Industries / Mechanical & Industrial Manufacturing

Mechanical & Industrial Manufacturing

Looking back, mechanical engineering and industrial manufacturing once changed the world that we lived in when it connected various parts into a machine. Looking at it now, these technologies phased to increased use in automation and other advanced technologies that makes machine smarter and easier to use. It is changing the world in a different level and perspective, because these technologies provide the foundation for many aspects of the world’s economy across multiple innovative platforms. These platforms include heavy machinery, automobile, automation, medical devices, and many more that connect every pieces of the world together. Every platform’s continuous renovation and invention creates better industrial manufacturing and mechanical engineering technologies. These technologies require a multidiscipline intellectual property team to provide counseling and insight to protect the advanced technologies. Beijing East IP attorneys are trained in various technical backgrounds to satisfy our client’s needs. Our attorneys understand the technology behind each great companies because of their extended experiences in the industries. With our attorney’s understanding of the business sector’s demand, we are able to provide insightful advices to our clients for their myriad of diverse intellectual property issues.

Beijing East IP have worked on many high level cases and wide spectrum of projects for our clients. Our services include:

  • Patent prosecution across all technical areas before the State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO)
  • Challenging and defending the validity of client’s patents in administrative proceedings before SIPO and the Patent Reexamination Board (PRB)
  • Asserting patent rights in litigation before the People’s Courts
  • Defending clients from infringement before the People’s Courts
  • Patent information consulting services include patentability search, patent validity search, freedom-to-operate (FTO) search, evidence-of-use search, due diligence, and identify, monitor existing and potential competitors activities
  • Trademark clearance search
  • Trademark prosecution, enforcement, and litigation
  • Trademark portfolio counseling
  • Domain name disputes and enforcements
  • Copyright registration and enforcements

Our diversified experiences include:

  • Alternative energy technologies
  • Automobiles
  • Construction
  • Electric lighting and wiring
  • Electrical transmission and distribution
  • Engine systems
  • Fabricated metals
  • Farm and garden machinery
  • Metalworking machinery and equipment
  • Oil and drilling
  • Pumps and valves
  • Robotics
  • Search, detection, navigation, and guidance systems
  • Textiles

Representative Clients

  • A leading U.S oil and natural gas trade association
  • A leading Norwegian oil services company
  • A leading German steel producer
  • A leading U.S. manufacturer of industrial testing equipment company
  • A leading U.S. automotive and energy storage company
  • A leading Japanese multinational corporation
  • A leading Chinese security & inspection solution and service supplier
  • A leading German home appliances manufacturer

Contact us

  • Determination of Similarity Criteria in Design Infringement


    The similarity criteria is always a focus of attention in determination of design infringement. Conventionally, people often discuss whether two designs are alike in determining design infringement without objective analysis standards.

  • Determination of Service Invention


    For a service invention-creation, the right to apply for a patent belongs to the entity. After the application is allowed, the entity shall be the patentee. In these cases, the Supreme Court provided a method to determine whether an invention-creation in a patent application is a service invention.



    In patent invalidation or infringement procedures, to prove an uncertain publication date of a prior art or prior design, a plurality of evidences is generally required to form a complete and reliable chain of evidence. Evidence collection and organization usually rely on patent attorneys’ understanding of law and practical experiences. Within a novelty grace period, certain pre-filing disclosures will not cause lose of the novelty of the subsequent patent application. There are rigorous restrictions on such grace period disclosures. It is of vital importance to determine whether a disclosure of an invention-creation before filing can be regarded as a grace period disclosure.

  • Stand - The First Application Of An Earlier Design In Non-Infringement Defense


    Prior design defense is a very important non-infringement defense system in design patent infringement lawsuits, which allows the People's Court to determine whether an infringement is established simply by determine whether the accused design constitutes similar to the prior design without evaluation of validity of the design patent.[1] This case shows that although a design patent application was submitted before the filing date of the involved patent and published thereafter the filling date (hereinafter referred to as the “earlier design”) does not constitute as prior design. It can be used, however, as the basis for a non-infringement defense by referring to the prior design defense rules, thereby substantially expanding the applicable scope of prior design defense.

  • Determination of New Evidence and Allocation of Burden of Proof in Litigation over Infringement of Patent Process for Making Non-new Products


    New evidence should be determined according to Article 10 of Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning Application of the Trial Supervision Procedure of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China. Regarding allocation of burden of proof in litigation over infringement of patent process for making non-new products, it may be determined according to the principle of fairness and that of honesty and good faith, taking into consideration such factors as the ability to provide evidence. If the patentee can prove that the product in question is the same as that made by the patent process, and that it has made reasonable effort to prove that the manufacturing process of the product in question falls within the scope of protection of the patent process, using this as a basis and considering the known facts and common experience, it can be presumed that it is very likely that the alleged infringer has used the same process, therefore imposing on the alleged infringer the burden of proof to show that its manufacturing process is different from the patent process.

  • Application of the Doctrine of Equivalents


    In determining whether a patent infringement is established based on the doctrine of equivalents (“DOE”), attention should be paid to which feature in a claim is compared against which feature of an accused infringing product. Only those features of a product that are not identical to their counterparts in the claim should be taken into consideration for the purpose of DOE. Determination under DOE is different from the determination on inventiveness during patent prosecution – the requirement of “three substantially, one ordinarily” should be met.



    This judgment illustrated that the date when a patent right is declared invalid shall be the decision date of the patent invalidation proceeding.



    The principle of prior art defense established in patent infringement litigation means that the scope of protection of a patent right shall not encompass the prior art. The rationale of the principle is that the public have the right to freely practice the prior art known to the public, and no one is entitled to claim the prior art into the scope of an exclusive patent right, or else the public interest will be damaged. In addition to examining the legal validity of the patent right in the patent invalidation procedure, examining an accused infringer’s assertion of the prior art defense in the patent infringement litigation is advantageous for timely resolving disputes, reducing litigation exhaustion of the parties, and realizing unification of equity and efficiency. The prior art defense and its difference from determination of novelty judgment or inventiveness in the patent invalidation procedure are articulated in this case, which facilitate the parties’ understanding the standards of application of the prior art defense by the courts in China.



    The usage environment feature refers to a technical feature for describing the environment or conditions under which an invention is applied. The usage environment feature included in a claim is a part of the essential technical features of the claim, contributes to define the protection scope of the claim, and thus shall be considered when determining the protection scope of the claim.



    Claim interpretation is the key to determine the scope of protection of claims. The meaning of the claims can be determined based on internal and external evidence using a variety of interpretation methods, wherein the methods of interpretation can verify each other, eliminating contradictory, uncertain or ambiguous conclusions in order to obtain reasonable and accurate protection scope of the claims.



    The judge held in this case that, if, by looking into the nature and degree of the typing mistakes, the person skilled in the art can naturally identify the typing mistakes and appreciate the corrected meaning of the typing mistakes, the typing mistakes shall be interpreted in a corrected manner. Consequently, negative effect of the typing mistakes on validity of valuable patents can be reduced, especially in the current circumstance where there exists no post-grant correction procedure for correcting typos and other clerk errors.