2025年7月1日，中國(guó)，深圳

法律事實(shí)不容混淆，一審上訴未決不等于終審勝訴

我司關(guān)注到加拿大LMI Technologies Inc.（以下簡(jiǎn)稱“LMI公司”）于近日在其微信公眾號(hào)及其他公開渠道發(fā)布的所謂“贏得一場(chǎng)專利訴訟”的聲明。該聲明刻意隱晦案件仍處上訴審理階段、一審判決未生效的關(guān)鍵事實(shí)，通過(guò)模糊表述誤導(dǎo)公眾及行業(yè)合作伙伴，已嚴(yán)重侵害我司商譽(yù)并干擾正常經(jīng)營(yíng)?，F(xiàn)嚴(yán)正聲明如下：  

一、案件真實(shí)狀態(tài)：一審未生效，法律程序尚未終結(jié)  

1. 本案仍處上訴審理階段

LMI公司提及的專利訴訟（案涉專利號(hào)ZL200780038629.3）雖經(jīng)一審法院做出判決，但我司已于法定期限內(nèi)向上一級(jí)法院正式提起上訴。根據(jù)《中華人民共和國(guó)民事訴訟法》第一百七十四條，二審程序尚未終結(jié)前，一審判決不具法律效力。  

2. “勝訴”表述嚴(yán)重失實(shí)

LMI公司在聲明中使用“贏得訴訟”等措辭，刻意忽略“一審”“未生效”等法律狀態(tài)，違背《最高人民法院關(guān)于司法公開的若干規(guī)定》中對(duì)案件表述需“完整、準(zhǔn)確”的要求，已構(gòu)成虛假宣傳及商業(yè)詆毀。  

二、LMI聲明的不當(dāng)性質(zhì)及我司法律行動(dòng)  

1. 誤導(dǎo)性聲明的法律定性

該聲明違反《反不正當(dāng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)法》第十一條禁止“編造、傳播誤導(dǎo)性信息損害競(jìng)爭(zhēng)對(duì)手商業(yè)信譽(yù)”的規(guī)定，亦抵觸《專利法》倡導(dǎo)的善意行使專利權(quán)原則。  

2. 我司已啟動(dòng)法律反制措施

固定證據(jù)：對(duì)LMI公司發(fā)布的聲明及造成的市場(chǎng)影響完成全程公證；  

律師函告：要求立即刪除誤導(dǎo)內(nèi)容并公開澄清，否則將提起名譽(yù)權(quán)訴訟及不正當(dāng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)索賠；

上訴推進(jìn)：二審中重點(diǎn)主張涉案專利無(wú)效性及技術(shù)不侵權(quán)分析，堅(jiān)決維護(hù)合法權(quán)益。  

三、海伯森的技術(shù)自主性 

1. 涉案產(chǎn)品HPS-LCF1000的獨(dú)立研發(fā)立場(chǎng)

我司重申：涉案產(chǎn)品為HPS-LCF1000型號(hào)，該型號(hào)產(chǎn)品系基于我司長(zhǎng)期自主研發(fā)完成，技術(shù)方案與LMI專利存在實(shí)質(zhì)性差異。此外，我司擁有數(shù)十款高端工業(yè)傳感器產(chǎn)品，本次訴訟爭(zhēng)議不影響其他產(chǎn)品繼續(xù)合法銷售。  

四、嚴(yán)正要求與行業(yè)呼吁

1. 要求LMI公司立即糾正

要求其24小時(shí)內(nèi)刪除誤導(dǎo)性聲明，并在原渠道發(fā)布澄清公告，明確載明：“案件為一審判決且已被上訴，尚未發(fā)生法律效力”。  

2. 呼吁行業(yè)良性競(jìng)爭(zhēng)

專利制度本意為保護(hù)創(chuàng)新，而非用作打壓對(duì)手的工具。我司呼吁同業(yè)聚焦技術(shù)突破與合作，拒絕利用未生效司法文書擾亂市場(chǎng)秩序。 

法律提示：  

依據(jù)《最高人民法院關(guān)于適用〈中華人民共和國(guó)民事訴訟法〉的解釋》第五百五十條，生效裁判需滿足“法定上訴期滿未上訴”或“最高法院終審裁定”等要件。LMI公司混淆未生效判決與終審結(jié)果的行為，已涉嫌構(gòu)成“訴訟程序中的不誠(chéng)信訴訟行為”。  

海伯森技術(shù)（深圳）有限公司將持續(xù)通過(guò)法律途徑捍衛(wèi)權(quán)益，并一如既往為全球工業(yè)客戶提供高性能、高可靠性的傳感器產(chǎn)品及解決方案。  

特此聲明！

海伯森技術(shù)（深圳）有限公司  

2025年7月1日  

OFFICIAL STATEMENT: RESPONSE TO LMI'S MISLEADING CLAIMS OF LEGAL VICTORY

July 1, 2025 - Shenzhen, China

Legal Facts Must Be Clarified: A Pending First-Instance Appeal Does Not Constitute Final Judgment

Hypersen Technologies Co., Ltd. ("Hypersen") has noted the recent statement published by LMI Technologies Inc. ("LMI") on its official WeChat account, falsely claiming to have "won a patent lawsuit." This statement deliberately obscures the critical facts that the case remains under appeal and the first-instance judgment has not taken legal effect. Through such misleading representations, LMI has severely damaged our company's reputation and disrupted normal business operations. We hereby issue this formal statement:

I. ACTUAL STATUS OF THE CASE: FIRST-INSTANCE JUDGMENT NOT FINAL, LEGAL PROCEEDINGS ONGOING

Case Remains Under Appeal

While a first-instance judgment was rendered in the patent litigation referenced by LMI (involving Patent No. ZL200780038629.3), our company has duly filed an appeal with the higher court within the statutory time limit. Pursuant to Article 174 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the first-instance judgment shall not take legal effect until the appellate proceedings are concluded.

Misrepresentation of "Legal Victory"

LMI's use of terms such as "won the lawsuit" deliberately omits crucial qualifiers regarding the case's status as "first-instance" and "non-final." This violates the Supreme People's Court's Provisions on Judicial Transparency, which require complete and accurate case disclosures, and constitutes false advertising and commercial defamation.

II. IMPROPER NATURE OF LMI'S STATEMENT AND OUR LEGAL ACTIONS

Legal Characterization of Misleading Statements

LMI's statement violates Article 11 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, which prohibits "fabricating or disseminating misleading information to damage a competitor's commercial reputation," and contravenes the principle of good faith in patent enforcement under the Patent Law.

Legal Countermeasures Initiated

Evidence Preservation: Complete notarization of LMI's statement and its market impact.

Legal Notice: Demand for immediate retraction of misleading content and public clarification, with potential defamation and unfair competition claims if unaddressed.

Appeal Strategy: Focusing on patent invalidity arguments and non-infringement analysis in appellate proceedings.

III. Hypersen's INDEPENDENT TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT

Independent R&D of HPS-LCF1000 Product

The HPS-LCF1000 product was developed through our proprietary R&D efforts, with technical solutions fundamentally different from LMI's patent claims. This litigation does not affect the lawful sales of our other high-end industrial sensor products.

IV. FORMAL DEMANDS AND INDUSTRY CALL

Demand for Immediate Rectification

LMI must within 24 hours:

Remove all misleading statements and issue a public clarification stating: "The case is a first-instance judgment currently under appeal and has not taken legal effect.

Advocate for Healthy Industry Competition

The patent system exists to protect innovation, not to suppress competition. We urge industry peers to focus on technological advancement rather than exploiting non-final judgments to disrupt market order.

LEGAL NOTICE:

Per Article 550 of the Supreme People's Court's Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law, a judgment only becomes effective after either: The appeal period expires without appeal, or A final ruling is issued by the Supreme People's Court.

LMI's misrepresentation of a non-final judgment as conclusive may constitute bad faith litigation conduct.

Hypersen will vigorously defend its rights through all legal avenues while continuing to provide global clients with high-performance, reliable sensor solutions.

OFFICIALLY ISSUED BY:

Hypersen Technologies Co., Ltd. 

July 1, 2025