In the patent infringement lawsuit involving Wuhan Jingce Electronics and Suzhou Haide Company, Jingce Electronics encountered a challenge in the initial trial. Our team, representing Jingce Electronics, achieved notable success during the appeal, convincing the Supreme People's Court to totally reverse the original ruling of the first instance and fully support our main arguments. The Supreme Court's decision in the second instance not only clarified essential principles for evaluating technical solutions in patent infringement cases but also introduced a systematic and scientific method for quantifying patent technology contribution rates for the first time in the industry.
The outcome of the Jingce Electronics case is noteworthy not only for the awarded damages of 6.84 million yuan but also for establishing the closure rule of indirect evidence chains and the penetration principle of technical effects.
This case marks an important development in the field of industrial intellectual property protection. The case focuses on the V-BY-ONE signal processing equipment, a specialized and non-standard industrial product that is deeply integrated into the production processes of leading panel manufacturers. Its unique characteristics mean it does not have public sales channels or standardized product identification. This "closed scenarios + targeted supply" feature renders traditional evidence collection methods, like notarized purchases and market sampling, ineffective.
We briefly examined the innovative evidence collection techniques used in this case, detailing their design logic and technical aspects. This discussion aims to provide a new perspective on protecting technical secrets in the industrial sector.
1. The Triple Evidence Collection Dilemma in Closed Scenarios
The equipment in question is a crucial part of the panel production line located in the clean rooms of companies like Huaxing Optoelectronics and Tianma Microelectronics. Unauthorized individuals encounter significant barriers just to access the basic production areas. This equipment has been heavily customized, with original model identifiers replaced by dynamically generated codes such as SG60010/SG20097, making simple visual comparisons ineffective. More critically, the equipment's main function—specifically the V-BY-ONE signal processing technology—can only be showcased when the production line is fully operational, rendering static inspections insufficient for capturing key technical aspects.
The situation is further complicated by disruptions in the evidence chain, which create additional hurdles for evidence collection. The defendant has created a complex sales network through affiliated companies and technical service providers, with contract documents intentionally lacking detailed technical descriptions and instead referring to products in vague terms like "detection module." When the legal team attempted to obtain design drawings, the defendant refused, citing "military confidentiality requirements." Additionally, end users, influenced by supply chain relationships, not only denied access to equipment log queries but also routinely deleted system operation data. This systematic approach to erasing evidence has led to a deadlock for traditional evidence presentation methods that rely heavily on written documentation.
Finally, the technical verification barrier presents another significant challenge. The firmware of the involved devices is protected by hardware encryption chips (DS28E15), making it impossible to extract valid data using standard reverse engineering methods. The core patent features, such as "clock recovery" and "split-screen synchronization," require a synchronized analysis of signal transmission protocols and graphic processing algorithms, with fewer than twenty technical experts in the country having the necessary expertise in this field. Moreover, the defendant has enlisted a top-tier technical team to build a defense system, aiming to divert courtroom discussions into a complex maze of technical jargon and intricate experimental demonstrations.
2. A Strategic Approach to Reconstructing the Evidence Chain
To address the difficulties in directly gathering evidence, our team creatively employed supply chain penetration technology to establish a detailed network of interconnected evidence. We started by examining customs data, which highlighted significant records of the defendant's unexpected imports of Xilinx Kintex-7 series FPGA chips from 2019 to 2021. Importantly, the number of LVDS interfaces on the chip corresponds exactly with the 32-channel design outlined in the patented technology, and the customs declaration referred to the items as a "high-speed signal processing module," which closely aligns with the functions of the products in question.
By incorporating transportation records from the Debang logistics system, we discovered that the 137 sets of "testing equipment" sent to Huaxing Optoelectronics by the defendant were all marked with the internal code SG60010. Moreover, the freight payer, Suzhou Xinshi Optoelectronics, is connected to the defendant, further solidifying the link.
In our investigation of financial transactions, we analyzed interactions between the defendant and three technical service companies, revealing a consistent proportional relationship between "system debugging fees" and the amount of equipment delivered. Using the National Taxation Bureau's VAT invoice verification platform, we found hidden notes indicating "cascade architecture transformation" in the descriptions of 46 invoices. These various pieces of evidence, collected from different aspects of the supply chain, ultimately created a coherent commercial logic map across both time and space.
The analysis of the environmental assessment report yielded another significant finding. Documents obtained from the Suzhou Municipal Ecology and Environment Bureau regarding the expansion project showed that the defendant referred to the SG60010 equipment as "cascade signal processing architecture," which aligns perfectly with the patented technical solution. Additionally, the power consumption data for each device, maintained within a range of 650W±5%, reflected the energy consumption characteristics of the patented prototype. Most crucially, the hazardous waste management ledger indicated that the usage of isopropanol reached 3.2 tons per month, which, according to industry standards for cleaning agents in the panel sector, corresponds to approximately 96,000 glass substrates processed—an amount that closely matches the design capacity of the patented equipment.
3. Advancements in Reverse Engineering the Industrial Black Box
After gathering initial correlational evidence, technical deconstruction became a crucial aspect for determining infringement facts. We conducted a carefully structured three-phase reverse engineering process under judicial supervision. First, we performed non-destructive testing on the seized equipment using X-ray layered scanning technology to reconstruct the 3D topological structure of the printed circuit board (PCB). The analysis showed that the circuit routing in the clock management unit (CMU) of the infringing device had an impressive 97.3% overlap with the patent design diagram, with the unique daisy chain cascade architecture being distinctly recognizable.
Significant progress at the firmware level was achieved thanks to the skills of hardware security experts. By using the ChipWhisperer tool for differential power analysis on the encrypted chip, we successfully extracted binary code that contained the "split_screen" function. Using the IDA Pro decompilation tool, we found that its jump logic closely matched the patent algorithm flowchart. A particularly noteworthy discovery was an unusual instruction sequence in the code segment 0x7E, which semiconductor experts identified as the opcode responsible for the "clock recovery" function.
For signal layer verification, we implemented a dynamic protocol analysis approach. During the court-mandated site inspection, we used a Teledyne LeCroy SDA 8Zi protocol analyzer on the production line to capture the LVDS signals emitted by the device in real-time. The decoded data showed that the synchronization identifier in the packet header was fully consistent with the patented technology. Additionally, we verified the continuity of the pixel matrix at a 120Hz refresh rate to the millisecond level using a machine vision system. To further strengthen the evidence, the team created a simulated laboratory environment, exposing the infringing device to extreme conditions of 85°C and 85% humidity for 72 hours, during which it maintained frame synchronization, thereby supporting the stability parameters outlined in the patent specification.
4. The Technical Restructuring of Evidence Law
This case has marked significant advancements in the application of evidence rules, achieving three key breakthroughs. Firstly, it effectively utilized the evidence obstruction system; when the defendant declined to provide the source code, the court, in accordance with Article 24 of the Supreme People's Court's Several Provisions on Evidence in Civil Litigation Involving Intellectual Property Rights, was prompted to make an adverse presumption. Additionally, the "clean version" technical documents submitted by the defendant underwent hash value verification, which revealed tampering—specifically, the document creation date was found to be 14 months later than the equipment's manufacturing date, serving as a crucial basis for the imposition of punitive damages.
Furthermore, the mechanism for determining technical facts has undergone a significant iterative upgrade. The court implemented a "dual expert system," where a technical investigator with expertise in the panel industry was responsible for sorting basic facts, while expert assistants from both parties concentrated on the contentious issues at hand. The legal team also innovatively employed MATLAB to create a signal processing sandbox model, effectively translating the abstract principle of "clock recovery" into a visual and dynamic demonstration.
In a controlled experiment organized by the court, video evidence demonstrated that the equipment remained synchronized even after the violent removal of the cascading lines, effectively dismantling the defendant's defense of "technical solution changes."
5. Takeaway: Technical Ethics and Industrial Evidence Collection
During the evidence collection process in this case, we maintained a strong commitment to technical ethical standards. All covert evidence collection activities were authorized through the fallback clauses of the entry agreement, and electromagnetic fingerprint collection was carefully restricted to near-field detection ranges to prevent any disruption to the production line. Hardware disassembly took place in a CNAS-certified laboratory, with the entire procedure documented and a digital twin model created for court validation, while the original equipment was preserved using advanced quantum sealing technology.
Looking ahead, the protection of industrial intellectual property is set to advance towards an "embedded defense" approach. We recommend that companies incorporate nano-level anti-counterfeiting identifiers within PCB layers, utilize blockchain technology to establish a log system for real-time notarization of technological updates, and pre-install judicial evidence collection interfaces that comply with IEEE 2851 standards in device firmware.
As industrial technology becomes a key strategic resource in global competition, the evidence gathering methods shown in this case provide an essential legal structure for China's intelligent manufacturing industry to safeguard its technological independence.