Kohler Takes A Well-Known Smart Bathroom Company To Court For More Than $1.4 Million In Damages

Bathroom Business School

Recently, Kohler (China) Investment Co. v. Zhejiang Weiwei and many other enterprises appearance patent infringement case in the first instance ruled in favor of Kohler.

In 2017, Kohler (China) Investment Co. Ltd. sued Zhejiang Weiwei Electronic Sanitary Ware Co. Ltd. and Shanghai Weiwei Electronic Sanitary Ware Co. Ltd. and Taizhou Yijia Technology Co. Ltd. and Beijing Jingdong Sanlitu E-commerce Co. Ltd. for infringement of design patents.

The trial was held in public on September 10, 2019, at the Beijing Intellectual Property Court. Kohler said in the lawsuit, Zhejiang Weiwei, Shanghai Weiwei without the plaintiff’s permission, jointly manufacture, sell, promise to sell the model V9-B, V9-C toilet infringed Kohler is still in the patent protection period of ZL201330193853.8, the name of the “toilet” design patent, Jingdong for the above-mentioned The conduct provides an e-commerce platform, and IKEA’s sale and promise to sell V9-B toilets and promise to sell V9-C toilets without the plaintiff’s permission also constitutes an infringement of the patent.

Kohler requested the court to order Zhejiang Weiwei and Shanghai Weiwei to immediately stop manufacturing, selling, promising to sell the infringing products, and destroy all the infringing products and the relevant moulds for the production of the infringing products. At the same time that the Weiwei more than 200 stores also sold infringing products, so the economic losses and reasonable litigation expenses a total of 14,208,850 yuan, of which a total of 420,850 yuan of reasonable litigation expenses, including 400,000 yuan of lawyer’s fees, notary fees 20,850 yuan. In addition, Ikea was ordered to pay 620850 yuan for economic losses and reasonable expenses, including 420,850 yuan for reasonable expenses, including 400,000 yuan for attorney’s fees and 20850 yuan for notary fees.

Zhejiang Weiwei, Shanghai Weiwei pointed out in the defense, the infringing products and the patent in question, neither the same nor similar, not into the scope of protection of the patent in question, even if the infringing products fall into the scope of protection of the patent in question, the plaintiff claim amount is too high, request the court to reject all the plaintiff’s claim.

IKEA argued that it agreed with the defense of Zhejiang Weiwei and Shanghai Weiwei, and said that the infringing products sold by IKEA have legal sources, should not bear the liability, accordingly, request the court to reject all the plaintiff’s claims.

After the hearing, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court held that the patent is still in the validity period, and the infringing products and the infringing products in the appearance of many similarities, Zhejiang Weiwei, Shanghai Weiwei in the court hearing recognized its implementation of the manufacture, sale, promise to sell the infringing products, thus constituting an infringement of the patent rights enjoyed by Kohler, shall bear the corresponding civil liability. IKEA did not have subjective fault, and did not need to bear the liability.

The court of first instance ordered Zhejiang Weiwei and Shanghai Weiwei to immediately stop manufacturing, selling and promising to sell the infringing products, and Taizhou Ikea to immediately stop selling and promising to sell the infringing products, and rejected Kohler’s request to destroy all the infringing products and related molds. At the same time ordered Zhejiang Weiwei, Shanghai Weiwei compensation for the plaintiff Kohler (China) Investment Company Limited economic losses of 200,000 yuan, 60,850 yuan in litigation costs. And pay 1400 yuan for case acceptance fee.