Patent infringement disputes over small microwave oven parts? In the afternoon of April 26, the Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People's Court held a public hearing to hear the appeal case of the appellant Guangdong Galanz Microwave Oven Appliance Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Galanz) and the appellee Zhongshan Meige Electronic Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Meige) for infringement of patent rights. Liu Xiaomei, the chief judge of the Intellectual Property Tribunal of the Supreme People's Court, and Liu Peng and Jiao Xinhui, the judges, form a collegial panel to hear the case. Who moved my magnetron? Galanz Company is an enterprise specializing in the research and development, production, and sales of microwave oven products. It is the holder of the invention patent (hereinafter referred to as the patent in question) with patent number 201510373341.8 and the name "Riveting cover mold for riveting the upper cover of magnetron tubes". The magnetron in a microwave oven is the core component that generates microwave energy. The production of magnetrons involves the riveting process of the shell and upper cover, and the quality of the process directly affects the quality of the microwave oven. The patent involved solves the problem of loose riveting in the riveting solution, reducing the rate of defective products. The riveting cover mold is an indispensable core device in the production process of magnetron tubes. Galanz Company has purchased "Power" microwave ovens from multiple online shopping platforms, all of which are produced by Meg Company. Galanz believed that Megger manufactured and used a large number of riveting cap molds that infringed the patent rights involved in the case to produce magnetrons without permission, sued to Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court, and requested Megger to stop manufacturing and using the sued riveting cap molds immediately, destroy the infringing products in use and in stock, and destroy the special equipment and molds for manufacturing the infringing products, compensate 10 million yuan for economic losses and 200000 yuan for reasonable expenses for rights protection. After trial, the first instance court held that the technical solution used for the accused infringing product did not fall within the scope of protection of the patent rights involved, and Meg did not infringe on the patent rights of Galanz Company. The court ruled to dismiss all the litigation requests of Galanz Company, and Galanz Company refused to accept the first instance judgment and appealed to the Supreme People's Court. The illustration is not enough, and whether the riveting cover mold manufactured and used by Meige Company through animation is the same or equivalent to the technical features recorded in the patent claims is the key to the controversy in this case. During the trial, both parties expressed comprehensive and sufficient opinions on whether the technical solution used for the accused infringing product falls within the scope of protection of the patent rights involved, and on the calculation method of compensation amount. When the four corners are pushed, are multiple air bars simultaneously pushed? "The technical investigator, as the" technical translator "beside the judge, plays a crucial role in identifying the facts of cases with strong scientific and technological skills. Please request the collegial panel to demonstrate the operation of the riveting cover mold with a moving picture. "The agent of Glanz Company came prepared and animated the stiff text description of the patent specification, intuitively and clearly broadcasting the technical features of the involved patent. The present personnel immediately understood it. The collegial panel is concise, the trial procedure is smooth and lively, and the two-hour trial not only concentrates the essence of case review, but also fully protects the litigation rights of both parties. The closing of small parts shows great determination. As the final case of this year's intellectual property court's centralized public hearing publicity week, it is neither chip technology nor life