Intellectual Property

Subscribe to Intellectual Property via RSS

Authored by Dr. Zhan Hao (zhanhao@anjielaw.com) and Li Xiang at AnJie Law Firm

Introduction

There is a joke in reference to the relationship between antitrust and intellectual property and the conflicts between them, which goes, “It is not easy to marry the innovation bride and the competition groom and some have argued that such a marriage will unavoidably lead to divorce.” Nowadays it is not a problem if there is an intrinsic conflict between them. In China, the principle that both of the two legal regimes serve the common purpose of promoting innovation and enhancing consumer welfare is broadly acknowledged.Continue Reading Abuse of Dominance in Relation to Intellectual Property: From China’s Perspective

Authored by Dr. Zhan Hao (zhanhao@anjielaw.com) and Li Xiang at AnJie Law Firm

Introduction

There is a joke in reference to the relationship between antitrust and intellectual property and the conflicts between them, which goes, “It is not easy to marry the innovation bride and the competition groom and some have argued that such a marriage will unavoidably lead to divorce.” Nowadays it is not a problem if there is an intrinsic conflict between them. In China, the principle that both of the two legal regimes serve the common purpose of promoting innovation and enhancing consumer welfare is broadly acknowledged.Continue Reading Abuse of Dominance in Relation to Intellectual Property: From China’s Perspective

Authored by Dr. Zhan Hao (zhanhao@anjielaw.com) from AnJie Law Firm

On June 11, 2014, China’s State Administration for Industry and Commerce (SAIC) released the latest draft [1] of regulations designed to implement the Anti-Monopoly Law (AML) with respect to intellectual property rights—Rules of the Administration of Industry and Commerce on the Prohibition of Abuses of Intellectual Property Rights for the Purposes of Eliminating or Restricting Competition (Rules), to solicit public opinions. The Rules describe the authority’s enforcement policies, criteria of proof, and types of acceptable evidence in its analysis of suspected anti-competitive conduct involving IPR. The period of calling for public opinions will expire on July 10, 2014.Continue Reading SAIC Moves Closer to Antitrust Rules for IP

Authored by He Jing (hejing@anjielaw.com) and Dong Xue from AnJie Law Firm

On May 22 2014, China’s National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) announced the suspension of the investigation against Inter Digital Communications (IDC), a US wireless technology developer, as the company had submitted detailed  measures to address the regulator’s concerns. What is interesting is the differences in the IDC measures between the press release of NDRC and that of IDC. NDRC states that:

1) IDC will not charge Chinese enter- prises discriminatory and excessive patent licensing fees.

2) IDC will not bundle standard-essential patents (SEPs) with non-SEPs in the patent licence.

3) IDC will not require a Chinese manufacturer to agree to a royalty-free, reciprocal cross-licence.

4) IDC will not force Chinese enterprises to accept unreasonable licence conditions through direct legal action.Continue Reading Excessive pricing and standard-essential patents

Authored by Arthur X. Dong (dongxiao@anjielaw.com) & Li Meng from AnJie Law Firm

For the last ten years, whether an arbitration clause such as “any disputes arising from, or in connection with, the execution of this agreement shall be resolved by arbitration” may be applied to an infringement claim has been a topic of heated discussion among the legal practitioners in China.  This is a matter of great concern to arbitration practitioners in China because the case history of Supreme People’s Court has failed to clarify whether the courts or the arbitration tribunal should have jurisdiction over the infringement claims. Continue Reading Is an Infringement Claim within the Scope of Arbitration Clause under Laws of PRC?

Authored by He Jing, AnJie Law Firm and Jerry Xia, Honeywell China

While some feel that damages awards in China are still insufficient, recent cases show that the courts are becoming much more sophisticated in calculating damages and awards are increasing – especially in cases of wilful infringement

China’s newly amended Trademark Law is due to come into effect on May 1 2014.  One of the most significant changes for many brand owners and trademark professionals will be the increase in damages in trademark infringement cases. The law will raise the amount of statutory damages to Rmb3 million – almost six times the previous limit. It will also recognise punitive damages and ease the burden of proof for brand owners in establishing damages. Continue Reading Chinese courts ratchet up damages awards for wilful infringement

Authored by Cheng Bing (chengbing@anjielaw.com)

2013 was a milestone year for the development of China Intellectual Property Rights.  During 2013, copyright, patent and trademark legislation were all revised.  The judicial practice picked up speed as well, with cutting-edge precedents that established protections in trade secrets and other IPR fields. In summary, the Chinese IPR regime enjoyed a rapid growth in 2013. Continue Reading 2013 China IP Review

Authored by He Jing (hejing@anjielaw.com)

On October 22, 2013, the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) held a press conference in Beijing to announce 8 leading intellectual property (IP) court decisions.  The cases are all made by local courts in different cities and involved the granting of preliminary injunctive orders, reduction of the burden of proof on IP owners and an increase in the amount of compensation in civil cases, and intensified criminal penalties.  Almost all the claimed progress in the announcements relates to what has been asked for by foreign business communities. 

While it is worthwhile to remind that China is not a case law country, it is encouraging to see the new progress made in IP enforcement, which could be used as good precedents for IPR owners to push for more courts to follow. Continue Reading Supreme People’s Court Attempting to Reinvigorate China IP Enforcement

Authored by He Jing (hejing@anjielaw.com)

The Standing Committee of China’s National People’s Congress finally approved the China Trademark Law Amendment on August 30, 2013, after more than 7 years of deliberation and discussions.  The amendments will come into effect as of May 1, 2014.

To those who have closely followed the China trademark law amendment process, the final version is very similar to the version that the NPC reviewed during the second reading back in July.  The latest version does not have many surprises: the amendment increases the cap on statutory damages to RMB 3 million and re-adjusts the time limits within which the Trademark Office and Trademark Re-Examination Board (TRAB) must complete the trademark examination, opposition, cancellation, and appeals.  Continue Reading How Will the Trademark Law Amendment Change China Trademark Practice?

Interview with Cheng Bing (chengbing@anjielaw.com), He Jing (hejing@anjielaw.com)

Q: What is bad-faith registration of a trademark?

A: The term “bad faith registration of a trademark” means the act of using improper means to preemptively register the trademark of another that is already being used and has a significant influence in the relevant sector, for the purpose of profiting from it.

Article 31 of the Trademark Law specifies that, “An application for the registration of a trademark may not prejudice the existing prior right of any third party nor may improper means be used to preemptively register a third party’s trademark which is already in use and which has a certain degree of influence”

Q: What judicial remedies are available once the bad-faith registration of a trademark has occurred?

A: Pursuant to the current Trademark Law and related regulations, the main means of judicial remedies available to the rights holder are as follows:Continue Reading Judicial Remedies from Bad-faith Registrations of Trademarks