With the "patent" laws of thinking product Dispute

Study: "Real" fake patent law "explicitly" prohibit the reconstruction and related articles - With the "patent" laws of thinking product Dispute
Comprehensive (China Law Intellectual Property Research Association)
Gang Cao (Chinese Academy of Social Sciences Ph.D., Intellectual Property Centre)

Abstract: The permission of the patentee, the patent, the use of its patent number on the behavior of a "real" off the patent act, a "real" faking patents. However, such violations are excluded from existing laws and acts of counterfeiting patents of others pretending to patent acts, therefore, need to reinterpretation and reconstruction of two violations related articles. According to these two offenses inherent connection, you can pass off the patent act and patent behavior of pretending to read as including relationships, that is, non-patented product off as patented products to patented process off as patented process, while nominally others involved in the patent, that is, within the framework of existing law, "off the patent act" On the contrary, within the existing legal framework is the "bogus patent act." Off the patent act of nature is "the" name of the patent to others, but "no" patent of another person in reality. The act has not yet violated the patent law "expressly" provided, however, by the application of basic principles of civil law or patent law through systematic analysis, mining legislators intended, these acts can be a negative evaluation of the law.

Introduction
China's patent law on patent infringement, the patent act and pretending to pass off the patent act - also known as acts of counterfeiting patent - made a strict distinction between the liability and patent law in China, nor the so-called "real" fake person One said the patent act. However, judicial practice, the judiciary has the individual shall bear the civil liability of patent infringement only "interpretation" as "real" off the patent act, patent counterfeiting crime in order to "natural" to the patent infringement were "free" jail (Note: See Cheng Yongshun: "Patent Infringement Practice", Intellectual Property Press, pp 347-352. from the Preface of the book, way patent judges are not punished for fake claims to the patent infringers). This individual approach is no doubt the judiciary is wrong, fortunately, with the "Supreme People's Court, Supreme People's Procuratorate on criminal IPR infringement cases handled specific interpretation of Application of Law" (Law Interpretation [2004] 19 ) is promulgated, it will not happen in the future a similar reason to believe that the wrong case. However, this mean that "real" acts of counterfeiting patents of others is a purely invented concept? I recently learned from the patent dispute with the view, "real" acts of counterfeiting patent of another person is an objective reality, but I say "real" acts of counterfeiting patents of others and the individual judicial called "real" fake behavior of others is not about patents.

1, with the "patent" products dispute

A Design Institute (hereinafter referred to as Party A) developed a highly efficient energy-saving machinery, obtained a national patent. A machinery plant (hereinafter referred to as Party B) was informed that this machine has a good reputation and large market potential, they requested the implementation of the Party permits its patents. After consultation, Party A Party B is not only authorized the production of such machinery, but also agreed to Party B in the patent number on product labels, in advertising the use of its patent and patent copy.
With this patented product has a good reputation and sales of the units are in the market under the marketing effort, B received considerable production orders. At the same time, the responsible person B also found a "problem", that is completely true Yao Sheng Chan with the patent's claims all the required technical characteristics of the products and hence will Gongyiliucheng Fuzayiji pair of production personnel skills required to increase substantially because of higher production costs. So the person in charge will come up with a "coup" - a product patent number on the label, in advertising materials related to the use of a patent the patent number and a photocopy of the certificate, but not really the implementation of the patent . Specifically, the person in charge of planning and directly under the command of a small amount of B in addition to production of patented products as authentic samples, the mass production of a patented product with the same look, but do not have the patented product Main technical characteristics of the "patent" products. B in this "patent" Party marked on the product's patent number, and vigorously promoted this kind of advertising "patent" is the Party of products with international advanced level of development of proprietary products. This behavior for B, Party A is also informed, however, that the Party's leader, unit B to pay patent royalties does not patent the implementation of this unit, this practice is equal to the unit to do the " None of this business ", so the above acts of the Party adopted a resigned attitude. In fact, the objective results, the Party B. Party A's patent is undoubtedly a fake, because the acts of counterfeiting patents of others and the relationship between the patent number, the "Rules for the Implementation of the Patent Law" at 84 stress off the patent act is the "unauthorized" acts of using the patent number of others, while B just after the above-mentioned acts of the patentee, so I will act as "real" acts of counterfeiting patents of others.
A chemical plant (hereinafter referred to as Party C) has purchased another company authorized by the Party made the same patented product, the patented product is satisfied with the performance and quality. Based on the patented product performance, quality and service aspects of B sales commitments in the high degree of trust, purchased a number of Party B Party C the production of "patent" products. However, the use of this "patent" products in the process of Party C found that the "patent" of products in conformity with national quality standards, but compared to previously purchased proprietary products, both in performance and quality there is a gap, although technical personnel sent by the Party over and over again, this product can not be achieved technical effect described in the instructions, so they tested experts finally discovered the problem lies.
To understand the truth, the C and B to facilitate negotiations require B refer to similar products or proprietary products and generic products in the market price difference refund partial payment, or accept the return and the return of full payment. Requirements for Party C, Party B has taken the person in charge flatly rejected the first approach, on the grounds that: Our act is not expressly prohibited by law behavior, while not expressly prohibited by law behavior is legitimate. Specifically, the Party leader said: Patent Law and Regulations under the provisions of the act implemented by our factory is not a pass off the patent act, they are not faking patents and the factory's product quality meet the national quality standards, therefore, the above-mentioned requirements Party C has no legal basis. However, to Party C that court and through the media following the disclosure of B in the above-mentioned acts, may feel a guilty conscience, perhaps the fear of losing more market, Party B Party C has finally agreed to a request, reference and non-patented products patented products in the market price difference refund some money to Party C.
Party B and Party C "patent" of the final product disputes be resolved by means of negotiation, not only to save the country's judicial resources, but also to enable the parties to litigation from the tired, pleases everyone. However, the case or to the author left a lot of food for thought. (Note: Back in 2001, Professor Zheng Chengsi focus on the author asked the question: in practice there is not, without the permission of the patentee uses its patent and related patent documents, but in fact did not really happen the implementation of its patents? If there is such a thing really happened, how to evaluate its legal nature? In the absence of relevant case experience, the author has not seriously consider the issues raised teacher Cheng. in August 2005, Party B's legal counsel to the author revealed the case, finally I have the opportunity to combine the specific cases to analyze the problem. However, as B's counsel requested the author of the A, B, C and the three parties to remain anonymous, the author describes the case not specifically covered by patents, but also with the case did not The details of the detailed description.)

Second, within the framework of the existing legal acts of counterfeiting patents and pretending to conduct analysis of the patent

In this case, Party B "justifiably" to think that their behavior is not a pass off the patent act, they are not posing as the patent act, and not other act expressly prohibited by law, so it is a "though not very reasonable, but absolutely legitimate "behavior. In fact, B in advertising their so-called "patent" by making false statements in violation of advertising law and unfair competition law, relevant regulations, in addition, B also violated the "civil law" recognized The principle of good faith and fairness, therefore, the so-called absolute legal argument is without legal basis. The question is, "Patent Law" and its Implementing Rules Why would "substantially" fake a patent Party B's actions out of the acts of counterfeiting patents of others and pretending to act outside of the patent it? To answer this question, we must "Patent Law" and its implementing rules under the acts of counterfeiting patents of others and pretending to conduct patent analysis.
Off the patent act is the "Patent Law" fifth offense prohibited by 18. But the articles did not specify the meaning of acts of counterfeiting patents of others. According to "Rules for the Implementation of the Patent Law" at 84 of the regulations, the following acts are acts of counterfeiting patent of another person:
(A) Unauthorized manufacture or sale of its products, product packaging patent number on the label of others;
(B) without permission in advertising or other promotional materials used in the patent number of others, people will be involved in technical mistaken for other people's patented technology;
(C) Unauthorized use of another person in the contract the patent number, people will contract the technology involved mistaken for other people's patented technology;

(4) counterfeiting or transforming any patent certificate, patent document or patent application document.
"Patent Law of Rules" at 84 the provisions of the law enforcement agencies not only to judge off the patent act provides specific criteria for operational rather strong (Note: "Supreme People's Court, Supreme People's Procuratorate of Intellectual Property Criminal Cases Application of Law's interpretation of "relating to acts of counterfeiting patents of others and the" Rules for the Implementation of the Patent Law "at 84 of its consistency), but also to the further dissection of the patent acts of counterfeiting and patent infringement of others boundaries between . However, the "Patent Law of Rules" at 84 provisions have shortcomings, mainly in two aspects: First, the social relations of the complexity, variability and regulators limited ability to foresee things determines The articles cited four violations in real life can not cover what happens off the patent acts, since neither of the articles did not pass off the patent acts of abstraction, they do not reveal all the details of the provision, which has inevitably led some "fact" fake patent acts of others missing in the articles cited outside of the four acts. Second, the articles in the "unauthorized" this provision, there is a superfluous too. In fact, if the Party of the behavior and the "Patent Law of Rules" at 84, then the provisions of the control. Easy to see that, because of the articles in the "unauthorized" this "She Zu", will be real to fake the patent Party B's actions out of the acts of counterfeiting patents of others outside. (Note: If the "Rules for the Implementation of the Patent Law" at 84 subject to it for the exhaustive provisions of the law enforcement agencies can not be determined on Party B's conduct constituted patent counterfeiting, other hand, directly by law enforcement agencies can still be "patent Law "58th B article investigated. Then," Rules for the Implementation of the Patent Law "at 84 whether the provisions of exhaustive and non exhaustive it? from the relevant judicial interpretation to explain the theory and see, people tend to The provisions of articles is exhaustive) Bogus patent act - to generic product off as patented products to patented process off as patented process behavior - is the "Patent Law" fifth offense prohibited under 19, according to "Rules for the Implementation of the Patent Law," requirements, the following acts are acts of posing as the patent:

(A) the manufacture or sale of generic patent marking products;
(B) the patent is declared invalid, to continue in the manufacture or sale of the product patent marking on the tag;
(C) advertising or other promotional materials in non-patented technology as patented technology;
(D) non-patented technology in the contract known as the patented technology;

(5) counterfeiting or transforming any patent certificate, patent document or patent application document.
Generally speaking, makes a person act is carried out acts enough to others to believe their product is patented generic products, the generic technology is patented behavior. The "Rules for the Implementation of the Patent Law" at 84 and "Rules for the Implementation of the Patent Law," ????? comparison, not difficult to find, in the identification of counterfeit and other acts of the issue of the patent, the patent number of the regulations with particular emphasis on the role, while in identification of posing the question of the patent act, the regulations emphasize the role of patent marking. Reason for this difference, because the patent number and the "others" corresponding relationship between the patent, the patent marking, such as "China's invention patent", "Chinese utility model patent" and other marks, patents are not specific right people, that is, with the "other" there is no corresponding relationship between the patent. Fake or pretending to act in the rule premise, the patent mark illustrate a particular product is the patent product, patent number can be further specified the rights of patent ownership. In practice, people often patent number is used in combination with the patent marking, which is marked on an additional patent in the patent number, patent number, rather than alone.
Pretending to act and pass off the patent Patent act has a "fake" or "bogus" nature. In fact, in Chinese, the "fake" and "bogus" means almost the same, for example, when people say such and such a fake police officers, posing as police officers when such and such a "fake" and "bogus" means exactly the same. However, in our current patent law acts of counterfeiting patents of others and makes a distinction between acts were strictly the case, one can only patent the act of pretending to "patent" as the fictitious "patent", and pass off the patent act The "patent" is a reality of the patent. Of course, under certain conditions, acts of counterfeiting patents of others can be turned into bogus patent act, because the patent protection expired due to other reasons may be terminated for various reasons can be declared null and void. Due to expiration of patent protection after the termination of such reasons, the patent will enter the public domain, in this case, the original patented product will be transformed into generic products, the original patent will be converted to non-patent technology. After the patent is declared invalid, the patent is considered nonexistent from the beginning. Therefore, if the perpetrator counterfeiting of patents, and patent rights of others have been terminated or declared invalid, then the acts of counterfeiting patents of others will be transformed into faking patents. In addition, at least in theory, makes a behavior can be turned into acts of counterfeiting patents of others, for example, some posing as patents are also likely to be in its "proprietary" products fabricated a "patent number." In general, the fictional "Patent Number" and the patent number of others the same probability is very small, but at least in theory, can not absolutely rule out the possibility of coincidence, therefore, who makes a fictitious patent number and the others Patent No. coincidence of circumstances, the patent act pretending to be translated into acts of counterfeiting patents of others. (Note: In this case, the need to consider who makes a production and management of products and production and operation of the patentee's product is the same or similar product, is also worth studying. However, from the "Rules for the Implementation of the Patent Law," 8th 14 provisions of view, without considering the same product, similar problems.) Obviously, the behavior of B also has to generic products "bogus" nature of the patented product, the problem is that B is a "purported" is the "other" lawful and valid patent, and in the existing legal framework, makes a behavior of a "purported" in fact does not exist can only be a patent, which causes B's behavior is out of pretending to act outside of the patent.
In short, the objective results, the Party can actually "fake" the "other" patent and generic products are really and truly be "posing" as the patented product. However, thanks to the "Patent Law of Rules" at 84 in the "unauthorized" this "Yizu" Party B's behavior is out of the pass off the patent acts, at the same time, due to Party B "purported" is "other" lawful and valid patents, not fiction "patent" and "Patent Law" and its Implementing Rules and acts of counterfeiting patent of another person's behavior makes a strict distinction in turn determines the behavior of bogus patents The patent can only be fictional "patent" and therefore, B's behavior has been excluded from the patent act posing outside.
"Patent Law of Rules" at 84 why should "add" to "unauthorized" this "Yizu" mean? The author believes that the Act be "superfluous" The main reason is to emphasize the use of the patent number is the exclusive rights of the patentee, that the articles stressing that only the patentee and the personnel authorized by the patentee the right products mark the patent number. Patent number is the exclusive use of the rights of the patentee, the patentee, and only authorized by the patentee a right to the patent number on product labels, the proposition itself is not wrong. However, this is only one aspect of the problem on the other hand, the patent number there is also a status symbol shows the patent, if the patentee licenses the patent to those who do not implement the use of its patent number, it is no different from deceive the public. Therefore, if the perpetrator is not a patented product manufactured products, even after the patentee, the perpetrator shall also marked on the product of its patents. Unfortunately, the "Patent Law of Rules" at 84 too much about the identity of the rights of patent holders at the expense of the identity of the patentee the right to limit, as well as to act out of the fake B outside of the patent act.
"Patent Law" and its Implementing Rules why acts of counterfeiting patents of others and makes a strict distinction between acts of it? The author believes that the reason why legislators act of counterfeiting patents of others and makes a strict distinction is that makes a behavior not directly related to the identity of the patentee the right to act while off the patent of people directly involved in the identification of patent rights. From the perspective of the problem the patentee, acts of counterfeiting patents of others and makes a strict distinction between acts are justified. However, from the perspective of public interest, particularly in view of the patent acts of counterfeiting and faking patents under certain conditions, can be transformed into each other, then the need to strictly distinguish between acts of counterfeiting patents of others and makes a behavior, is a debatable The problem, which, the author will be discussed below.

Third, acts of counterfeiting patents of others and pretending to act to re-interpret the patent-related legal provisions and Reconstruction

Based on the above analysis, we can see the "Patent Law" and its Implementing Rules of the acts of counterfeiting patents of others, and pretending there are loopholes in the provisions of the patent acts, as well as loopholes to let the employee. Although the passing of anti-unfair competition law and other related laws and the principle of good faith and fair principles of the basic principles of civil law applicable in case of this vulnerability (Note: the application of basic principles of civil law, see Guo-Dong Xu: "Basic Principles of Civil Law explanation - to overcome the statute of limitations, "China Politics and Law University Press, 1992), but from the sound system of patent law point of view, the patent acts of counterfeiting and imitation of others to re-interpret the patent act, and amend the relevant legal provisions is necessary.
So, how to re-interpret pass off the patent act and makes a behavior? The author argues that focuses on the perspective of safeguarding the public interest to re-interpret pass off the patent act, at the same time, but also focus on the acts of counterfeiting patents of others and pretending to patents in the internal relations of these two violations to re-interpretation.
First of all, should be focused from the perspective of the public interest to re-interpret pass off the patent act. As noted above, because too much emphasis on the use of the patent number is the exclusive rights of patent holders, as well as the "Patent Law of Rules" at 84 in the identification of counterfeit and other acts of the issue of the patent, "Tim" on the "unauthorized "This" She Zu ", which will really and truly" fake "the Party A Party B acts out of patent counterfeiting acts of others outside of the patent. In fact, from B's behavior on the public interest - to buy their "patented product" and not the interests of particular people - the hazards of view, than the "unauthorized" acts of counterfeiting patent of another person, B's behavior more deceptive, it is not only because of Party B "after a license" its implementation of the above acts will exclude acts of counterfeiting patents of others outside. For this reason, I advocate cutting off the "Patent Law of Rules" at 84 in the "unauthorized" this "She Zu." Based on the "Rules for the Implementation of the Patent Law" at 84 others listed in the patent acts of counterfeiting of abstraction, taking into account the need to "cut" of the articles in the "unauthorized" this "She Zu", the author claims to redefine the off the patent act: the so-called acts of counterfeiting patents of others, is not enough people to other people's patented products or patent mistaken for another person's patented products or patented behavior. In other words, the real acts of counterfeiting patent of another person is the perpetrator of the product or technology "have" the name of the patent to others, but "no" to others to actually patent, as to whether the patentee "permit", does not affect Forgery Identification of the patent act. On the contrary, if the patentee licenses another to use its patents and patent number, the patentee should bear the corresponding legal responsibility. Of course, to show off the patent act of nature is "the" name of the patent to others, but "no" to others the real patent, it must be stated on the behavior of the manufacture, sale with a product or a technology concerned with the implementation of , patent infringement and counterfeiting patent behavior of others as mutually exclusive relationship, which, I will discuss below.
Secondly, the need to focus on the acts of counterfeiting patents of others and pretending to patents in the internal relations of these two violations to re-interpretation. Under the existing legal framework, acts of counterfeiting patents of others and pretending to act are two different nature of patent violations, the relationship between the two are parallel, and the former may constitute a crime of counterfeiting patents, which do not constitute a crime. In fact, acts of counterfeiting patents of others and makes a difference in behavior is not as legislators, you'd think. This is because: First, as mentioned above, these two offenses under certain conditions, can be transformed into each other. Second, these two offenses would undermine the authority of the national patent system and seriousness. Third, these two violations will harm the public interest. Needs to be emphasized is that in the pass off the patent act and pretending to act on the public interest patent damages issues, the author had in Guangdong Province and parts of Hebei Province, made a survey and found that the two offenses did not qualitatively different, and from volume point of view, makes a discipline. This is because most of the "fake" or "bogus" and "patented product" must ultimately be consumer-oriented, and most consumer awareness of the patent is not comprehensive. Many consumers the patent as "advanced technology" synonymous, but few people know the exact meaning of the patent number, patent number will not go through the check-related information, so consumers in the most innocent eyes, " bogus "and" patented product "worth mentioning" fake "and" patented product "worth mentioning are" tech "high" new "products. This is equivalent to a patent for "advanced technology" of the mistake, resulting in some consumers being taken, but also lead to "fake" or "bogus" and "patented product" fairy. Comparatively speaking, the current law the punishment for pretending to light the patent acts, acts of counterfeiting patent of another person the penalty weight, and usually makes a person act the same act can be illegal, and therefore the market is more " bogus "and" patented product ", not" fake "and" patented product. " Thus, the patent to others in acts of counterfeiting and faking patents legal responsibilities, the existing law is unreasonable.
Taking into account off the patent act and the internal links bogus patent act, the author advocated acts of counterfeiting patents of others, and patent behavior of pretending to read as including relationships, rather than parallel relationship, that is "off the patent act" is "bogus patent act "a special form. Specifically, non-patented product off as patented products to patented process off as patented process, while others involved in the patent in name, that is, within the framework of existing law, "off the patent act", the other hand, if you do not involve others the name of the patent, that is, within the framework of existing law "makes a behavior." In addition, given the "fake" and "bogus" in Chinese in the same meaning, and in the fight against counterfeits and fake goods activities, most people used to say "fake" rather than "fight to take," the author advocates the concept of expression in on the "acts of counterfeiting patent" instead of "faking patents", that is to "acts of counterfeiting patent" within the framework of existing laws covering "acts of counterfeiting patents of others" and "bogus patent act."
Yet to be explained that, due to invention patents, utility model patents and design patents, "gold content" is different from the practice of a number of received patents or utility model patent right for design people to mislead the public, gain an unfair advantage, it may be utility model or design patent for the invention patented product off as patented product. This behavior is essentially acts of counterfeiting patents. This is because from the perspective of a patent for invention, the perpetrator's behavior is very much "generic products" fake "patent." Of course, in order to enhance the operability of the law will be clear that such acts as acts of counterfeiting patent is necessary.
For these reasons, I recommend the legislature amend the patent law, will present "Patent Law" 58th, Article 19 combined, and read: "Product counterfeiting patents to generic products with a patented product counterfeiting another patented product, a non-patented method of counterfeiting patent by the patent administrative department shall order a correction and be announced, confiscate the illegal income and impose illegal income three times the fine, there is no illegal income and may be fined 50,000 yuan; constitute a crime shall be held criminally responsible. Implementation of the behavior of the first paragraph of this article, and others involved in the patent in name, in addition to assume legal responsibility under the preceding paragraph, the patentee should bear civil liability according to law.
Patentee knew others to conduct the first paragraph of this article, still permit others to use its patent number or patent-related documents, the patentee shall be jointly and severally liable. "

In the "Patent Law" within the framework of the existing legal acts and pretending to pass off the patent the patent act was amended, the "Criminal Law" 216th in Article should be amended accordingly, the key is to "pass off the patent" in "other" word removed. As for the patentee to authorize others to fake his patent, the patent holder is also a crime, should act according to the circumstances of counterfeit patents and the crimes of criminal law provisions to be determined. In the "Patent Law" was amended, the "Rules for the Implementation of the Patent Law" should be amended accordingly. The author proposes that "the Patent Law Implementing Rules" at 84, ????? merger, and read:

"The following acts are acts of counterfeiting patent:

(A) the manufacture or sale of generic patent marking products;

(B) making or selling products with others, patent number, and the products are not patent to others;

(C) in the manufacture or sale of the utility model, design patent products, patent marking tags;

(D) In the contract, advertising or other promotional material will be non-patented technology as patented technology, will not other people's patented technology as patented technology of others;

(E) after the patent is declared invalid, to continue in the manufacture or sale of the product patent marking on the tag;

(F) forging or altering the patent certificate, patent document or patent application document.

(Vii) all other generic products, or enough people will mistake generic method patents or patent method, not the other proprietary products or patents of others mistakenly believe that the patent or patented product behavior. "

Fourth, patent infringement and counterfeiting acts of others, mutually exclusive patent

In the above, the author stresses the real pass off the patent act is "yes" in the name of the patent to others, but "no" to others in reality the patent, which means that the patent patent infringement and counterfeiting acts of others are mutually exclusive relationship between specific to a product, a patent is concerned, there is no product with a product is infringing the patent is counterfeit product problems. However, in this issue, people have different views. For example, a large number of intellectual property rights of the view that: If the perpetrator without the permission of the patentee, while the implementation of its patents, but also unauthorized use of the patentee of the patent number, then its behavior is patent infringement, but also a fake person patent act, they should bear the liability for patent infringement, and pass off the patent liability. The author believes that these acts are violations of this that they view the existence of counterfeit difficult to overcome the logic of contradiction, the following reasons:

First, the establishment of patent infringement in itself means that actors manufacture and sale of products is indeed a patent to others, the implementation of the technology is indeed the perpetrator is another person's patented technology. Since the behavior of the manufacture, sale of products is indeed a proprietary product of others, act to implement the technology is truly man's patented technology to others, it is certainly not the "fake" of the. Second, even if according to the present "Patent Law" and its detailed implementation rules, this view is not unassailable. For example, under "Rules for the Implementation of the Patent Law" at 84 (b) of this paragraph, "without permission in advertising or other promotional materials used in the patent number of others, people will be involved in technical mistaken for another person The patented technology "of the act is off the patent a form of expression. This provision means that acts of counterfeiting patent of another person who set up to conduct the technology is not a prerequisite for other people's patented technology. This is because: only when the person is not the technology patented technology to others only when there is, "What will the technology involved mistaken for other people's patented technology", the contrary, if the perpetrator's technology is truly the patent to others technology, there is no "mistake" question. Thus, the same actors and the same technology, the patent patent infringement and counterfeiting acts of others are mutually exclusive. Rather, the establishment of the patent infringement actions lead to pass off the patent does not hold, that constitutes a patent infringement acts of counterfeiting patent law negates the others. In short, the behavior of people without permission while exploiting the patent of the patent number of the unauthorized use of another person's case, because the perpetrator of the product or technology is truly another person's patented products or patented technology, it acts unauthorized use of others, patent number acts only on its legal nature of the product or technology has made the objective description, not the patent to others "fake." Of course, the "Patent Law of Rules" at 84 (a) of the "unauthorized in its manufacture or sale of products, product packaging patent number on the label other people" of the provisions of the acts of counterfeiting patents of others a form, does not require the "misconception", so the proposals are infringing another point of view is a fake "legal" basis. However, it only shows that "the Patent Law Implementing Rules" loopholes. Because of "Rules for the Implementation of the Patent Law", of course, include the "Patent Law", in the acts of counterfeiting patents of others and pretending to act on the issue of patent loopholes, it needs to pass off the patent acts and acts of pretending to re-interpret the patent, and related Reconstruction of the legal provisions. In fact, in real life, without the permission of the patentee to exploit its patent infringement always do everything possible to find reasons to explain their product or technology with others, independent of patented products or patented technology, which greatly improves the patentee Rights costs.

Further Informations in German can be found here!