I was surprised to read in today’s press that Kevin Kozak, a Deputy Special Agent in Charge of the LA office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, was shot by a co-worker. Kevin is known to many of us who did training with the Chinese on Customs and criminal IP enforcement from about 2003-2006. He traveled to China and hosted Chinese delegations in Southern California. Kevin has unique qualifications as both a law enforcement office and an attorney who has actually prosecuted IP criminal cases. He was able to contribute a wealth of experience to those discussions. All of us who worked with Kevin wish him a speedy recovery.
Category Archives: China IPR
Confronting Chinese Innovation Mercantilism
Interest in and discussion about innovation practices in China continues. Here’s another upcoming conference, which sounds like it could elicit controversy, from ITIF (the Information Technology and Innovation Forum): “Confronting Chinese Innovation Mercantilism“. According to the press release “China is unabashedly seeking to favor Chinese-owned firms in order to dominate practically all sectors, especially the higher value-added, innovation-based sectors. Yet, the Washington consensus response can be summed up in one word: patience.”.
A separate stream of discussion in Washington has been on Chinese state-owned enterprises, which ITIF alludes to, including hearings yesterday on Capitol Hill on the role of SOE’s [State Owned Enterprises]. Prof. Curtis Milhaupt from Columbia has also written an excellent paper on this topic describing the organization of SOE’s, but without any strong proscriptive language. Prof. Milhaupt also lectured at Fordham on Feb. 16.
In the long run, there is only way forward on all these issues: informed, principled, and respectful engagement. It isn’t a simple matter of patience as the ITIF study suggests. Hopefully serious programs and reports will help us all pursue a reasonable way of engaging China.
Introducing Tom Duke: a brief Q&A
Following our year end review of individuals’ transitions in China’s growing IP field, here is a Q&A with Tom Duke, a new IP officer at the UK Mission:
Why did the UK decided to send you to Beijing? Is it part of a broader plan?
My role in Beijing is the first part of a planned international IP attaché network for the UK IPO. As it’s a new post, one of the priorities is to establish the most effective way that I can deliver added value to the networks already on the ground in China (for example in UK Trade & Investment, the FCO and UK/EU projects and industry associations). From reading a couple of your articles about your time in the US embassy, I know you have spoken about providing colleagues with the right tools – based on accurate information of the Chinese IP landscape – and amplifying messages that can benefit all stakeholders.
There is already a small but active IP diplomatic community in Beijing: Japanese, Korean, American, French, and European. What is your role in that community and in working with rights holders and the government?
I also of course bring some experience, ideas and working practices to the job. I intend to be pro-active in reaching out to Chinese government and non-government partners, as well as work with the international IP community in China. I strongly believe that engagement is most effective if it is coming with a sound understanding of the local context. I thus think it is important to understand the priorities of China, as well as the political realities that influence IP outcomes. I am also ready to communicate our position supported by detailed information on relevant UK expertise and best practice.
What have you done already?
My first week in the job featured the “UK-China IP Symposium” in London. The event featured a large Chinese government delegation led by SIPO Commissioner Tian Lipu, and with officials from seven Chinese government departments. We had detailed sessions on IP protection and enforcement in both the UK and China, plus a look at models for technology transfer. The event was a great forum to bring me up to speed on industry experience in China, and it was also good to see the appetite for interaction by the Chinese delegation with the speakers from the UK.
The event and other discussions highlighted a number of priority work areas. We’re still in the consulting stage, and I’m actively inviting input from all stakeholders as we build our projects and programmes for the coming year.
We wish Mr. Duke the best in China, and we look forward to learning more about his work.
China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) emphasizes disclosure of IP information
The newly revised “Regulation of Annual Report for the Growth Enterprises Market (GEM) Board” has now reached the committee stage.[1] Disclosure of IP information will be, for the first time, a point of focus in the Regulation.
Article 22, section 4 of the draft for solicitation of opinions requires companies to disclose if, during the reporting period, there have been significant changes to their intangible property, which includes patents, trademarks or other non-patents. The section also requires the disclosure of the causes for those changes. The new revision would require the listed companies to analyze the risks and consequences of the changes in their core competitiveness, which is also defined as patent, non-patent and franchise rights. The companies are also required to explain the conditions and solutions to those risks and consequences to those who will be seriously affected by the changes.
[1] The revisions are now at the stage of solicitation for opinions; a draft is available for review here.
Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH): experimental zone between State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) and Deutsches Patent-und Markenamt (DPMA)
According to a Joint Statement issued by SIPO and DPMA, the Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) experimental zone was set up on Jan. 23, 2012. This program, unlike the PPH between SIPO and USPTO (United States Patent and Trademark Office), only includes general PPH, but not the Patent Cooperation Treaty PPH. Under this initiative, applicants can file their PPH applications to either SIPO or DPMA.
Applicants who want to file the PPH application to SIPO can visit here for further information (Chinese).
Applicants who want to file the PPH application to DPMA can find further information here (English).
This program will continue for two years and will be due on Jan.22, 2014.
Additionally, SIPO set up the PPH experimental zone with the USPTO on Dec. 1, 2011, which will only continue for one year.
