 15, 2012, Netac filed a lawsuit with the Nanning Intermediate People's Court, requesting:
1. the three Defendants, including Watertek and Agricultural Bank of China, to immediately cease infringing on Netac's patent titled Electronic Flash External Storage Method for Data Processing System and Its Device (patent No.: 99117225.6);
2. the Defendant Watertek to immediately cease manufacturing, selling, and offering to sale the ComyiKEY220 products that infringed Netac's patent, and cease using the same method used for Netac's patent;
3. the Defendant Agricultural Bank of Chian to immediately cease selling and offering to sell the ComeiKEY220 products, and the Beihai Industrial Park Branch thereof to immediately cease selling the ComeiKEY220 products;
4. the three Defendants to jointly compensate for Netac's economic losses totaling RMB 60 million;
5. the three Defendants to jointly bear the litigation costs in this case.
This case has lasted more than six (6) years and gone through jurisdictional objection, first instance, second instance, and remand for retrial. On July 9 this year, the Nanning Intermediate People's Court finally made a Written Civil Judgment ((2016) Gui 01 Minchu No. 577) for the case, which ordered:
1. the Defendants Beijing Watertek Information Technology Co., Ltd., Agricultural Bank of China Co., Ltd., and Agricultural Bank of China Co., Ltd., Beihai Industrial Park Branch to immediately cease infringing the invention patent No. 99117225.6 of the Plaintiff Shenzhen Netac Technology Co., Ltd., that is, the Defendant Beijing Watertek Information Technology Co., Ltd. should immediately cease using the method used by Netac in the invention patent No. ZL99117225.6, and immediately cease manufacturing, selling, and offering to sell the infringing ComyiKEY220 products; and the Defendants China Agriculture Bank Co., Ltd. and the Beihai Industrial Park Branch thereof should immediately cease using the infringing ComeiKEY220 products;
2. the Defendant Beijing Watertek Information Technology Co., Ltd. to compensate the Plaintiff Shenzhen Netac Technology Co., Ltd. for economic losses of RMB 40 million;
3. that other claims of the Plaintiff Shenzhen Netac Technology Co., Ltd. are dismissed.
The case acceptance fee of RMB 341,800 shall be borne by the Defendant Beijing Xuanji Information Technology Co., Ltd.
A brief review of the case:
| July 9, 2018 | Retrial judgment: Watertek paid RMB 40 million as compensation for Netac's economic losses |
| May 26, 2017 | The court of retrial opened a court session |
| September 14, 2016 | Retrial and case filing |
| August 12, 2016 | Second instance judgment: The original judgment was revoked and the case was remanded for retrial |
| November 4, 2015 | The court of second instance opened a court session |
| August 20, 2015 | The Guangxi Higher People's Court accepted the appeal |
| July 8, 2015 | Watertek filed an appeal |
| May 15, 2015 | First instance judgment: Watertek was ordered to pay RMB 40 million as compensation for Netac's economic losses |
| August 8, 2012 | The Guangxi Higher People's Court rejected Watertek's appeal against jurisdiction |
| June 10, 2012 | The Nanning Intermediate People's Court rejected Watertek's appeal against jurisdiction |
| May 15, 2012 | The Nanning Intermediate Court accepted the case |
related case
