Leading tyre building machinery manufacturer VMI Holland B.V. has issued a firm rebuke to Safe-Run Intelligent Equipment Co., Ltd after the latter issued a press release on 31 July claiming victory in the companies’ ongoing legal dispute. Contrary to Safe-Run’s view, VMI said the Jiangsu High People’s Court of China’s ruling represented “a major defeat for Safe-Run and almost total vindication of VMI’s position.” VMI first announced it had won “a significant lawsuit” against Safe-Run relating to its intellectual property in February 2021. Subsequently, the Netherlands-based firm said the appeal court finalised its judgement that Safe-Run were infringing on VMI’s two key patents relating to tyre building machines. Safe-Run was ordered to stop infringements immediately and pay VMI damages totalling RMB 2.46 million (around 320,000 euros). VMI notes that these payments are “very high [compared] to the average damage awards of around RMB 100,000 in similar cases in China.” Safe-Run’s statement is not currently available.
Netherlands-based manufacturer of machinery for the tyre and retreading industries, VMI Holland B.V. (VMI), reports having won a “significant lawsuit” in its ongoing legal dispute with Safe-Run Intelligent Equipment Shares Ltd. Co. (Safe-Run). VMI comments that the case in question relates to infringement of intellectual property and patent hijacking, adding that the lawsuit it recently won confirms “the malicious intent of Safe-Run.”
Bridgestone Corporation reports another victory in its ongoing fight against those who infringe its patent rights and nab its intellectual property. In October, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court ruled in Bridgestone’s favour in its lawsuit against Chinese tyre maker Shandong Vheal Group Co., Ltd. (Vheal).
“Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery”, according to Oscar Wilde. But businesses don’t tend to be so charitable in their interpretation of such actions. Indeed, industrial counterfeiting, copyright breaches and general contempt for intellectual property are all-too common. The most recent example of copyright dispute in the tyre industry saw one of the world’s largest and longest established tyremakers pitted against a relative unknown.
The Independent Garage Association (IGA) has collaborated with the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) to highlight the dangers of counterfeit and consumer supplied car parts within the IPO’s Crime and Enforcement Report 2018-2019.
It isn’t just idle words when Bridgestone says it “takes seriously any unauthorised use or infringement of its patents, trademarks or any other intellectual property.” A fortnight after reporting that a Chinese court ruled in its favour in a patent infringement lawsuit Wanli Tire, the tyre maker shares it has received a favourable ruling from the Intermediate People’s Court in Qingdao. The ruling relates to its design patent infringement lawsuit against Chinese firm Shengtai Group and its subsidiary, Shandong Shengshi Tai Lai Rubber Technology Co., Ltd.
A Chinese court has ruled in favour of Bridgestone Corporation in its patent infringement lawsuit against Chinese tyre manufacturers Guangzhou South China Tire & Rubber Co., Ltd. and Wanli Tire Co., Ltd. (Wanli Tire).
Bridgestone says it “takes seriously any unauthorised use or infringement of its patents, design rights, trademarks, or any other intellectual property,” and in the past the tyre maker has shown itself willing to legally challenge such infringements. It has now announced another court victory: Bridgestone has received a favourable ruling from the Beijing Intellectual Property Court in its design rights infringement lawsuit against major Chinese tyre manufacturer Shengtai Group.
China’s Patent Re-examination Board has upheld important patents relating to tyre building technology developed by VMI. Commenting on the board’s decision, VMI Group chief executive officer Harm Voortman said “this decision further strengthens our position in the legal dispute with Safe-Run and reaffirms our confidence in the Chinese legal system.”
Jaguar has filed patents for three electric cars. The patents include plans for an EV-Type model, plus additional plans for cars called the I-Type and the I-Pace, which are believed to be electric versions of the F-TYPE sports car and F-PACE crossover.
In April 2015, machinery manufacturer VMI shared that the State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) of China had upheld a patent infringement claim it lodged against Shuangjun Plastic and Rubber Machinery Ltd; the Chinese firm had infringed a key patent related to VMI’s tyre building drum and was passing off this copied product as its own property. VMI has now issued another statement in which it emphasises that it “continues to enforce against IP infringement.” While no specific new cases are named in this latest statement, it may well be that VMI is warning companies not to even think about infringing the intellectual property contained within its new and soon to be released MILEXX truck tyre building machine.
The State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) of China has upheld a patent infringement claim lodged by leading tyre machinery manufacturer VMI. Based on what VMI describes as “clear evidence of infringement” of a VMI tyre building drum patent by Shuangjun Plastic and Rubber Machinery Ltd., SIPO has ordered the company to stop manufacturing the product, offering it for sale and making false claims about its provenance.
Netherlands-based machinery manufacturer VMI Group says a ruling is expected soon in the case of a Chinese company caught making illegal replicas of VMI tyre building drums. Commenting on the incident, company president and CEO Harm Voortman said vigorously protecting intellectual property is “an essential part” of VMI’s strategy.