Incoming calls respond to street prosecution Sharing charging treasure industry disputes constantly
On the evening of June 14, according to a statement released today by the company’s call for unfair competition, the company’s call for a cooperative relationship with Street Power Co., Ltd. did not require unfair competition.
A few days ago, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court made a first-instance judgment that sent two patents for street-electricity infringement technology to be established, and a total of 2 million yuan for indemnification technology.
At the time, the street power company issued a statement stating that the Beijing Intellectual Property Court had made the first-instance judgment and it had not yet entered into force. At the same time, the facts in the first-instance court found that there was a deviation, and Street Power had appealed to the Beijing Higher People’s Court in court.
In the street power sector, a statement was issued a few days ago, saying that the telephony technology will send a letter of judgment not yet in force to the street power partner. Prior to this, he had also used the judicial protection means and carried out media reports to create public opinion pressure, and intended to realize it through improper means. Unreasonable business purpose. Street Power has filed an infringement lawsuit against Shenzhen Municipal Intermediate People's Court for unfair competition. At present, this case is in the process of trial.
In response to the allegations of street power, the caller responded today and said that it has never been required that the merchants that have a relationship with Street Power must have unfair competition. In terms of incoming calls, it was also stated that the judgement of the court’s decision “whether or not the facts are found to be biased” is not and should not be an act of a company. It calls on Street Power to respect intellectual property rights and the court’s judgment. (Zhang Jun)
The following is the full text of the call statement:
Recently, Shenzhen Street Power Technology Co., Ltd. claimed that Shenzhen Intruder Technology Co., Ltd.'s unfair competition, as well as a number of patents for calling technology have been declared invalid. The Shenzhen Call Technology Co., Ltd. hereby declares as follows:
1. The first-instance judgment of the Beijing Intellectual Property Rights Court is open and transparent. Calling technology has the right to objectively state the facts of the judgment, and it also has the obligation to remind the sharing charge Po partner of knowing the facts of the judgment. Calling technology has never required a merchant that has a relationship with Street Power to do so, or else what would be a call to technology.
The street power company claims that there is no reason to call unfair competition.
At the same time, Calling Technology insisted that judging the court’s decision “whether there is a deviation in factual determination” is not and should not be an enterprise’s behavior. As a company needs to clearly know the boundaries of the company’s rights and responsibilities, respect the law, respect innovation, and respect intellectual property rights, Instead of confusing right and wrong through the media, it means white soap.
2. In order to delay the trial of the court and the patent lawsuits of both parties, Street Power Company has repeatedly filed a patent invalidation request against the Patent Reexamination Board of the State Intellectual Property Office for a number of patents for incoming telephony. However, as of the date of the first-instance judgment of the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, the patents for the incoming telephony technology have been maintained by the Patent Reexamination Board, and a partial effective review decision has been maintained. Was invalidated.
After several patent invalidation examinations, as well as call technology has won the case of Shenzhen Yunchongba Technology, Guangzhou Youdian Technology, Shenzhen Renting Technology, and Shenzhen Street Technology, it is enough to show that the stability of the rights to call technology patents can withstand the challenges and challenges. .
Street companies evaded light and distorted the facts, calling technology calls for the attention of the majority of businesses.
3, Street Power Company stated that it owns a number of independent patents. We would like to say that it is entirely a matter of itself whether it owns a patent and whether it infringes the patent of another. The fact that the call-in technology recognized Street Power Company has patents and respects the intellectual property owned by Street Power. However, the company’s behavior of confusing consumers with proprietary patents and infringing technology patents is unacceptable and unacceptable.
4. In the statement of Street Power Company, “Cooperative merchants are not directly involved in operations, and accordingly do not need to bear any legal responsibility”, deliberately concealing and misleading consumers and their cooperating merchants may be exposed to the risk of joint tort liability. This is a very irresponsible deception. We have reason to believe that such actions are also unwilling to see and accept businesses that are honest, trustworthy and lawfully operating.
Calling technology as a pioneer in the field of shared charging, respecting and happy to see the existence of each competitor, a great opponent can only achieve greater self. It's not terrible to make mistakes. It's terrible to be obstinate.
We sincerely hope that Street Power Company respects the facts and respects the judgment of the People's Court, and does not arbitrarily repeat itself again and again. Instead, it can stand in the perspective of cooperating merchants and consumers, earnestly fulfill its obligations and become a real company. Responsible shared charging companies in the sense.