According to VRAR World, the Supreme People’s Court of People’s
Republic of China has rendered a final ruling on 7invensun’s patent infringement
case regarding eye-tracking modules.
With this decision, the patent infringement dispute surrounding the “eye-tracking
module for video glasses” has completed all judicial procedures. The effective
judgment has been confirmed at the highest judicial level, and 7invensuns legitimate
rights and interests have once again received explicit judicial support.
Previously, the Beijing High Peoples Court had issued a final second-instance
judgment in this case, determining that HTC Corporation and its affiliated companies
manufacturing and sales of related products constituted infringement of 7invensuns
involved patent. The court also ordered the cessation of infringement and imposed
corresponding legal liabilities in accordance with the law.
After the second-instance judgment took effect, HTC Corporation lawfully filed a
retrial application with the Supreme Peoples Court, requesting the initiation of a
retrial procedure regarding the already effective judgment.
7invensun has always placed significant emphasis on intellectual property protection.
In 2022, in response to the emergence of products related to “eye-tracking modules
for video glasses” on the market, 7invensun conducted ongoing investigations,
verifications, and technical analyses. Through these efforts, the company discovered
that HTC Corporation and its affiliated companies manufacturing and sales of related
products, such as the “VIVE Focus 3 VR Eye Tracker” were suspected of infringing
multiple patents held by 7invensun. To protect its intellectual property and legitimate
rights and interests, 7invensun filed a lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property
Court in accordance with relevant legal provisions, seeking to halt the infringement
and hold the responsible parties accountable.
After completing preliminary verification, 7invensun further analyzed the claims of the
involved patents, focusing on key technical features within the scope of patent
protection. The company prepared corresponding comparative materials and
explanatory arguments in relation to the technical solutions of the accused products.
Additionally, evidence materials were systematically organized and preserved,
forming a mutually corroborated and verifiable chain of evidence.
