In May 2015 the Shanghai No.1 Intermediate People’s Court issued a trial judgment in a design patent infringement case filed by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (hereinafter “MHI”) against Shandong Huasheng Zhongtian Machinery Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Huasheng Group”). The Court ruled that two small gasoline engines manufactured by Huasheng Group infringed MHI’s patent rights, and ordered Huasheng Group to cease its infringement and compensate MHI for economic losses. W&B successfully represented MHI in this case.

The case involved an MHI design patent entitled “Internal Combustion Engine”. W&B acted on behalf on MHI to collect evidence relating to two small gasoline engines manufactured by Huasheng Group, and it subsequently filed a lawsuit.

Huasheng Group argued that the design features of its small gasoline engine are different from the features of the disputed design patent, and that the small gasoline engine uses an existing design. W&B’s attorneys based their arguments on a comprehensive comparison of the allegedly infringing products, the existing design, and the disputed design patent. W&B presented detailed arguments that a number of differences exist between the disputed patent and the existing design, and that since these differences are design features exerting significant influence on the overall visual effect of the product, they should matter when conducting an infringement comparison. Moreover, since the allegedly infringing product perfectly copies the design of the disputed design patent with respect to these design features, design patent infringement should be found.

　　The Court agreed with the arguments offered by W&B and held that since considerable differences exist between the allegedly infringing product and the existing design, it does not use the existing design. Its ruling also noted that since these differences are also features that distinguish between the disputed design patent and the existing design, and since the allegedly infringing product uses these distinguishing features, they play an influential role on the overall visual effect. Since the difference between the allegedly infringing product and the disputed design patent lies in a minor change in shape, and since the allegedly infringing product displays no substantial difference with the disputed design patent in the overall visual effect, it consequently falls within the scope of protection of the disputed patent, thereby constituting infringement.