To protect the patent right, Chairman of Shanghai Dais Electrical Co., Ltd, Dai Peijun, (below referred to as “plaintiff”) , who is also the patent inventor of electronic energy-saving lamp, brought a case to the court against Royal Philips Electronics of the Netherlands (below referred to as “defendant”). However, the defendant claimed that plaintiff’s invention was an invalid patent due to lack of innovation. On December, 2006, Beijing 2^nd Intermediate Court held that the defendant should immediately cease the infringing on the plaintiff’s industrial design, and compensate plaintiff for the economic loss of RMB500,000 (approx $67000). Both the plaintiff and defendant refused to accept said decision and appealed to Beijing High Court. One appellant, Dai Peijun,  claimed compensation for economic loss in the amount of RMB 5,000,000(approx $670,000) and public apology, while the other appellant, Royal Philips Electronics, claimed to dismiss original judgment, and reject Mr. Dai’s claim.

 

Beijing High Court held that Royal Philips Electronics has manufactured infringing products based on its prior design and does not infringe on the patent right of Mr. Dai’s. Therefore, the decision of Beijing 2^nd Intermediate Court should be rectified and Dai Peijun’s claim in respect of economic compensation & apology refused due to lack of legal ground.