The ¥330 Million Patent Case
A single small "circuit breaker" made French giant Schneider pay over ¥330 million in a first-instance ruling in China. This landmark case — Chint v. Schneider — shows how patent damages are really calculated.
1. Case at a Glance
表格
| Item | Details |
|---|---|
| Case | Chint Group v. Schneider Electric Low Voltage (Tianjin) — utility model patent infringement |
| Patent | "High-Break-Capacity Miniature Circuit Breaker" (No. ZL97248479.5, granted March 1999) |
| Courts | First instance: Wenzhou Intermediate Court; appeal/mediation: Zhejiang Higher Court |
| Filed | 2006 |
| First-instance ruling | Sep 29, 2007: stop infringement + pay ¥334.8M (≈¥330M) |
| Final outcome | April 15, 2009: settled globally; Schneider paid ¥157.5M |
In short: a ¥330M first-instance award set a Chinese record; the case closed with a ¥157.5M settlement.
2. Timeline: How a Private Firm "Brought Down" a Giant
1999: Chint patents the circuit breaker and becomes China's low-voltage leader.
2006: Chint finds 5 Schneider (Tianjin) models infringe and sues in Wenzhou.
2007: Court rules for Chint — stop infringement + ¥334.8M, then China's highest IP award.
2009: Global settlement under Zhejiang Higher Court; Schneider pays ¥157.5M.
Context: Schneider had sued Chint 24 times before. This was Chint's long-awaited counterattack — a milestone for Chinese patent enforcement.
3. Key Analysis: How Was the ¥330M Calculated?
Damages follow four methods, in order: ① patentee's actual loss → ② infringer's profit → ③ license-fee multiples → ④ statutory damages. This case used ② infringer's profit:
Basis: Schneider (Tianjin)'s operating profit on the infringing products.
Period: Aug 2, 2004 – Jul 31, 2006.
Formula: Sales × Operating profit margin = Operating profit → about ¥355.9M.
Margin: Schneider did not provide cost accounts, so the court used registration records and took the lower of the two margin figures (favoring the infringer).
Final award: Court used discretion to set ¥334.8M plus reasonable costs.
Key mechanism: the evidence-obstruction rule — hiding books shifts the risk onto the infringer.
Bottom line: ¥330M wasn't arbitrary — it was real profit ("sales × margin") backed by a high-value patent, solid evidence, and a penalty for concealing accounts.
4. Why Did It End at ¥157.5M?
Not a mere "half cut," but a global power-balance:
Schneider: avoids ¥330M enforcement pressure and reputational damage.
Chint: gets real money fast and removes overseas litigation pressure from Schneider.
Win-win: still one of China's highest patent mediation amounts.
5. FAQ: 6 Common Questions
Q1: My patent is infringed — what do I do? Preserve evidence (buy & notarize), send a cease-and-desist letter, then sue or file a complaint; apply for evidence preservation / preliminary injunction.
Q2: How is compensation calculated? Actual loss → infringer's profit → license-fee multiples → statutory damages (cap now ¥5M); 1–5× punitive damages for willful, serious infringement.
Q3: Utility model vs. invention — same standard? Same, but utility models need a patent evaluation report because they aren't substantively examined.
Q4: Statute of limitations? 3 years from when you knew (or should have known) of the infringement.
Q5: How is infringement judged? Full-coverage doctrine: the accused product must contain all claim features.
Q6: I'm accused — how to defend? Non-infringement, prior art, invalidate the patent, legal source (resellers), prior-use right, exhaustion — invalidation is often most effective.
