*AI-generated translation, for reference only.

[Basic Facts]

JIA Stock Company is the patentee of the invention patent for "Wafer Holder Assembly" (hereinafter referred to as the patent-in-suit). Beijing [REDACTED] Technology Company disclosed in its prospectus 90 invention patents applied to its main business, including the invention patent for "a certain wafer carrying platform." JIA Stock Company filed a lawsuit with the court of first instance, alleging that Beijing [REDACTED] Technology Company's invention patent for the "certain wafer carrying platform" was identical to the technical solution of the patent-in-suit, and that by stating in its prospectus that this invention patent was applied to its main business, it must have implemented the technical solution of the patent-in-suit, thereby infringing JIA Stock Company's patent rights. JIA Stock Company requested the court to order Beijing [REDACTED] Technology Company to cease infringement and compensate for economic losses of RMB 1 million. JIA Stock Company also applied to the court for evidence preservation. The court of first instance did not grant the evidence preservation application and dismissed JIA Stock Company's claims. JIA Stock Company refused to accept the judgment and appealed. The collegial panel of the Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People's Court carefully reviewed the case files, fully heard the parties' claims and defenses, and learned that the two companies had previously initiated over 60 administrative and judicial proceedings against each other concerning requests for invalidation declarations of patent rights. Their conflicts were intertwined, and potential disputes were prone to arise. The collegial panel recognized that adjudicating the case in isolation and simply rendering a judgment, while possibly concluding the individual case, would hardly fundamentally resolve the disputes between the parties and might instead intensify their opposition. This would not only continuously consume judicial and administrative resources but also hinder both parties from concentrating their efforts on R&D and innovation, and could even affect the stability and development of the relevant industrial chain. By establishing a platform for direct dialogue between the principals of both companies, the collegial panel organized multiple rounds of "back-to-back" communications and "face-to-face" negotiations, seeking a balance of interests from multiple dimensions such as legal risks, business costs, and social responsibilities. Ultimately, it facilitated the transition of the parties from opposition to cooperation, reaching a package settlement agreement covering all existing and related potential disputes. The successful mediation of this case achieved dispute resolution at its source and substantive dispute resolution, yielding the positive effect of "handling one case well, resolving a whole range of issues," and providing strong judicial protection for optimizing the innovation ecosystem in the chip industry. After the case was concluded, both parties sent letters of thanks and presented a silk banner to the collegial panel.

[Significance]

First, during the early stage of the trial, the case was identified and evaluated. Related cases and administrative procedures were searched to understand the background information of the parties, including their corporate nature, industry position, technical field, and dispute history, laying the foundation for substantive dispute resolution. Second, for cases with strong relevance and potential for mediation, the possibility of a package resolution was actively considered. The parties were guided to consider overall solutions to resolve conflicts at their source and fundamentally. Third, flexible methods such as "back-to-back" and "face-to-face" communications, as well as a combination of online and offline approaches, were adopted to organize negotiations. The parties were assisted in transforming their consensus into a written agreement with clear content, unambiguous rights and obligations, and strong enforceability, ensuring the substantive resolution of the disputes.