Bottle maker sues Bright in IPR case

The Shanghai subsidiary of a Korean plastic container maker accused a local dairy producer of patent infringement in Shanghai No.1 Intermediate People's Court Tuesday.

Shanghai Lock & Lock Trading Co Ltd had filed a lawsuit against Shanghai Bright Dairy and Food Co Ltd and one of its suppliers that demanded 300,000 yuan ($47,877) in compensation and an apology.

Shanghai Lock & Lock argued in court that the free plastic bottle that Bright included with the yogurt it sold infringed on the design patent of one of its products.

The plaintiff, a subsidiary of Hana Cobi Plastic Co Ltd, which owns the Lock & Lock brand, sells their drink bottles for 52 yuan, according to Zhai Fengjia, Shanghai Lock & Lock's lawyer.

"Shanghai Bright Dairy Food Company's promotion has hurt our market share and caused economic losses for our company," Zhai said in court Tuesday.

However, Zhai did not provide evidence that showed the defendant's activity had cost the company money.

Bright's lawyer argued in court that it did not sell or intend to make a profit from the bottle, a transparent plastic item with a screw-on lid, which it gave away with the yogurt it sold.

The debate focused on whether the design patent of the bottle was still valid.

The plaintiff provided the court with the patent certificate from the State Intellectual Property Office of China (SIPO) and showed the receipt of the annual filing fee.

However, the defendant's lawyer argued that the drink bottle that their supplier helped manufacture was very similar to the already widely-known product design. They were still waiting for a final judgment from SIPO about whether the plaintiff's patent is still valid.

The office's response is the key to the case, said Ren Haiyong, an intellectual property lawyer and instructor at the Shanghai Intellectual Property Rights Training Center.

"If the alleged infringing product is identical or substantially similar to the existing design known to everyone, which means there is no novelty in the design, then there is no infringement," Ren told the Global Times.

The court has delayed giving its verdict until the office gives its response. Both sides expressed willingness to settle the lawsuit out of court.