Cleveron AS has won a case against the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) in the Beijing Intellectual Property Court and invalidated a Chinese company’s patent

In 2017, Cleveron AS discovered that a Chinese company had registered under its name an invention previously already invented by Cleveron. In 2018, Cleveron filed an application for invalidation of the patent with the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA). As the initial application was denied, Cleveron challenged the decision in the Beijing Intellectual Property Court.

Trial of Cleveron AS in China

The events first started in 2015 at the Paris Post Expo. At this event, Cleveron presented its newest and most innovative product, the Cleveron 401, which was then known under the name PackRobot. The unique solution attracted a great deal of attention at the fair – especially thanks to its innovative technology. Hangzhou Dongcheng Electronic Co., Ltd (hereinafter HDE) was one of several companies that approached Cleveron to discuss future cooperation. Negotiations with the Chinese company proved unsuccessful, and no robotic parcel terminals were sold. 

After some time had passed, Cleveron discovered that the Chinese company HDE was trying to invent an identical robotic parcel terminal. Initially, the situation did not seem harmful as Cleveron had filed for industrial property rights in Europe and the United States and had acquired worldwide copyright. However, the situation proved to be serious in 2017 when it was revealed that the Chinese company had successfully registered in China a unique invention that had previously been created and published by Cleveron, limiting Cleveron’s ability to sell patented products on the Chinese market. Cleveron decided to defend its rights and in 2018 filed an application for invalidation of patent No. 201620761322.2 for an identical HDE device. 

According to Cleveron CEO Arti Kütt, taking a Chinese company to court in China was seen as a challenge. Firstly, because it is known that evidence originating outside China can be lightly abandoned in China. Secondly, Cleveron is a small company on a global scale, not a global corporation seeking to invalidate a local company’s patent in China. ‘From the outset, our standpoint was that nothing was impossible in this dispute and we were prepared to defend our rights. Although Cleveron’s products can be found in 51 countries around the world, our solutions are not sold in China and commercially it is not a very important market for us. However, we wanted to protect our patent to avoid confusion in the future if we were to expand our footprint to China,’ Kütt said, adding that anything is possible with people as good as those in Cleveron.