Recently, the hottest topic in the digital circle is the "hinge patent dispute between T factory and H factory", which has aroused extensive discussion and attention from the majority of netizens. As events move fast, two questions are being pondered: who are the real innovators, and how patents should be granted and protected.
In order to understand the whole incident objectively and objectively, we must first understand some basic knowledge related to patents. According to the information query of the State Intellectual Property Office, the nature of the patent of Factory H is "invention patent". This article will introduce some patent knowledge from a neutral position to promote a better understanding of patent issues. (Please note that this article is a popular science note and is not related to any specific brand, please understand).
Our ordinary people's perception of patents is mainly based on "invention patents". Invention patents refer to new technical solutions proposed for products, processes or their improvements. The core element is to meet the three conditions of novelty, practicability and inventiveness of the patent law, and all three are indispensable
1) The core of invention patents lies in novelty, simply put, others do not have them, and they need to go through a long examination cycle, and the pass rate is low.
Novelty: refers to the fact that the invention does not belong to the prior art, and no unit or individual has filed an application with the national patent administration department for the same as the invention before the filing date, and it is recorded in the patent application documents or announcements published after the filing date.
Inventive step: refers to the fact that the invention has significant substantive features and important progress compared with the prior art.
2) The examination of utility model patents mainly involves formats and procedures, and the examination time is relatively short, and the pass rate is relatively high.
Generally, large enterprises will choose invention patents to apply, because invention patents are basically published, and utility model patents are very rare to be used for publicity. For enterprises, it is common to apply for invention patents and utility model patents at the same time, and the application for utility model patents can generally be granted, while invention patents need to pass the originality examination. The advantages of this are obvious, if the invention patent is granted, the utility model patent can be left without much consideration;If the invention patent does not pass the examination, at least the utility model patent can be used, and there will be no legal problems in continuing to use the utility model patent for publicity. From a cost point of view, there is no additional cost to apply for an invention patent and a utility model patent at the same time, but the value of a utility model patent is usually lower than that of an invention patent. As a result, most large companies only emphasize invention patents when advertising their R&D capabilities, and do not mention the total number of patents too much.
By understanding the difference between invention patents and utility model patents, I believe everyone has a conclusion in their minds. Factory T claims that their patent application was granted in September 2020 and was granted in January 2021, while Factory H's patent was filed in December 2019 and published in June 2021. Therefore, Factory T argued that their patents were not related to those of Factory H.
However, according to the disclosure of the State Intellectual Property Office of China, we found another patent: the patent for the water drop folding screen applied by Factory H in November 2016 was published in May 2018!The details are as follows:
(1) State Intellectual Property Office of the People's Republic of China
(2) Invention
(3) Application No. 2016110224493
(4) The application deadline is November 17, 2016
Conclusion 01: The public should understand that behind every patent is the hard work of countless scientific researchers, and the patented technology should be treated with a scientific and rigorous attitude.
Conclusion 02: No matter which company's patents are genuine, they should be respected by the public. We should support companies that are doing scientific and technological research and development in a down-to-earth manner.
Conclusion 03: In the face of technical disputes between manufacturers, the relevant legal system should also be improved, because this not only wastes the public's network information resources, but also has a negative impact on the working atmosphere of the manufacturer's employees.
Conclusion 04: We should encourage scientific research and innovation, and oppose low-cost "take-it-or-leave-it". I believe that 1.4 billion people support this.
The above is an analysis and summary of a small story in the dispute over the hinge patent of the manufacturer. Everyone is also welcome to express their views on this matter. For the digital community, this is a good opportunity to spread patent knowledge, discuss on a fair basis, and contribute to the development of the industry!