More than three years have passed since Gree sued Oakes for patent infringement. Recently, with a ruling issued by China judicial document network, the case was finally settled. Oakes was convicted of malicious infringement and awarded Gree 40 million yuan.

　　According to a ruling issued on April 20 by China judicial documents.com, the Guangdong Higher People's court rejected the application of Ningbo Aosheng Trading Co., Ltd. (formerly Ningbo aux Air Conditioning Co., Ltd., hereinafter referred to as aux) for reconsideration, and upheld the ruling of Guangzhou Central Court on rejecting the application of suspension of execution of aux. Therefore, in the case that the effective judgment ((2018) Yue min Zhong No. 1132 civil judgment) has confirmed the establishment of auch's malicious infringement, and auch is judged to compensate Zhuhai Gree Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Gree) with a total of 40 million yuan of economic loss and reasonable cost for rights protection, Guangzhou intermediate court has allocated 40 million yuan that has been paid by the respondent auch in the earlier stage to the applicant Gree.

　　After more than three years, aux was awarded compensation of RMB 40 million for Gree

　　In January 2017, Gree filed a lawsuit against Ningbo Oakes Air Conditioning Co., Ltd. and Guangzhou Jingdong Trading Co., Ltd. The cause of action: Gree company enjoys the patent right of utility model with patent No. zl200820047012. X and "indoor unit of one air conditioner". It repeatedly infringes its patent right with eight air conditioners (kfr-35gw / bptyc1 + 1) manufactured, sold and promised to be sold by Oxfam. Jingdong company filed a lawsuit to the court on the ground that it infringes its patent right by carrying out relevant sales activities, requesting Oxfam to stop infringing Destroy the inventory and mould and compensate 40 million yuan.

　　On April 20, 2018, Guangzhou intellectual property court made a first instance decision, ordering Oakes to submit financial books within a time limit. However, oaks clearly refused to provide the original evidence on which the statistical data are based. The court held that oaks ignored the national laws and effective judgments, and the subjective intention of infringing the same patent right again by using essentially the same scientific and technological programs was obvious. Oaks awarded compensation to Gree 400 Million yuan.

　　On August 30, 2019, Guangdong Higher People's court made a second trial decision, maintaining the original judgment of Guangzhou intellectual property court in the first instance, and determining that Oakes malicious infringement was established. Later, Oakes refused to accept the judgment and raised an objection to execution.

　　On March 12, 2020, the higher people's Court of Guangdong Province rejected Oakes' application for reconsideration and ruled to maintain the ruling of Guangzhou Intermediate Court on rejecting oaks' application for suspension of execution. At present, the court has transferred the compensation to Gree's account.

　　Grudge dispute between Gree and Oakes

　　It is reported that Gree launched the latest all-around king u-zun air conditioner with sports wind guide mechanism in 2012, which is the first patented technology of Gree. Soon after, the air conditioner with the same technology appeared in the market of auch air conditioner.

　　In 2014, Oakes air conditioner was sued to the court by Gree Electric for six patent infringements. This case has gone through all the legal processes of patent protection, including civil litigation, administrative litigation, patent invalidation review, etc., which lasted for three years.

　　In 2017, the second instance of the court finally confirmed the infringement of Oakes, and asked to stop selling the infringing products, compensate Gree Electric for the economic loss of 2.3 million yuan, and destroy the inventory infringing products and the special molds for the production of the products.

　　In 2015, Gree once again sued Oakes "geek" wall hanging machine for infringing many independent patent rights of Gree's "painting era". In 2018, Oxfam finally confirmed the infringement and asked to stop selling the infringing products, compensate Gree Electric for the economic loss of RMB 6 million, destroy the inventory infringing products and the special molds for the production of the products.

　　Attachment: full text of the ruling

　　Other cases of Zhuhai Gree Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. and Ningbo Aosheng Trading Co., Ltd. execution ruling of examination

　　Guangdong Higher People's court

　　Execution order

　　(2020) Yue Zhi Fu No. 117

　　Review applicant (petitioner, executee): Ningbo Aosheng Trading Co., Ltd.

　　Legal representative: Yu Hong, position: executive director.

　　Entrusted litigation agent: Qiu Jun, lawyer of Beijing Liushen (Shanghai) law firm.

　　Entrusted agent ad litem: Yao Guanyang, lawyer of Beijing Liushen law firm.

　　Applicant: Zhuhai Gree Electric Co., Ltd.

　　Legal representative: Dong Mingzhu, position: Chairman of the board.

　　Entrusted litigation agent: Zeng Minhui, lawyer of Guangdong Huajin law firm.

　　Entrusted agent ad litem: Zhang Shangxiao, lawyer of Guangdong Huajin law firm.

　　The petitioner Ningbo Aosheng Trading Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Aosheng company) is not satisfied with the executive ruling of Guangzhou intermediate people's Court (hereinafter referred to as Guangzhou intermediate court) (2019) Y01 Zhiyi 1150, and applies to this court for reconsideration. After the court has accepted the case, it shall form a collegial panel for examination according to law. The case has now been closed.

　　As for the case that the executor Zhuhai Gree Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Gree company) applied for enforcement of the dispute over the infringement of utility model patent by the executor Aosheng company according to the civil judgment (2018) No. 1132 of yueminzhong, the Guangzhou intermediate court filed the case with (2019) No. 5404 on October 9, 2019. During the execution of the case, the person subjected to execution has paid the execution money determined in the effective legal documents to Guangzhou intermediate court, which intends to issue the execution money to the applicant. Now, the petitioner, Aosheng company, requests: first, to suspend the execution of (2017) Yue 73 min Chu 390 civil judgment; second, to suspend the payment of the full amount of compensation paid by Aosheng company to Gree company, the petitioner, so as to avoid the loss of Aosheng companyrecover. The facts and reasons are as follows: 1. (2017) Yue 73 min Chu No. 390 civil judgment has entered the trial supervision procedure and may be brought to trial by the Supreme People's court. The analysis is as follows: 1. The products involved in the case do not fall into the scope of patent protection. 1.1 the product involved in the case does not have the feature of "the rear water connection tank is inclined". 1.2 after the product involved in the case has been further modified within the validity of the patent right, and the product involved in the further modification does not have the characteristics of "bearing rubber ring seat with hollow cylinder structure and protruding part on the inner side". The Guangdong Higher People's court wrongly does not recognize the fact that Aosheng company has been modified, and does not have any responsibility for whether the product after the RE modification falls into the scope of patent protection What's the comment. The erroneous determination of the above facts by the Guangdong Higher People's court seriously belittled Aosheng's scientific and technological contribution to the multiple product modifications of the products involved in the case, and further led to the subsequent erroneous determination of the malicious infringement of Oakes. Moreover, there is a further significant difference between the re modified product and the patent involved in the case, which should be recognized as not falling into the scope of protection of the patent involved in the case. Therefore, even if the product involved in the prior manufacturing is considered to be infringing, the product involved in the re modified should be excluded in the determination of damages; 2. The existing technology defense is established. The patent involved in the case completely copied the products widely manufactured and sold by Daikin Industry Co., Ltd. in Japan before the application date, which is not the innovation achievements protected by the patent law at all. According to Article 19 of judicial interpretation 1, the content of the existing technology defense of the alleged infringement occurred after October 1, 2009 includes the technology publicly used abroad or known to the public through other channels. In this case, if it is determined that the product involved is substantially the same as the patent involved, the product involved should also be the same as the technology plan of Daikin product. Therefore, the patent involved does not infringe the patent right involved. The second trial decision is only based on the provisions of Judicial Interpretation II on existing technology, and does not involve the application of existing technology defense at all. 3. The amount of compensation is unreasonable. The first and second trial judgments awarded damages of up to 40 million yuan to the patents involved in the cases with extremely low contribution rate of plagiarism from abroad. This kind of compensation far exceeds the actual profit of using a single patent technology, and does not have any legitimacy and rationality. 3.1 Aosheng company has no malicious infringement. Aosheng company believes that the evidence 27 submitted by Aosheng company, which is not quoted in the judgment, is an expert legal opinion issued by a number of experts and scholars in the field of intellectual property and air conditioning. In the legal opinion, each expert believes that according to the reasonable interpretation of the claims, the implementation of the air conditioning indoor unit product with ladder shaped rear water connection does not constitute an infringement of the patent involved. The change of the product in this case compared with the product in the previous case fully reflects the original intention of Aosheng company to respect the patent right. The withdrawal of the key evidence submitted by Aosheng company by Guangdong Higher People's court resulted in a major fact finding error that the change of the product in this case is a minor change that is easy to be judged due to infringement, which seriously affected the determination of the amount of damages in this case. Moreover, the Guangdong Higher People's court completely ignored the fact that Aosheng company had changed the products involved in the case again during the first instance, and regarded Aosheng company's attitude of respecting intellectual property rights as missing. This Guangdong Higher People's court's recognition of repeated infringement and malicious infringement is totally wrong. 3.2 Aosheng company has no obstruction of proof. 3.3 in this case, the contribution rate of patents copied from foreign technology is very high. 2、 The patent involved in the case is extremely unstable and may be invalid; third, the execution of the case will cause significant unfair economic losses to Aosheng company. For this reason, Aosheng company has submitted the following evidences to the Guangzhou intermediate court: 1. The decision on the examination of the request for invalidation; 2. The notice on the acceptance of the request for invalidation; 3. The description of the third instance and the inquiry on the progress of the third instance; 4. (2019) the evidence materials submitted in the Supreme People's Republic of China 6058 case.

　　Gree company, the applicant for enforcement, replied: first, Aosheng company's objection to enforcement lacks legal and factual basis, which is just another improper means for it to delay the performance of the effective judgment. 2、 Since the first trial of the case was filed on January 25, 2017, Aosheng company has maliciously delayed the normal trial procedure of the case by various means. 3、 In addition to this case, Aosheng company has been awarded a total of 8.3 million yuan for infringement of Gree's patent right since 2015, which has been successfully implemented. 4、 Aosheng company's request for suspension of execution is based on the invalidation procedure of the patent in this case. 5、 In the context of strengthening the protection of intellectual property rights, Aosheng company's malicious repeated violations should be severely punished in time. In conclusion, Aosheng's objection to execution lacks facts and legal basis, which is just another improper means to delay the execution of effective judgment. In similar cases, the protest application of the person subjected to execution was rejected by the Guangzhou intermediate people's court in its decision (2017) Y01 Yiyi 205 made on June 20, 2017, and the decision (2017) YJF 278 made by the Guangdong Higher People's court. Therefore, the court is requested to make a rejection decision as soon as possible. For this reason, Gree company submitted the following evidences to Guangzhou intermediate court: 1. The decision on examination of invalidation request (No. 40169); 2. The decision on examination of invalidation request (No. 41875).

　　Guangzhou intermediate court found out that Gree company and Aosheng company violated the patent right of utility model. Guangzhou intellectual property court made a civil judgment (2017) Yue 73 min Chu 390 on April 20, 2018. The judgment is as follows: 1. Ningbo Oxfam Air Conditioning Co., Ltd. immediately stopped manufacturing, selling and promising to sell the case against Gree company from the date of legal effect of the judgment Second, Ningbo Oakes Air Conditioning Co., Ltd. shall, within ten days from the date of the legal effect of this judgment, compensate Gree for the economic losses and rights maintenance and reasonable expenses totaling 40 million yuan; 3、 Guangzhou Jingdong Trading Co., Ltd. immediately stopped selling and promised to sell the products infringing the patent right of utility model of Gree's "one kind of indoor air conditioner". If the obligation to pay money is not fulfilled within the period specified in this judgment, the interest on the debt during the period of delay shall be doubled in accordance with Article 253 of the Civil Procedure Law of the people's Republic of China. Aosheng company was not satisfied with the judgment and appealed to Guangdong Higher People's court within the statutory period. Guangdong Higher People's Court issued (2018) GMZ 1132 civil judgment on August 30, 2019. The judgment is as follows: first, maintain the second civil judgment of Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court (2017) Yue 73 min Chu 390; 2、 The first and third civil judgments of Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court (2017) Yue 73 min Chu 390 were revoked; third, other claims of Gree company were rejected. The above-mentioned legal instruments have taken legal effect.

　　Due to the failure of Aosheng company to fulfill the obligations specified in the effective legal documents, upon the application of Gree company, Guangzhou intermediate court filed the case with (2019) Yue 01 No. 5404 on October 9, 2019, with the filing object of RMB 40241800. In the process of implementation, Aosheng company has paid the above payment and execution fee to Guangzhou intermediate court.

　　It is also found that Aosheng company, not satisfied with the civil judgment (2018) No. 1132 of yueminzhong, filed a third instance request with the Supreme People's court, which filed a case for examination with (2019) No. 6058 of supreme law minshen on November 7, 2019.

　　It is further found that Aosheng company applied to the State Intellectual Property Office for invalidation of the patent involved in the case, and the State Intellectual Property Office made a decision on examination of the request for invalidation (No. 40169) on May 17, 2019, the content of which is as follows: on the basis of the decision on examination of the request for invalidation (No. 28904) to maintain effective claims 5, 8, 9 and the reference to claims 12-14 and 16-17, to maintain 200820047012. X The patent right of utility model is valid. On October 10, 2019, the State Intellectual Property Office made a decision on the examination of the request for invalidation (No. 41875), which is as follows: on the basis of the decision on the examination of the request for invalidation (No. 28904) to remain valid, claims 5, 8, 9 submitted by the patentee on December 4, 2015, and claims 12-14 and 16-17 referring to these claims, to maintain the utility model no. 200820047012. X Type a patent is valid.

　　On October 16, 2019, Aosheng company applied again to the State Intellectual Property Office to declare the patent 200820047012. X invalid. The State Intellectual Property Office made the notice of acceptance of invalidation request on November 5, 2019, and the case has not been examined yet.

　　It is also found that the original name of Aosheng company, Ningbo Oxus Air Conditioning Co., Ltd., was changed to the current name on December 28, 2018 with the approval of Ningbo Yinzhou District market supervision and Administration Bureau.

　　Guangzhou intermediate court holds that, according to the legally effective (2018) Yue min Zhong 1132 civil judgment, Aosheng company shall compensate Gree company for economic losses and reasonable expenses for safeguarding rights totaling 40 million yuan, as well as debt interest during the period of delay in performance. In fact, Aosheng company has delivered corresponding execution payment to Guangzhou intermediate court, and Guangzhou Intermediate Court (2019) Yue 01 holds 5404 case, which can be executed according to law.

　　Now Aosheng company claims that it has applied to the Supreme Court for the third instance, requesting to cancel the civil judgment (2018) Yue min Zhong 1132 issued by Guangdong Higher People's court and the civil judgment (2017) Yue 73 min Chu 390 issued by Guangzhou intellectual property court. Therefore, it believes that the case should be suspended and the payment to Gree company should be suspended. In response, Article 225 of the Civil Procedure Law of the people's Republic of China stipulates that "if a party or an interested party believes that the execution is in violation of the law, he may lodge a written protest with the people's court responsible for the execution. If a party or interested party raises a written protest, the people's court shall examine it within 15 days from the date of receiving the written protest. If the reason is established, the people's court shall rule to cancel or correct it; if the reason is not established, the people's court shall rule to reject it. If the parties and interested parties are not satisfied with the ruling, they may, within 10 days from the date of service of the ruling, apply to the people's court at the next higher level for reconsideration. " The above claim of Aosheng company is not a protest against the execution of Guangzhou intermediate court, but is actually the result of the judgment against the effective legal documents, which is not within the scope of the trial of the case of objection to execution. In fact, Aosheng company has already sought corresponding relief in another legal way. The first paragraph of Article 2 of the provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues concerning the handling of objections to execution and reconsideration of cases by the people's court stipulates that "if the objections to execution meet the conditions stipulated in Article 225 or article 227 of the civil procedure law, the people's court shall file a case within three days, and notify the objector and relevant parties within three days after filing the case. If it does not meet the conditions for acceptance, it shall be ruled not to accept it; if it is found that it does not meet the conditions for acceptance after filing the case, it shall be ruled to reject the application. "Guangzhou intermediate court rejected the execution objection application of Aosheng company.

　　In addition, Aosheng company claims that the patent involved in the case is unstable at present, and it has made a request for invalidation again. If the case continues to be implemented, once the patent involved in the case is declared invalid, according to Article 47 of the patent law of the people's Republic of China, it will cause huge economic losses to it. In response, Article 47 of the patent law of the people's Republic of China stipulates that "a patent right which has been declared invalid shall be deemed to be nonexistent from the beginning. The decision to declare the patent right invalid does not have retroactive effect on the judgment and conciliation statement of patent infringement made and executed by the people's court before the declaration of the patent right invalid, the decision to deal with the dispute of patent infringement that has been fulfilled or enforced, and the contract of patent license and patent right transfer that has been fulfilled. However, compensation shall be made for the loss caused to others by the patentee's malice. If, in accordance with the provisions of the preceding paragraph, compensation for patent infringement, royalties and fees for the transfer of patent rights are not returned, and the principle of fairness is obviously violated, they shall be returned in whole or in part. " First of all, the patent involved is not declared invalid at present; second, even if the patent involved is declared invalid, because the execution basis of this case is (2018) GMZ No. 1132 civil judgment, in the case that the judgment has not entered the third instance procedure and has not been revised, the execution of (2019) Y01 No. 5404 case cannot be suspended. In addition, in accordance with the above provisions, if the patentee maliciously causes other people's losses, it shall make compensation; or if it obviously violates the principle of fairness by not returning the corresponding funds, it shall return them in whole or in part. Aosheng company can still seek corresponding legal relief in accordance with the above provisions, and there is no problem of causing significant losses. Therefore, Aosheng company requests to suspend the execution of the case according to Article 47 of the patent law of the people's Republic of China for the reason of unstable patent status involved. The above claim cannot be established and Guangzhou intermediate court will not support it.

　　To sum up, Aosheng company requests the court to suspend the execution of case (2019) No. 5404 held by Guangdong 01, and suspend the payment of the compensation paid in full by Aosheng company to Gree company, the applicant for enforcement, which lacks the factual and legal basis. In accordance with Article 225 of the Civil Procedure Law of the people's Republic of China, Article 2 (1) of the provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues concerning the handling of enforcement objections and reconsideration cases by the people's court, and Article 47 of the patent law of the people's Republic of China, the Guangzhou intermediate court made an executive ruling (2019) Yue 01 Juyi 1150, which rejected the petitioner Ningbo Aosheng trade The protest request of e-commerce Co., Ltd.

　　The review applicant, Aosheng company, is not satisfied with the execution ruling of Guangzhou Zhongyuan (2019) Y01 Zhiyi 1150, and applies to the court for review, requesting: 1. To cancel the execution ruling of (2019) Y01 Zhiyi 1150 in accordance with the law; 2. To suspend the execution of the ruling of (2017) Y73 minchu 390. Facts and reasons: first, the case has entered the third trial procedure, and may be re judged in the case of the plaintiff Zhuhai Gree Electric Co., Ltd. suing the defendant Ningbo oxair Conditioning Co., Ltd. and Guangzhou Jingdong Trade Co., Ltd. for infringement of utility model patent. Guangzhou intellectual property court has made the first trial decision (2017) Yue 73 min Chu 390 on April 20, 2018. After the appeal of Ningbo Oxfam Air Conditioning Co., Ltd., the Guangdong Higher People's court made the second trial decision (2018) No. 1132 of yueminzhong on August 30, 2019, and upheld the judgment that the defendant Ningbo Aosheng Trade Co., Ltd. (the former Ningbo Oxfam Air Conditioning Co., Ltd.) in the first trial decision compensated the plaintiff zhuhaigeli Electric Co., Ltd. for economic losses and rights maintenance costs totaling 40 million yuan. At present, the defendant Ningbo Aosheng Trading Co., Ltd. has paid the compensation in full. The applicant Ningbo Aosheng Trade Co., Ltd. has made a third instance request to the Supreme People's court for the cancellation of the civil judgment (2018) No. 1132 issued by Guangdong Higher People's court and the civil judgment (2017) No. 390 issued by Guangzhou intellectual property court. In the case of (2018) Yue min Zhong 1132, the Guangdong Higher People's Court recognized that the profit of the infringed product was 50.912 million yuan, determined that the applicant had maliciously infringed, applied punitive damages, and awarded damages of up to 40 million yuan to the patents involved with the extremely low contribution rate of plagiarism from abroad. This kind of compensation far exceeds the actual profit of using a single patent technology, and does not have any legitimacy and rationality. The Supreme People's court has filed a case on November 9, 2019. The case number is: (2019) SFM 6058. Relevant information has been stated to your hospital. Moreover, in the first instance case of the same patent and the sued infringing products with similar product structure (case No. (2017) Yue min Chu No. 34), the Guangdong Higher People's court held that the first instance decision made on December 24, 2019 was contrary to the second instance decision, that is, the Guangdong higher people's court has corrected the discrepancy in the second instance decision in the judgment of the related first instance case Reasonably confirm that the applicant Aosheng company has no malicious infringement. This further explains the irrationality of the above compensation. To sum up, the second trial decision has entered the third trial procedure, and the high amount of compensation involved is extremely unreasonable, which is likely to be changed. In accordance with Article 256 of the Civil Procedure Law of the people's Republic of China, the execution suspension is applicable. 2、 The patent is not stable and Gree refuses to cooperate in the execution of the rotation. In addition, the current status of the patents involved is still unstable. Despite the judgmentAlthough the invalidation case (case No. 5wl17094) of the patent (Patent No. zl20082004 ×××. X) involved in the judgment has made the invalidation decision No. 41875 (Annex 1), the invalidation decision only involves the minor evidence defects of the key evidence (kfrd-35gwr (qxf)), and does not evaluate whether the evidence has a substantial impact on the creativity of the patent involved. In this case, Ningbo Aosheng Trading Co., Ltd. has made a request for invalidation of the patent involved (case No. 5wl18963, annex 2), and has overcome the defects of previous evidence form in this request for invalidation. At present, this invalid case is under trial. In the new invalid case, the technical features of the currently valid claims related to the above judgment have been obviously disclosed in the technical scheme of Haier air conditioner (kfrd-35gwr (qxf)) as the existing technical evidence. However, the applicant has reason to think that in this case, the claims related to the above judgment of the patent involved are likely to be all absent Effective. In addition, Gree company refused to cooperate with the court to carry out the execution reversal or return when the patent claim involved in the case was declared invalid in the oral trial of the execution objection. In this case, once the execution amount of up to 40 million yuan is distributed to Gree, Aosheng company will spend a lot of resources to seek follow-up legal relief, there is a huge uncertainty, which will inevitably cause significant unfair losses. In addition, Gree's attitude fully reflects Gree's lack of confidence in the stability of the patent involved, and attempts to use the patent involved obtained maliciously from Daikin company of Japan to obtain high improper interests. In conclusion, in order to protect the legitimate rights and interests of the applicant, in accordance with Article 225 of the Civil Procedure Law of the people's Republic of China, we hereby propose a review to your court and request your court to support the review request of the applicant.

　　Gree argued that, first, the enforcement ruling (2019) Y01 Zhiyi 1150 made by Guangzhou intermediate court was clear in fact and the application of law was correct. The reasons that Aosheng company claims in the execution objection and review procedure that "the patent involved in the case may be invalid" and "it has filed a third instance with the Supreme People's court for the effective judgment" are not appeals against the execution of the court's execution behavior, but in fact, they are not satisfied with the judgment result of the effective legal document, which is not within the scope of the trial of the execution objection case and should be rejected. The (2019) Y01 Zhiyi 1150 executive ruling made by Guangzhou intermediate court is clear in fact and the application of law is correct. 1. Aosheng's reason for "the patent involved may be invalid" is seriously inconsistent with the objective facts. Up to now, Aosheng company has filed 13 applications for invalidation declaration review, the first 12 of which have been closed, and the patent involved is still valid, which is enough to show the stability of the patent claims involved. For the 13th invalidation request filed by Aosheng company, the invalidation evidence is basically the same as the previous invalidation case. Its purpose is to try to delay the execution of the effective judgment again in the name of the patent involved in the invalidation procedure. 2. For Aosheng company, the effective judgment has been submitted to the Supreme People's court for trial. First of all, the claim is not the objection to execution or the reason for suspension of execution; secondly, Aosheng company explicitly requested the Supreme Court to suspend the execution of the judgment in this case in the application for the third instance, but since the Supreme Court accepted in November 2019, it has not supported Aosheng company's request, let alone ruled to suspend the execution of the judgment in this case. In fact, the effective judgment of this case made by your court is clear in fact, and the application of the law is correct. Aosheng's application for the third instance is just another means of trying to delay the execution of the judgment. 3. Aosheng company proposed that the judgment of (2017) Yue min Chu 34 case made by your court "correctly confirm that the applicant Aosheng company has no malicious infringement" was deliberately misinterpreted by Aosheng company, and the judgment of No. 34 case did not make such determination. The 111st page of the judgment in case No. 34 clearly states that "Aosheng company has been sued for the patent in this case more than once It is still recognized by the court for many times that it falls into the scope of patent protection in this case ". It can be seen from this discussion that it is not easy to find an alternative technology solution to the patent in this case, which reflects the high value of the patent in this case. It also shows that Aosheng company has repeatedly violated the patent in this case, and there are repeated infringement and malicious infringement. 2、 Aosheng company made malicious capital reduction in the process of litigation, trying to evade the responsibility of patent infringement. According to the enterprise credit information publicity report of Aosheng company, Aosheng company changed its registered capital from 1.2 billion yuan to 1 million yuan on December 17, 2019. Since the total amount of pending cases between Gree and Aosheng exceeds RMB 170 million, Aosheng deliberately reduced its capital in bad faith during the trial of several high compensation cases, and its intention to evade the liability for patent infringement through bad faith capital reduction is obvious. Although Aosheng company paid the compensation in this case to the designated account of Guangzhou intermediate court to avoid being included in the dishonest list, due to several patent infringement lawsuits, the interests of Gree company may be further harmed if the capital of Aosheng company after capital reduction is not enough to pay for all cases. Therefore, we should be alert to Aosheng company's attempts to evade legal liability through malicious capital reduction, as well as its abuse of judicial procedures and delay in the execution of effective judgment. 3、 Aosheng company abused the judicial procedure, tried to delay the execution of the effective judgment, and damaged the legitimate rights and interests of the patentee and the judicial authority. Both the first and second judgments of this case confirm AoshengIt constitutes malicious and repeated infringement, and points out that if Aosheng company continues to carry out the infringement in disregard of national laws and judicial authority after the effective judgment is made, it shall be severely punished in a timely manner. This case was filed in the first instance until the court of second instance made an effective judgment. After more than two years and seven months, Aosheng company continued to carry out infringement during the trial of the case; In September 2019, after your court made the effective judgment of the second instance, Aosheng company abused the objection procedure to delay the execution of the effective judgment, resulting in that more than six months after the effective judgment was made, Aosheng company still has not been punished for its malicious infringement of patent rights, and Gree company, as the patentee, has not received any compensation. In the execution stage, Aosheng company maliciously abused the judicial procedure and delayed the execution of effective judgment, which made the problem of intellectual property rights protection and enforcement more prominent. We sincerely ask your court to strengthen the execution of judgment and maintain the judicial authority to truly protect the legitimate rights and interests of the patentee. To sum up, Aosheng's review of execution objection lacks facts and legal basis, which is just another improper means to delay the performance of effective judgment. In similar cases, other decisions made by your court in response to the application of the applicant are also rejected. Therefore, we urge your court to make a rejection decision as soon as possible.

　　After examination, the Court confirmed the facts identified by Guangzhou intermediate court.

　　According to the court, the focus of the dispute in this case is whether it is lawful to reject the protest request of Aosheng company. Execution objection and review procedure is a procedure established to supervise and restrict the execution right. Through the execution right, the legality and appropriateness of the execution are examined, and the illegal execution in the execution procedure is corrected to ensure the fairness of the execution procedure. According to Article 225 of the Civil Procedure Law of the people's Republic of China, if a party or an interested party believes that the execution is in violation of the law, it may lodge a written protest with the people's court responsible for the execution. In this case, there are two reasons for the reconsideration proposed by Aosheng company: first, the case has entered the third instance procedure, and it is possible to change the judgment. Second, the patent is not stable, and Gree refuses to cooperate with the implementation of rotation. One of the reasons for review is that it is not satisfied with the execution basis of this case, which is not within the scope of review of review of objection to execution. The execution basis of this case is effective. Before the judgment is revoked, changed or suspended by legal procedures, there is no illegal and improper place for Guangzhou intermediate court to execute this case judgment. Aosheng company claims to stop the execution of the case on the grounds that "the patent is unstable and Gree refuses to cooperate with the execution to turn around". The reason is not tenable, and the court does not support it. Guangzhou Zhongyuan (2019) Yue 01 Yiyi 1150 execution ruling is correct in law application, and the handling is not improper, which is maintained by the court. In accordance with Article 225 of the Civil Procedure Law of the people's Republic of China and Article 23, paragraph 1 (1), of the provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues concerning the handling of objections to enforcement and reconsideration cases by the people's court, the ruling is as follows:

　　Reject the application for reconsideration of Ningbo Aosheng Trading Co., Ltd., and maintain the execution ruling (2019) No. 1150 of Guangdong intermediate people's Court of Guangzhou city.

　　This ruling is final. Presiding judge Jiang Xianhua Judge Li Tanjing judge Zhuang Xuyi March 12, 2000 Secretary Wen Xinglin

　　[warm prompt] the source of image and text is fortune number, China judicial document network, Netease technology, cover news. The copyright belongs to the original author. If there is any problem, please contact to inform us to modify or delete. Thank you.