Recently, Shanghai Intellectual Property Court concluded a dispute over infringement of invention patent with the assistance of technical investigators and expert jurors, who were for the first time invited to trial to better resolve the problems in ascertaining technical facts in highly technical and specialized patent cases.

The Plaintiff, Shanghai Sinofaith IP Group Co., Ltd (hereinafter referred to as "Sinofaith"), claimed that by the authorization of the patentee, it obtained the exclusive license of the patent for the invention involved "content-oriented load balancing method" in August 2014. However, the Defendant, Sihua Technologies Co., Ltd, infringed such patent as it adopted exactly the same load balancing method in the interactive media CDN platform software and Sihua content scheduling management system it sold or offered for sale. Therefore, the court was requested to rule that the Defendant stop the infringement and compensate for the economic losses up to RMB10,000,000 yuan.

Considering that the case involved highly technical and specialized patent and communication issues, the patent involved was a method invention, it was difficult to determine the alleged infringing method, and the parties had controversies in the interpretation of patent claims and the identification of alleged infringing method, Shanghai Intellectual Property Court invited technical investigators and expert jurors to participate in the hearing. The former were responsible for pre-trial matters, including ascertaining undisputed technical facts and determining dispute issues on technical facts through technical hearing to help the judge to figure out the trial focus and procedures; while the latter were responsible for making independent judgment on technical facts via review of case files and supplementary questioning on technical facts in court session. By taking full advantage of their professional advantages, these technical investigators and expert jurors with specific responsibilities managed to provide objective and professional advice on the technical issues regarding the patent involved and alleged infringing method, playing a positive role in ascertaining those technical facts completely and precisely. After technical hearing, evidence exchange for three times and court trial, the parties finally reached an out-of-court settlement and withdrew the lawsuit. Other three associated cases were also closed smoothly.