Are folks in China confused about the Energizer decision by the CAFC?

Eveready / Energizer filed a complaint with the ITC in April 2003, charging that about two dozen companies (many of them Chinese) were infringing on the mercury-free battery patent. As noted earlier on IPBiz,
the Federal Circuit REVERSED a determination of invalidity (meaning the patent claim of Energizer is VALID).

Incredibly, Chinese news source Xinhua ran a story headlined Chinese battery makers welcome US court's verdict and presented the text:

Energizer then appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, putting the ITC as defendant.

The official with the Fujian Nanping Nanfu Battery Co., Ltd. said the verdict of the U.S. court indicated that the Chinese battery makers have finally won the three-year-long lawsuit.

He said the victory is a great encouragement to Chinese exporters, who are currently besieged by various trade barriers. "It also helps clear the obstacles for Chinese batteries to enter the U.S. market."

The Fujian company is one of the largest alkaline battery manufacturers and suppliers in China.

Take a note to the Chinese battery makers infringing the patent: with more victories like this, you'll be out of this business!

ShanghaiDaily repeated the nonsense:

CHINESE battery makers said yesterday in Beijing they welcomed the decision made by the US Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit, which rejected the appeal of Energizer Holdings against the US International Trade Commission.


The Financial Express was also confused.

But, then, the folks who wrote the Supreme Court brief for eBay are very confused about the 97% patent grant rate number.