Chinese Company Sues American Retailers For Selling 'Knockoffs'
from the yes,-read-that-again dept
Jake points us to a story that (as Jake notes) makes you read the headline twice to make sure you got it right: Chinese Company Sues in U.S. to Block "Knockoff". It's not really "knockoffs" that they're suing over. It's a patent infringement claim from Changzhou Asian Endergonic Electronic Technology Co., which is upset that Best Buy, Wal-Mart and some other retailers are selling a competitors' dashboard mount that it claims is covered by its own patent.Now, there are a bunch of points worth discussing here. First, apparently this is the first such case of a Chinese company (based in China) suing in the US over a patent infringement claim (a claim that really surprises me). Considering the long history of China copying (blatantly) American products and then reselling them, it's really quite fascinating to see a Chinese company now complain about the "reverse." Of course, as we've been highlighting recently, there's been a big push in China to build up a belief in patents. It seems this firm has already learned the basics of the American patent system: it's suing in Texas, of course!
The other odd thing about this case is filing the lawsuit against the retailers. The company is also suing the manufacturer (another Chinese company) which makes sense, but I've never understood why going after the retailer makes sense. Best Buy, Wal-Mart and others shouldn't need to investigate every product they sell to determine whether it violates someone else's patents. Let that be handled between vendors. Dragging the retailers into the lawsuit is just a waste of resources.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: china, knockoffs, patents
Companies: best buy, changzhou asian endergonice electronic technology co., wal-mart
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
As you well know, patents cover the rights to make, use or sell. Ergo, retailers can be sued for patent infringement by selling an infringing product.
Now, a court will typically only be swayed if letters were sent to Wal-Mart prior to the suit being filed; i.e., Wal-Mart is not responsible for determining whether all the products it sells are non-infringing, but typically they will have an indemnification clause in supplier contracts that covers infringement.
By belief is that Wal-Mart will likely be dropped as a defendant in this case (assuming they did not ignore warning letters). Unless, of course, Wal-Mart got letters, had a reasonable belief the products in question did not infringe, and ignored the letters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...
I can just see it now.
Texan Judge: "Awww, yew liddle squinty fellers 'r CUTE. Tell yew what, we'll only charge yew half of what we normally charge fer a verdict in yer favor."
"Dragging the retailers into the lawsuit is just a waste of resources."
Not to mention that, ostensibly, these manufacturers either already do or would at some point like the opportunity to sell their product in these same retailers. Doesn't this sort of action build up animosity to potential customers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eulogy
You will be missed--you were always so lively, so imaginative; quirky and unpredictable but oh-so-much fun. Seriously, we wish your bitchy sister "Intellectual Property Suppressed Market" had died instead of you.
Good night, sweet lady, good night.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lol
I laughed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR :))
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is great news
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re.
Your insinuations are absurd.
1. If Chinese have been accused of copyright violations - why should it preclude them to sue a US company? This is like saying if a person is a thief, it is OK for others to steal from him!
2. Re. suing the retailers, I think it is perfectly OK. Do you know that it is a crime to sell stolen goods! You cannot wash off your hands saying that someone gave you stolen goods and you were merely reselling!
I think you need to read something more than "gossip" magazines before writing something stupid like this.
Best regards;
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re.
Not if you didn't know they were stolen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re.
Not if you didn't know it was stolen.
"I think you need to read something more than "gossip" magazines before writing something stupid like this."
I think you need to think and apply common sense before you type something stupid, or at least take a law class. If you didn't know (or should have known) that something was stolen you're in the clear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
blatantly
so it's ok for US firms to do that to other US firms, but not the Chinese?
"I've never understood why going after the retailer makes sense..."
In US patent law the patent holder has the exclusive right to make, use and SELL the invention. If you don't understand patent law (which you obviously don't) do us all a favor and avoid commenting on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: blatantly
You must have a reading comprehension problem. He isn't arguing about what the law is, he's arguing about what makes sense. If the law is so stupid such that a retailer selling thousands of products can be fined, without warning, for unknowingly selling one product with many components where only one patented component exists in the product then the law desperately needs to change. Such a law makes no sense. Please don't disrespect people just because you think you have a point when in fact you do not. It only makes you look foolish. And even if you do have a point (which you don't) you can be respectful about it (and I'm disrespecting you because you started to disrespect Mike first for no reason so I'm just returning the favor by pointing out your apparently poor reading comprehension abilities).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Chinese companies are likely aware of the west's viewpoint on knock offs and deciding to take a shot.
Including Wal-Mart et al is a nice method of making sure word gets around faster. I'm guessing the retail chains will be dropped at some point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The real problem is the patent laws or maybe the lawyers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You solely request an injunction against the retailer preventing them from selling the infringing products.
This strategy worked when Sharper Image received an injunction barring them from selling products built with counterfeit Super Bright LED's. Sharper Image paid no fines, they just couldn't sell the infringing product. For the patent owner, this technically was a win since they couldn't go after the chinese company making the counterfeit LED's.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]