Sina Technology News in the evening of June 14th, in front of the street electric call to prosecute calls for unfair competition, calls today issued a statement said, never asked the street company to have a cooperative relationship business must, there is no unfair competition.
A few days ago, the Beijing intellectual property court made the first instance judgment. It decided that the two patents of street electric infringing the caller science and technology were set up, and the compensation call technology amounted to 2 million yuan.
At that time, street power issued a statement that the Beijing intellectual property court had made a decision on the first trial and had not yet come into effect. At the same time, there was a deviation in the fact finding of the first instance court, and street power had appealed to the high people's Court of Beijing in court.
Street power has issued a statement again recently, saying that the call technology has sent a letter from the unavailable decision to the partners of street electricity. It had also made pressure on public opinion by means of judicial preservation and media related reports in order to achieve its irrational commercial purposes through improper means. Street electric has filed an unfair competition tort lawsuit against the intermediate people's Court of Shenzhen.
In response to street electricity charges, the call today responded that the business that had never been required to have a cooperative relationship with the street power company would have to have no unfair competition. The call also said that judging the court's verdict "whether there is a deviation in fact" is not the act of an enterprise, and calls on street power to respect intellectual property rights and court decisions. (Zhang Jun)
The following is the full text of the call declaration:
Shenzhen electric science and Technology Co., Ltd. recently claimed that Shenzhen calls Technology Co., Ltd. unfair competition, and many patents have been declared invalid, here the Shenzhen call Technology Co., Ltd. declares as follows:
1. The first trial of the Beijing intellectual property court is open and transparent. The call technology has the right to objectively explain the verdict, and it also has the obligation to remind the majority of the co - operators to share the verdict. Call technology has never asked for cooperation with the street power company. How else will it be?
Street electric claims that there is no justification for unfair competition in technology.
At the same time, the call technology insists that judging the court's verdict "whether there is a deviation in facts" is not the act of an enterprise. As an enterprise, it needs to clearly know the right and responsibility boundary of the enterprise, respect the law, respect the innovation and respect the intellectual property, instead of using the media to confuse right and wrong, and refer to the soap. White.
2. In order to procrastinate the court to trial and judge the patent litigation of both sides, the street power company has repeatedly made a request to the Patent Review Committee of the State Intellectual Property Bureau for several patents to the Patent Reexamination Board of the State Intellectual Property Office. But by the date of the first trial of the intellectual property court in Beijing, the patents for calls for technology were all valid and partly valid by the patented Review Committee, and the patent for the call technology that was not said by the street power company had been invalid.
After many invalid patents review, and call technology successively, Shenzhen cloud filling technology, Guangzhou friendship technology, Shenzhen renting technology, Shenzhen street electric technology, enough to show that the rights stability of the patent for telephone technology can stand up to the test and test.
The company has been avoiding the fact and distorting the facts. Calling technology has called for the attention of the businessmen.
3, the street electric company declares that it has a number of independent patents. What we want to say is whether we own patents and whether or not infringing upon others' patents. The company has the right to patent and respect the intellectual property rights of the company. But the street power company will have a proprietary patent and infringement of the patent for technology to confuse the consumer behavior, is not acceptable to the call technology, and will not accept.
4, street electric company statement said: "cooperative businesses do not directly participate in the operation, the corresponding do not have to bear any legal responsibility," deliberately concealing and misleading consumers and their cooperative businesses may face the risk of joint and several liability, call this is a very irresponsible deception. We have reason to believe that such acts are also unwilling to be seen and accepted by businessmen who are honest, trustworthy and lawfully run.
As a pioneer in the field of sharing and charging, the call technology respects and enjoys the existence of every competitor, and the great opponents can achieve greater self. It is not terrible to make mistakes, and the terrible thing is to be stubborn.
We sincerely hope that the street power company respects the facts and respects the judgment of the people's court, and not one and another and three self sophistry, but can stand in the perspective of the cooperative merchants and consumers, conscientiously fulfil their own obligations and become a truly responsible shared charging and charging enterprise.
Shenzhen call Technology Co., Ltd.
June 15, 2018
Waonews is a news media from China, with hundreds of translations, rolling updates China News, hoping to get the likes of foreign netizens