The Judgment of the Mock Trial（CHINA）
Through the trial, the court has found the facts as below:
The patent claim of the patented method which plaintiff request
protection from the court includes the following technical features:
A. A control method for car navigation system that displays a map
on a display screen, the method comprising steps of: B. Reading,from the first memory means in which facility data comprising
display data indicative of a plurality of service facilities andcoordinate data indicative of existing positions of the service
facilities have previously been stored, the display data to display theplurality of service facilities on the display screen; C. Designating
one of the plurality of service facilities displayed on the display
screen in accordance with an operation; D. Reading coordinate data
corresponding to the designated one service facility from the firstmemory means; E. Storing the read coordinate data as user
registered data in second memory means; F. Displaying a positionindicated by the coordinate data read from the second memorymeans by superimposing a predetermined pattern on to the map
when map is displayed on the display screen.
The method of the alleged infringement, D method, includes
the corresponding technical features as follows: a. A control method
for car navigation system that displays a map on a screen of Dterminal，which includes: b. Holding D spot data including D namedata indicative of a plurality of spots and D position data indicative1

of existing positions of spots in memory area A of D server of thecar navigation system in order to display the plurality of spots
corresponding to the D name data on the screen; c. Receiving aninstruction to register one of the plurality of spots displayed on thescreen as a “memo position”; d. Obtaining D position data
corresponding to the designated spot from memory area A of Dserver to be registered according to the instruction in order to store
the D position data as D memo data; e. Storing the D position data
as D memo data in the memory area B of D server; f.
Superimposing an icon on the map indicated by the D position dataof D memo data read from memory area B of D server when themap is displayed on the screen.
Both the plaintiff and the defendant have confirmed that the D
spot data (including D name data, D position data) and D memo
data in the alleged infringement method are respectively same as theservice facility data (including display data and coordinate data) anduser registered data in the patent claim. The “c” technical feature of
the alleged infringement method is same as the “C” technical feature,
which is the corresponding technical feature of the patent claim. The
alleged infringement method and the patent claim involve two typesof data, of which the operation steps are the same, and the data andprocessing method of the corresponding step are the same. However,the location in which the two types of data are read or stored of thealleged infringement method differs from that of the patentembodiment. When it comes to the following issues: Whether thetechnical features of the b, d, e, and f items in the alleged2infringement method and the corresponding technical features of theB, D, E, and F items in the patent claim in question are same orequivalent? And whether all technical features of the patent areinstalled in the vehicle? The plaintiff and the defendant’s opinions
are different.
The court identify the key issue disputed in the case is, whether
the alleged infringement method falls within the scope of protectionof the patent.
Paragraph 1, Article 59 of the Patent Law of the People's
Republic of China stipulates: “The scope of protection of the patentrights for an invention or a utility model shall be based on thecontents of the claims. The descriptions and the drawings may be
used to explain the contents of the claims.” Article 2 ofInterpretations of the Supreme People's Court Concerning Certain
Issues on the Application of Laws for the Trial of Cases on Disputes
over Infringement of Patent Rights stipulates: “The people's court
shall, according to the recordation of the claims in combination withthe understanding of the claim by ordinary technicians in the field
after reading the descriptions and drawings, determine the content of
the claims.” Article 7 of the same judicial interpretation above
stipulates: “When determining whether the alleged infringing
technical solution falls into the scope of patent protection, thepeople's court shall examine all the technical features described in
the claim asserted by a right holder. Where the alleged infringing
technical solution contains technical features same as or equivalent
to all the technical features described in a claim, the people's court3

shall determine that it falls into the scope of patent protection;
where compared with all the technical features described in a claim,
the technical features of the alleged infringing technical solution are
in lack of more than one technical feature as described in theclaim or contain more than one technical feature which are neither
same as nor equivalent to any technical feature as described in theclaim, the people's court shall determine that it does not fall into thescope of patent protection.” According to the facts ascertained by
the court and the reasons of both parties, there are two sub-issues
disputed in the course of determining whether the alleged
infringement method falls into the scope of patent protection:
1. The issue, whether the b, d, e, and f technical features in thealleged infringement method and the corresponding B, D, E, and F
technical features in the patent claim are same or equivalent, that canbe simplified as: Whether the memory area A and B of the D serverin the alleged infringement method satisfy “the first memory means”
and “the second memory means” in the patent claim.
Article 17 of Several Provisions of Supreme People's Court
on Issues Relating to Laws Applicable for Trial of Patent Disputes
Cases stipulates: “‘The scope of protection of the patent right for an
invention or a utility model shall be based on the content of theclaims. The description and the drawings may be used to explain thecontent of the claims’ referred to in the first paragraph of Article 59of the patent law shall mean that the scope of the protection of patentright shall be based on the scope determined by all the technicalfeatures set out in the claims, and shall include the scope determined4

by features equivalent to the said technical features. Equivalentfeatures shall means features which use basically the same means toachieve the same function and attain basically the same effects as thetechnical features set out , and which can conceived ,at the time ofoccurrence of the infringement act, by ordinary technicians in thefield without making creative efforts.”
In this case, according to the literal description of the patentclaim, the patent relates to the processing of two different types ofdata, wherein “the first memory means” is used to pre-store aplurality of service facility data (including display data, coordinatedata), which is used for reading when navigation is needed in thefuture; “The second memory means” is used to store user registereddata, that is, coordinate data of a specific service facility designatedby the user. The user registered data is only briefly used by the user
in the process of navigating to the designated specific service facility.
Considering the inventive objective and operation steps of thepatented method, with the difference between the two data sources
and functions, those ordinary technicians in the field should know,
the purpose of distinguishing “ the first memory means” and “ thesecond memory means” in the patented method, is to correspond to
the function of the patented method to process two types of data, andis not to limit the physical medium in which the two types of data
are stored.
The patent overcomes the defects of the traditional car
navigation system that requires complicated operations. The user canregister the location of the designated service facility through simple
5

operation without knowing the exact location of the service facility.
Comparing with the patent claim, the alleged infringement method
and its corresponding operation steps involve the same nature of data,
the same content of data processing, and the same simple operation
to designate the location of the service facilities by the user, which isalso the objective of the invention of the patent in this case.
Although the alleged infringement method stores both types of dataon the D server, according to the description of the alleged
infringement method, the two types of data are respectively stored indifferent memory areas on the D server, namely memory area A andmemory area B. That is to say, there are corresponding “the firstmemory means” and “the second memory means” on the D server.
Therefore, the alleged infringement method is same as that contentof the patent claim.
The defendant argued that ， according to the patent
specification in the case, “the first memory means” in the patentclaim relates to a portable storage medium, a CD-ROM, and “thesecond memory means” uses a random access memory, a RAM.
These determine that all components of the patent are installed in thecar and it is a single navigation equipment. The devices storing thetwo types of data in the alleged infringement method are all on the Dserver, thereby also determining that the device implementing thealleged infringing method is a distributed equipment which include“ mobile terminal + server”. The two methods are different in means,the effects of the two methods are also significantly different. The
former is cheap and convenient, while the latter is very expensive
6

despite its large storage capacity and high reliability. Moreover,when the defendant begins to use the alleged infringement method, it
is not easy for ordinary technicians in the field to use the server toreplace the CD-ROM and RAM storage device in the patent
specification. In this regard, the court holds that:In one aspect, the patent claim does not define “ the firstmemory means” as a CD-ROM, nor “ the second memory means” asa RAM, and the CD-ROM and RAM are the embodiment of thepatent specification for thedescription of the two “memorymeans”. The understanding of “the first memory means” and “thesecond memory means” by ordinary technicians in the field after
reading the specification and drawings is not limited to theCD-ROM and the RAM, and the scope of protection of the patentclaims can not be only limited by the embodiment.
On the other aspect, even if “the first memory means” in thepatent claim is limited to the CD-ROM and “the second memorymeans” is limited to the RAM as the defendant argued according to
the description of the patent embodiment, the D server in the alleged
infringement method still has separate spaces ,which are the memoryarea A and the memory area B, for storing the service facility data
and the user registered data respectively, then the technical featuresin processing the two types of data, the b, d, e, and f technicalfeatures in the alleged infringement method, are equivalent to thecorresponding B, D, E, and F technical features in the patent claim.
The reasons are as follows:（1）Both methods use computer storage and communication7

technology, to realize the storage and reading of data for plurality ofservice facilities, and to realize the designation, storage and use ofdata for specific service facility. The two types of data processed by
the two methods have the same nature and the way they areprocessed are also the same, which overcomes the defects of the
traditional car navigation system that requires complicatedoperations, so that the user can register the location of the designatedservice facility through simple operation without knowing the exact
location of the service facility. These two methods use basically thesame means.
（2）Both methods have achieved basically the same function,to which the plaintiff and defendant have no objection.
（3）Both methods have attained basically the same effect. Dueto the use of different communication technologies and storage
media, both methods have advantages and disadvantages in terms ofuse environment, storage media cost, storage capacity, reliability andstability. The embodiment disclosed in the patent description can beused in an environment without wireless communication signals, andhas advantages over alleged infringement methods which can only
be used in wireless communication environments. Compared withthe embodiment disclosed in the patent description, the D method
has certain advantages in updating the service facility data and user
operation convenience, and the conventional server is usuallyequipped with an uninterruptible power supply, which can ensure thestability of the data. However, the technical effects of the two
methods in achieving car navigation function are basically the same.
8

（4）When the defendant provides the alleged infringement
method, ordinary technicians in the field can easily think ofreplacing the b, d, e, and f technical features in the alleged
infringement method to the car navigation system control methods
by using CD-ROM and RAM disclosed in the patent embodiment.
The objective of the patented invention is to display the location of a
specific service facility by a simple operation without the user
knowing the exact location of the specific service facility designatedby the user. The alleged infringement method uses the technicalcontent closely related to the objective of the invention in thepatented method. The difference, between the alleged infringement
method and the embodiment of patent, is caused by the developmentof communication technology means used in car navigation controlsystem. Back to the time the patent application submitted, thecommunication technology was not fully developed, and the datacapacity that could be transmitted was limited. At that time, usually
the service facility data was stored in a portable storage
medium(CD-ROM) that could be installed in a car and hold a large
amount of data for searching, positioning and navigation. The user
registered data that needs to be temporarily stored was stored in atemporary data storage medium(RAM), which is convenient forreading/writing and can be quickly and frequently replaced. With thedevelopment of network communication technology, in 2013, when
the defendant provided the alleged infringement method, the reading
and transmission of data through the remote server and the mobile
terminal by means of the wireless communication network have9

been widely used, and it is easy for the ordinary technicians in thefield to think of replacing the corresponding technical means in thepatent embodiment by using remote wireless communication
technology.
2. According to the written opinion of the plaintiff in theprosecution history of patent application, whether the scope ofprotection of the patent involved should be limited to that alltechnical features of the car navigation system are installed in thevehicle.
In this case, the defendant argued that according to the plaintiff’s
written opinion in the prosecution history of patent application, allcomponents of the patented method should be installed in the vehicle.
Especially the opinion B, that is, only when the car navigation
system is installed in the vehicle and by which can supply a constant
power source from the large-capacity vehicle battery to the RAM,the effect of improving convenience for user through user registereddata continuously stored and held can be achieved. This is anecessary condition for overcoming the lack of inventive step of thepatent. The plaintiff abandoned other implementation methods
through the written opinion, and the scope of patent protection can
not include the abandoned technical solutions during the patent
infringement litigation.
The court holds that, article 6 of Interpretations of the Supreme
People's Court Concerning Certain Issues on the Application ofLaws for the Trial of Cases on Disputes over Infringement of Patent
Rights stipulates: “Where a right holder includes a technical solution,
10

which the patent applicant or patentee has abandoned throughamendments of claims or specification or throughstatement ofopinion in the patent granting or invalidation procedure, in thescope of patent protection in a patent infringement case, the people's
court shall not support it.” According to the provision above, it
should not be determined that the protection scope of the patent islimited to that all the components of the car navigation system areinstalled in the vehicle. Here are the reasons. Firstly, the plaintiff
first emphasized in the written opinion that the difference between
the patent and Cited Invention 1 is that Cited Invention 1 aims tosolve the problem unique to the navigation apparatus for pedestrians
and does not disclose a control method for a car navigation system
claimed in the patent application. The plaintiff further emphasized in
the written opinion that, by providing the second memory means
using RAM that is backed up by being supplied with power from abattery and installing the car navigation system in the vehicle, atechnical effect that user registration data can be continuously storedand held is obtained. After comprehensively considering theinvention purpose of displaying the location of a specific service
facility with a simple operation, which is described in thespecification of the patent, as well as the plaintiff’s written opinion,
it can be concluded that the plaintiff had abandoned the technicalsolution of a control method for pedestrian navigation system, but it
cannot be determined that the patent was granted based on thetechnical feature that all the components of the car navigation
system are installed in the vehicle. Secondly, compared the technical11

features of the alleged infringement method with the embodiments
ofpatent,

thealleged

infringement

methoduses

remotecommunication technology, and the technical means decided thereby,such as storing two types of data in the D server and other technicalmeans, are irrelevant to the objective of the invention of the patent.
The alleged infringement method uses the technical content closelyrelated to the objective of the invention in the patented method, thecorresponding technical means in the patent embodiments are onlyreplaced by the means of remote wireless communication
technology and the storage technology means determined thereby,
which are only formed by the later development, but are easily
associated by those ordinary technicians in the field at the time ofuse. The alternative technical means in the alleged infringement
method did not appear at the date of the patent application, and theplaintiff could not intentionally abandon the unknown technicalmeans at the time of applying for the patent.
In summary, the alleged infringement method falls within thescope of protection of the patent in the case of the infringement. The
court first rules that the defendant shall stop the infringement.

（The judgment only represents the opinion of the collegial panel）

12