本案明确了适用合法来源抗辩的严格条件，一是主观上销售者不知是未经专利权人许可使用专利侵权产品，二是客观上销售者能证明该产品有合法来源，二者缺一不可。百一高级合伙人王路丰先生、陈少兰律师代理被上诉人出庭应诉，最终获得最高人民法院支持。 

This case clarified the strict conditions for the application of legal source defense. Firstly, the seller did not know the patent infringing product was used without the permission of the patentee. Secondly, the seller could prove that the product had a legitimate source. Both conditions are indispensable. Foridom Law Firm senior partner, Mr. Wang Lu feng and Ms. Chen Shao lan, have helped the appellee win the support of the Supreme People’s Court.

案情简介

Case brief

上诉人沃尔玛华东百货有限公司(以下简称沃尔玛公司)、莱卡健康科技(南京)有限公司(以下简称莱卡公司)因与被上诉人上海聚蓝水处理科技有限公司(以下简称聚蓝公司)侵害发明专利权纠纷一案，不服一审判决，向最高人民法院提起上诉。被上诉人委托我所王路丰代理师、陈少兰律师出庭应诉，取得了胜诉判决。

The appellant Wal-Mart Eastern China Department Store Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Wal-Mart) and Lycra Health Technology (Nanjing) Co., Ltd.(hereinafter referred to as Lycra) infringed inventions with the appellee,Shanghai Julan Water Treatment Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Julan)

In this case, Wal-Mart refused to accept the first instance judgment and appealed to the Supreme People's Court. The appellee entrusted our attorney Wang Lu feng and Chen Shao lan to help our client won this case in the end.

沃尔玛公司收到起诉状后，长达半年之久未及时作出合理判断并下架，明显超过合理期限，故不能免除沃尔玛公司收到起诉状至产品下架期间因销售被诉侵权产品而应当承担的赔偿责任。

After receiving the complaint, Wal-Mart failed to make a reasonable judgment in time and removed it within 6 months, which obviously exceeded the reasonable time limitation. Therefore, Wal-Mart cannot be exempted from selling the alleged infringing product during the period from the receipt of the complaint to the removal of the product.

争议焦点及法院观点

Argument and Opinions

在法院认定被诉侵权产品符合全面覆盖原则，落入涉案专利权的保护范围的情况下，关于沃尔玛公司提出的合法来源抗辩是否成立：

In the case,whether the legal source defense raised by Wal-Mart is correct when the alleged infringing product complies with the principle of all elements principle and falls within the scope of protection of the patent right.

《专利法》第七十条规定：“为生产经营目的使用、许诺销售或者销售不知道是未经专利权人许可而制造并售出的专利侵权产品，能证明该产品合法来源的，不承担赔偿责任。”

Patent Law article 70 states that the patent administrative department of the State Council may handle patent infringement disputes that have significant influence nationwide at the request of the patentee or interested party.

在侵害专利权纠纷中，销售者合法来源抗辩能否成立，需要同时满足被诉侵权产品具有合法来源这一客观要件和销售者无主观过错这一主观要件，即被诉侵权产品的销售者免除赔偿责任的前提，一是主观上销售者不知是未经专利权人许可使用专利侵权产品，二是客观上销售者能证明该产品有合法来源，二者缺一不可。

Ina patent infringement dispute, whether the seller’s legal source defense can be admitted by the court requires that the alleged infringing product has a legal resource and the seller has no subjective fault, namely, it is the seller of the alleged infringing product is exempted precondition. Above conditions are dispensable.

具体而言，被诉侵权产品具有合法来源是指销售者通过合法的进货渠道、通常的买卖合同等正常商业方式取得所售产品。

To be more specific, the fact that the alleged infringing product has a legal source means that the seller obtains the sold product through normal commercial methods such as legal purchase channels and usual sales contracts.

对于客观要件，销售者应当提供符合交易习惯的相关证据，提供明确的可供主张的上游供应商。

For objective requirements, sellers should provide relevant evidence in line with trading habits and provide clear upstream suppliers that can be claimed.

对于主观要件，销售者应证明其实际不知道且不应当知道其所售产品系制造者未经专利权人许可而制造并售出。

With regard to the subjective elements, the seller should prove that he actually does not know and should not know that the product he sells is manufactured and sold by the manufacturer without the permission of the patentee.

上述两个要件相互联系。如果该销售者能够证明其遵从合法、正常的市场交易规则，取得所售产品的来源清晰、渠道合法、价格合理，其销售行为符合诚信原则、合乎交易惯例，则可推定该销售者实际不知道且不应当知道其所销售产品系制造者未经专利权人许可而制造并售出，即推定该销售者无主观过错。

The above two elements are related. If the seller can prove that it complies with legal and normal market transaction rules, clear product source, legal channels,reasonable price, and with good faith. Then it can assume that the seller actually does not know or should not know the products was manufacture without permission. Therefore, the seller has no subjective fault.

通过本案一审已查明的事实可知，在沃尔玛公司于2018年1月收到起诉状中已载明涉案专利权的基本信息、被诉侵权产品的基本情况、侵权比对结果等内容，在此情况下，沃尔玛公司应对被诉侵权产品及时采取下架处理。沃尔玛公司作为跨国企业，具有良好的知识产权保护意识以及有足够的能力处理各种知识产权纠纷，即便考虑到沃尔玛公司作为跨国企业在处理相关事务流程上的合规和严谨要求，其对本案被诉侵权产品是否系侵权产品作出初步判断的合理时间也不应当需要如本案已查明的2018年1月至2018年8月13日之久，沃尔玛公司在长达半年之久还未能及时作出合理判断并采取下架处理，明显超过合理期限，此时其再抗辩称其实际不知道且不应当知道所售产品系未经专利权人许可而制造并售出，难以成立。

From the facts ascertained in the first instance of this case, it shows that the basic information of the patent rights was involved, the basic information of the alleged infringing products, the infringement comparison results, etc. were contained in the complaint received by Walmart in January 2018.

Under this circumstance, Wal-Mart shall promptly remove the allegedly infringing products from the shelves.

As a multinational company, Wal-Mart has a good sense of intellectual property protection and is capable of handling various intellectual property disputes.Even taking into account the compliance and rigorous requirements of Wal-Martas a multinational company in handling related affairs, it has been imprisoned in this case.

It is not necessary to take a reasonable time to make a preliminary judgment on whether the infringing product is an infringing product.

As has been found in this case, between January 2018 and August 13, 2018, Wal-Marthas not been able to make a timely decision for as long as six months.

The reasonable judgment and the removal of the shelves obviously exceeded the reasonable time limit. At this time, it argued that it actually did not know and should not have known that the products sold were manufactured and sold without the permission of the patentee, which is difficult to admitted by the court.

对于合理期限的认定，最高人民法院认为应当充分考量个案因素，综合考虑涉案专利的类型、被诉侵权产品的基本情况、侵权比对分析、跨国企业专业判断能力及跨国企业管理流程等因素予以确定。

Regarding the determination of a reasonable period of time, the Supreme People’s Court believes that individual factors should be fully considered, and the type of patent, the basic situation of the alleged infringing product, the comparison analysis, the professional judgment ability of the multinational company, and the management process of the multinational company should be considered.

王路丰先生，百一知识产权的高级合伙人，先后获得专利代理人、商标代理人、技术经纪人、《企业知识产权管理规范国家标准》内审员资格等任职资格。担任中华商标协会理事、上海商标协会理事，是国际许可贸易工作者协会、国际商标协会、中国知识产权研究会等组织成员。

Mr.Wang Lufeng, the senior partner of Foridom Law Firm, who has successively obtained the qualifications of patent attorney, trademark attorney, technical broker,and internal examiner qualifications of "National Standards for Enterprise Intellectual Property Management Regulations".

Ashe has also served as a director of China Trademark Association, the director of the Shanghai Trademark Association, and the member of organizations such as the International Licensing Trade Workers Association, the International Trademark Association, and the China Intellectual Property Research Society.

主要执业领域为知识产权法律事务，包括知识产权布局、商业化和许可、知识产权保护和争议解决，以及国内外专利商标申请。王路丰先生拥有超过17年的专业经验，为包括多家世界500强企业在内的数百家企业提供服务。尤其是在专利领域，包括计算机、通讯、机电一体化、机械领域，擅长专利挖掘和布局、专利分析、专利无效宣告，对于专利法以及相关的法律法规等有着较为深入的理解，以及在技术转移服务方面积累了非常丰富的专业知识和实践经验。

The main practice areas of him are intellectual property legal affairs, including intellectual property distribution, commercialization and licensing,intellectual property protection and dispute resolution, as well as domestic and foreign patent and trademark applications.

With more than 17 years of professional experience, he have been providing services to hundreds of companies including many Fortune 500 companies. Especially in the field of patents, including computers, communications, mechatronics , and machinery.

Mr.Wang is also good at patent mining and layout, patent analysis, patent invalidation, and he has a relatively in-depth understanding of patent law and related laws and regulations, as well as technology transfer In terms of service, we have accumulated a wealth of professional knowledge and practical experience.

陈少兰律师，百一知识产权的高级合伙人，曾被评为：

《世界商标评论》（World Trademark Review）2020年度“商标保护及诉讼”领域杰出个人；国际商标协会公共信息委员会委员；优秀知识产权诉讼卓著团队；全国十佳著作权诉讼律师；上海市徐汇区人民政府兼职法律顾问；上海知识产权服务之星；上海市闵行区知识产权协会专家委员会专家。

代理的商标行政诉讼案件入选2019-2020年中华商标协会全国优秀商标代理案例，2019-2020年度上海十佳商标代理案例；代理的不正当竞争案件收入2006年上海市高级人民法院知识产权经典案例，《中国知识产权报》、《中华商标》、《上海知识产权》常年专家撰稿人。

The senior partner of Foridom Law Firm, who has been award as 2020 Outstanding Individual in the Field of "Trademark Protection and Litigation"(World Trademark Review)

Member of the Public Information Committee of the International Trademark Association;Outstanding Team of Intellectual Property Litigation; National Top 10 Copyright Litigation Lawyers; Part-time Legal Counsel of the People's Government of Xuhui District, Shanghai; Shanghai Intellectual Property Service Star; Expert Committee of Shanghai Min hang District Intellectual Property Association.

The trademark administrative litigation cases represented were selected as the 2019-2020 China Trademark Association National Excellent Trademark Agency Cases, and the Shanghai Top Ten Trademark Agency Cases 2019-2020.

The unfair competition cases represented by the Shanghai High People’s Court Intellectual Property Leading Cases in 2006, Perennial expert writer of “China Intellectual Property News”, “China Trademark” and “Shanghai Intellectual Property”.