Misoin sues Dacheng for violation of lisine infringement

, on 22 October 2013, in the District Court of The Hague, the Netherlands, Miso Co., Ltdand Miso-Meth Europe Lysine Corporation (collectively, "Miso") have filed a lawsuit against Dentons Biochemical Technology Co., Ltdand its subsidiaries (collectively, "GBTs") for violationsThe company said GBT violated the ban on it as early as the August 22, 2007 rulingPSJpatent litigation progression
PSJfirst became aware of GBT's intellectual property infringement sourcing against it in 2005In 2006, The Company launched a series of lawsuits against GBT in EuropeFollowing the 2007 judgment of the Hague District Court, a number of European courts also decided to approve the action by The OdorIn September 2013, the Supreme Court of the Netherlands ruled that GBT had been infringedSimilarly, in July 2013, the court in Dusseldorf, Germany, ruled in favour of the company, and Dentons did not appeal during the appeal period, thus concluding that GBT patent infringement was finally determinedAll of these final court decisions ordered GBT to stop infringing the company's intellectual property rights and to pay unconditional compensationPSJviolationsPSJduring this period, GBT continues to make official statements that they have developed a non-infringement strain and have discontinued the use of the litigation's sinline In other words, GBT acknowledged the court's decision and determined that lysine did not infringe the intellectual property rights of the company PSJ
　　In 2013, the company requested authorities to capture some GBT lysine samples for sale in the European market After careful analysis by an independent laboratory, the company found that GBT continued to infringe, despite the court's ruling As a result, on October 22, 2013, in the Netherlands, Miso submitted a request for GBT violations It was clear that, despite the court's clear decision, GBT ignored the Supreme Court's decision In order to protect the interests of the company, it is necessary to take favorable measures In order to prevent further violations of the law, The Company has now resumed its proceedings in the Hague courts PSJ a new patent infringement lawsuit PSJ filed a new infringement lawsuit on July 25, 2013 in the Hague, Netherlands, after a scientific analysis of the product, which filed a new infringement lawsuit against a new patent (EP1664318), which is valid until 2025 and differs from the three patents previously filed by the company against GBT infringement PSJ
　　These cases led the company to believe that GBT ignored intellectual property rights and that GBT misled customers into advising them to buy products that did not infringe on GBT, but at the same time continued to violate the court's decision So much so that customers believe that products purchased from GBT are not infringing intellectual property rights and are free to use PSJ
　　Since the court first ruled in 2007 in favor of the company's argument, although for the past six years, The Company has been concerned about GBT's long-standing intellectual property infringement The company will continue to stand firm in protecting its intellectual property rights and ensuring fair business practices through legal means PSJ On October 22, 2013, in the Hague District Court of the Netherlands, Miso Co., Ltd and Miso-European lysine Co., Ltd (collectively, "Miso") filed a lawsuit against Dentons Biochemical Technology Co., Ltd and its subsidiaries (collectively, "GBTs") in violation of the lawsuit The company said GBT violated the ban on it as early as the August 22, 2007 ruling PSJ patent litigation progression
PSJ first became aware of GBT's intellectual property infringement sourcing against it in 2005 In 2006, The Company launched a series of lawsuits against GBT in Europe Following the 2007 judgment of the Hague District Court, a number of European courts also decided to approve the action by The Odor In September 2013, the Supreme Court of the Netherlands ruled that GBT had been infringed Similarly, in July 2013, the court in Dusseldorf, Germany, ruled in favour of the company, and Dentons did not appeal during the appeal period, thus concluding that GBT patent infringement was finally determined All of these final court decisions ordered GBT to stop infringing the company's intellectual property rights and to pay unconditional compensation PSJ violations PSJ during this period, GBT continues to make official statements that they have developed a non-infringement strain and have discontinued the use of the litigation's sinline In other words, GBT acknowledged the court's decision and determined that lysine did not infringe the intellectual property rights of the company PSJ
　　In 2013, the company requested authorities to capture some GBT lysine samples for sale in the European market After careful analysis by an independent laboratory, the company found that GBT continued to infringe, despite the court's ruling As a result, on October 22, 2013, in the Netherlands, Miso submitted a request for GBT violations It was clear that, despite the court's clear decision, GBT ignored the Supreme Court's decision In order to protect the interests of the company, it is necessary to take favorable measures In order to prevent further violations of the law, The Company has now resumed its proceedings in the Hague courts PSJ a new patent infringement lawsuit PSJ filed a new infringement lawsuit on July 25, 2013 in the Hague, Netherlands, after a scientific analysis of the product, which filed a new infringement lawsuit against a new patent (EP1664318), which is valid until 2025 and differs from the three patents previously filed by the company against GBT infringement PSJ
　　These cases led the company to believe that GBT ignored intellectual property rights and that GBT misled customers into advising them to buy products that did not infringe on GBT, but at the same time continued to violate the court's decision So much so that customers believe that products purchased from GBT are not infringing intellectual property rights and are free to use PSJ
　　Since the court first ruled in 2007 in favor of the company's argument, although for the past six years, The Company has been concerned about GBT's long-standing intellectual property infringement The company will continue to stand firm in protecting its intellectual property rights and ensuring fair business practices through legal means PSJ