In recent years, with the vigorous development of the Chinese market, competition over intellectual property has intensified. The well-known German company, WAGO, leveraging its patent portfolio in China, has successively initiated a series of patent infringement lawsuits against domestic enterprises, presenting significant challenges to the operations and development of local companies. Against this backdrop, Beijing Sunshine Intellectual Property International Co., Ltd. and Beijing Sunshine IP Law Firm, entrusted by several domestic enterprises, have served as their representatives in actively defending against these lawsuits.
Confronted with complex legal and technical challenges, we leveraged our deep expertise in intellectual property dispute resolution to make precise judgments and decisively implement a strategy of "taking away the firewood from under the cauldron, (fig) taking a drastic measure to deal with a situation"—filing invalidation requests against the patents on which WAGO based its claims. Through unremitting efforts, we ultimately succeeded in having multiple asserted patents declared invalid. This not only resolved the potential infringement risks for our client enterprises but also effectively safeguarded their legitimate operational space in the Chinese market.
Degson Electronics vs. WAGO
In 2021, WAGO filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Ningbo Degson Electronics Co., Ltd. among others, before the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court, alleging infringement of its Patent No. ZL201811220969.4 titled "Connection Clamp".
Subsequently, entrusted by Degson Electronics, Sunshine IP and Sunshine IP Law Firm filed an invalidation request with the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA). After review, the CNIPA issued Invalidation Review Decision No. 56038, declaring the asserted patent invalid in its entirety. After the decision was announced, WAGO filed an application to withdraw the lawsuit with the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court. (Case No. (2021) Yue 73 Zhi Min Chu No. 891-1)
However, WAGO's withdrawal of the lawsuit does not mark the end of the case. WAGO subsequently filed a lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court. Had the outcome of Invalidation Review Decision No. 56038 been overturned, WAGO could have initiated another infringement lawsuit.
Ultimately, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court issued Administrative Judgment (2022) Jing 73 Xing Chu No. 19367, rejecting WAGO's claims.
WAGO, dissatisfied with the aforementioned judgment, appealed to the Supreme People's Court. Finally, the Supreme People's Court issued Administrative Judgment (2023) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Xing Zhong No. 556, dismissing WAGO's appeal and upholding the first-instance judgment of the Beijing Intellectual Property Court.
Bincheng Electronics vs. WAGO
As early as 2019, WAGO filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Yueqing Bincheng Electronics Co., Ltd.
In 2022, entrusted by Bincheng Electronics, we filed an invalidation request with the CNIPA, seeking a declaration that WAGO's Patent No. 201210599279.0, titled "Terminal", was invalid in its entirety. Following review, the CNIPA issued Invalidation Decision No. 561401, declaring the invention patent wholly invalid.
Subsequently, WAGO filed a lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court. In September 2024, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court issued Administrative Judgment (2023) Jing 73 Xing Chu No. 15901, rejecting WAGO's claims.
The above are some of the concluded cases we have handled on behalf of domestic enterprises against WAGO. Multiple other administrative and legal proceedings are currently ongoing.
Conclusion
Admittedly, WAGO, as a global leader in the field of electrical connection and automation, possesses unshakeable technological expertise and market position. The patent infringement lawsuits it initiates undoubtedly place significant pressure on domestic enterprises, particularly innovative small and medium-sized enterprises still in their growth stages.
However, this by no means implies that when faced with such challenges, enterprises can only choose to retreat or succumb to fear. As the preceding cases illustrate, even the patent rights of industry leaders are not invulnerable. Domestic innovative enterprises should recognize that effective legal strategies, such as patent invalidation proceedings, serve as powerful tools to balance the competitive landscape and protect their own development.
When confronted with patent wars launched by international giants, we must strengthen our confidence, abandon a "fear of engagement" mindset, and proactively seek professional legal support, conduct thorough research, and assert our rights with sound reasoning. Through professional and compliant approaches, it is entirely possible to find breakthroughs in seemingly uneven contests, successfully mitigate risks, and safeguard our own innovation achievements and the right to sustainable development.
