华为高频开关电源,华为直流电源技术参数

华为高频开关电源,华为直流电源技术参数

华为-48v通信高频直流开关电源

华为通信电源,华为开关电源,华为-48v开关电源,华为高频开关电源,华为直流电源

近日，有媒体报道称，上个月刚刚在港交所H板上市的中国铁塔股份有限公司，日前在长沙被起诉侵犯专利权。律师提供的民事起诉状显示，原告熊小宁控告中国铁塔，未经许可大规模使用一种他已经向国家知识产权局申请并获批专利的设计，即一款无线讯号路灯站。

“这是中国知识产权侵权典型案件”

实用新型专利证书。实用新型专利证书。

熊小宁于2011年8月24日，向国家知识产权局提交了名为《一种集约化无线信号路灯站》、专利申请号为201120314637.X的实用新型专利申请。该专利于2012年4月25日授权公告，专利权利人为熊先生本人。

据官网资料显示，中国铁塔主要从事通信铁塔等基站配套设施和高铁地铁公网覆盖、大型室内分布系统的建设、维护和运营，截至2017年底，公司塔类站址数量接近190万座。而经湖南天地人律师事务所和熊小宁调查发现，中国铁塔及其全国各地附属公司未经前述专利权人的许可，在全国范围内大规模实施其专利。据此，熊小宁要求中国铁塔立即停止侵犯他的专利权，拆除及销毁相关基站，并赔偿他的经济损失及法律费用。

“这是中国知识产权侵权典型案件。”原告方熊小宁表示。

记者据此致电中国铁塔股份有限公司长沙分公司负责人，对方表示案件目前正在审理阶段，会按法律及监管程序披露。

法院支持原告关于财产保全请求 案件将于下月开庭

诉讼已在7月16日获长沙市中级人民法院受理立案，并于9月12日下午举行了听证会。

听证会上，原告方财产保全的请求，认为铁塔公司的股票价格自开盘之日起持续下跌，有可能会影响法院生效判决的执行，并对财产保全证据提供相应担保，承诺愿意对保全错误承担赔偿责任；而被告方则提出侵权通信基站大部分来自于三大运营商，有合法来源，不知道有侵权基站，如若财产保全会给投资人带来不可估量的损失，对其股票价格带来不可预测的影响。

而针对证据保全，原告方提出证据保全符合证据有可能灭失等法定条件，并能提供前述一样的担保和责任承担，且证据保全仅保全侵权基站部分容易灭失的技术特征，不会影响侵权基站的正常维护、管理和使用；而被告方则认为通信基站由有关部门监管，不能随意拆卸和变动，没有必要证据保全。若保全会严重影响铁塔公司对保全基站的管理和维护，会给人民群众的通信和生活带来不便。

最后，法院当场要求被告，对原告提交图片的侵权基站要维持原状，被告以后要维护、检修、拆卸等影响此次诉讼行为要报备法院，并经法院同意后才能行为，否则要承担相应的法律责任。

听证完毕时，法院没有当庭宣布结果。据原告方称，法院支持原告方关于财产保全的请求。

案件将于10月16日在长沙市中级人民法院开庭审理，在加强知识产权保护，探索建立知识产权惩罚性赔偿制度，着力解决实践中存在的侵权成本低，企业家维权成本高的问题的大背景下，这会是中国知识产权维权经典案例吗？后续进展我们也将持续关注。

Recently, media reports said that China Tower Co., Ltd., which was listed on the H-board of the Hong Kong Stock Exchange last month, was recently sued for patent infringement in Changsha. According to a civil complaint filed by lawyers, the plaintiff, Xiong Xiaoning, sued the China Tower for large-scale unauthorized use of a design he had applied for and patented with the State Intellectual Property Office, a wireless streetlight station.

"This is a typical case of infringement of intellectual property rights in China".

Certificate of utility model patent. Certificate of utility model patent.

On August 24, 2011, Xiong Xiaoning filed with the State Intellectual Property Office a patent application for a new utility model named "An Intensive Wireless Signal Streetlight Station" and the patent application number is 1120314637.X. The patent was authorized in April 25, 2012, and the patent holder is Mr. Xiong himself.

According to the official network data, China Tower is mainly engaged in communication tower and other base station supporting facilities and subway coverage, large-scale indoor distribution system construction, maintenance and operation, by the end of 2017, the number of tower-like stations of the company is close to 1.9 million. According to the investigation by Hunan Tiandiren Law Firm and Xiong Xiaoning, China Tower and its affiliates all over the country have implemented their patents on a large scale nationwide without the permission of the patentee mentioned above. Accordingly, Xiong Xiaoning demanded that the China Tower immediately stop infringing his patent rights, dismantle and destroy relevant base stations, and compensate him for economic losses and legal costs.

"This is a typical case of infringement of intellectual property rights in China." Plaintiff Xiong Xiao Ning said.

The reporter accordingly telephoned the person in charge of Changsha Branch of China Tower Co., Ltd. The other side said the case was currently in the trial stage and would be disclosed in accordance with the law and regulatory procedures.

The court supported the plaintiff's request for property preservation, which will be held next month.

The lawsuit was accepted and filed by Changsha Intermediate People's Court on July 16, and a hearing was held on the afternoon of September 12.

At the hearing, the plaintiff's claim for property preservation held that the stock price of the iron tower company continued to fall from the opening day, which might affect the enforcement of the court's effective judgment, and provided corresponding guarantees for the evidence of property preservation, promising to be liable for the mistake of preservation; the defendant proposed the infringement communication base station. Some come from the three major operators, there are legitimate sources, do not know there are infringement base stations, if property preservation will bring immeasurable losses to investors, its stock price has an unpredictable impact.

For evidence preservation, the plaintiff proposes that the evidence preservation meets the legal conditions such as the evidence may be lost, and can provide the same guarantee and liability as mentioned above. Moreover, the evidence preservation only preserves the technical characteristics of the infringing base station which is easily lost, and will not affect the normal maintenance, management and use of the infringing base station. For communication base stations supervised by the relevant departments, they can not be arbitrarily dismantled and changed. There is no need for evidence preservation. If the maintenance will seriously affect the management and maintenance of the tower company, it will bring inconvenience to the people's communication and life.

Finally, the court asked the defendant on the spot, the plaintiff submitted a picture of the infringement base station to maintain the status quo, the defendant later to maintain, repair, disassembly and other effects of the litigation to the court, and the court agreed to act, otherwise to bear the corresponding legal liability.

When the hearing was completed, the court did not announce the result in court. According to the plaintiff, the court supported the plaintiff's request for property preservation.

The case will be heard in Changsha Intermediate People's Court on October 16. Under the background of strengthening intellectual property protection, exploring the establishment of punitive compensation system for intellectual property rights, and striving to solve the problems of low cost of infringement and high cost of entrepreneurs'rights protection, will this be a classic case of intellectual property rights protection in China? We will continue to pay attention to follow-up progress.

华为高频开关电源,华为直流电源技术参数