Summary of MoST Presentations at the Two Sessions

Thanks to Mr. Dai Nian, Research Associate, Duke Kunshan University for this summary of some of the presentations of the Ministry of Science and Technology at the two sessions of the National People’s Congress and Chinese People’s Consultative Conference (“lianghui”) meetings.   Much of this summary has direct implications for IP, particularly patents – including regarding China’s continuing innovation in fintech, AI, autonomous vehicles, US-China clean energy cooperation and science cooperation, and commercialization/licensing of technology.

Overall assessment of past achievement and current status

The strategic importance of Science and technology innovation in the overall development of party and state has been significantly increased. China’s S&T innovation capability and efficiency have been largely improved. The country is gradually transforming from passive follower and learner to leader in many fields. The contribution rate of science and technology has risen from 52.2% to 57.5%, with the new economy leading the world such as digital economy, sharing economy. Five years since the 18th National People’s Congress, the major historic achievements of China’s S&T can be summarized as:  S&T capability is significantly improved, the country has entered a stage of “并跑 (at the same speed)” and more and more “领跑 (take the lead)”. China’s strategic high techs is currently at the world forefront; S&T innovation provides strong support to supply-side reforms and improvement of people’s livelihood, fully integrating into socio-economic development.

Artificial intelligence

The critical step for AI to deeply integrate with all aspects of our life is to have strong capability and constant breakthroughs in key technologies, basic research, and make it available to individuals, entrepreneurs dedicated to innovation. But most importantly, China should strengthen the foundation for AI:  enhance the science foundation for AI, speed up integrated systematic R&D of key technologies, and improve R&D discoveries in open platforms. The Chinese government will release AI guidance and detailed rules and regulations in order to achieve breakthroughs in basic frontier theories and key technologies; expedite commercialization and application of AI. At the same time, research on policies, laws and regulations should be enhanced so as to properly address challenges arising from social ethics, employment structure, individual privacy, national security, etc; AI is an international trend. China will strengthen international cooperation, support Chinese AI companies and research institutes to have cooperation with foreign partners.

New energy car and US-China S&T cooperation

Volume of sales of electric cars and new energy cars reached 770,000 last year, and China is now in possession of 1.6 million accounting for half of world total. Primary reasons for developing new energy cars are: improve structure of energy consumption, reducing reliance on oil; reduce air pollution; significantly alleviate traffic congestion when autonomous driving, AI is combined with electric cars in sharing economy model. China and the United States have been cooperating closely in this field. e.g U.S.-China Clean Energy Research Center (CERC) that focuses on energy saving buildings, clean coal,  and electric cars. China-U.S. S&T innovation cooperation will constantly strengthen. The Chinese government is confident that bilateral S&T cooperation will go deeper, given that scientists, entrepreneurs, and government of each country have established well-functioning communication mechanisms.

Scientists and researchers are the main force of S&T management reform

The most important thing to do is focus on people (S&T personnel) if we want to strengthen basic research, promote commercialization, and improve performance of all-chain innovation. Over the past five years, the government has carried out substantial reforms in the overall S&T management system and use of funding. S&T personnel are empowered to have more discretion of fund allocation, to start businesses that commercialize S&T discoveries. Wan Gang points out some obstacles blocking the implementation of reform measures such as fiscal constraints, cap on the rewards to researchers, lack of budgetary flexibility. MOST will produce relevant policies in the near future regarding evaluation system, S&T commercialization, tax preference, and credibility of S&T personnel.

双创 (mass entrepreneurship and innovation)

Under national enthusiasm for 双创 (literally double creation, or mass entrepreneurship and innovation), a lot of group innovation space (GIS) have sprung up that give full play to young people‘s creativity and entrepreneurship and also greatly facilitates economic transformation and development.  Meanwhile, 双创 together with GIS helps promote openness and sharing of S&T resources because R&D achievements made by enterprises, universities, and research institutes are integrated here, with many public services becoming open to all. 双创improves the level of internationalization of China’s innovation, given that there are already many offshore Chinese innovation centers.

Wan Gang highlights three major task to be accomplished in order to upgrade 双创: deep integration of industry, university, and research institute so as to realize high level innovation and entrepreneurship that will serve real economy; promote fintech (finance and technology combination) and provide diverse financial services for tech entrepreneurs and start-ups; absorb and leverage international resources through cooperation, build a favorable ecology for innovation and entrepreneurship that is made up of GIS, incubators, accelerators, S&T parks that cultivate talent, promote commercialization, effectively combine VC with industries.

S&T commercialization

China has accomplished a trilogy in S&T commercialization: over the past five years, the government revised laws on S&T commercialization, promulgated a number of rules and regulations that facilitate and promote S&T commercialization, kicked off a series of moves—the end result is positive considering the significant progress made in technology commercialization and rapid growth of tech transaction market which reached 1.3 trillion yuan in 2017.

MOST at Two Sessions:


Updates March 6 – 12, 2018


From SIPO’s 2017 Statistical Report (see last entry below).

1.  Intellectual property issues discussed during China’s “two sessions” – the annual meetings of the national legislature (The National People’s Congress) and the top political advisory body (the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference). In addition to proposals on reorganizations of State agencies, including SIPO and SAIC,  Premier Li Keqiang delivered a government’s work report on behalf of the State Council. In this work report, Li Keqiang noted that the total number of in-force Chinese invention patents issued in China had tripled, the volume of technology transactions had doubled, and trademark registration cycle had been significantly shortened. In addition, Li set out the agenda for the government in 2018, and one of the items on this agenda is to strengthen intellectual property protection and enforce a punitive compensation system for intellectual property rights infringements.

The Chief Justice Zhou Qiang (周强) also delivered the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) work report. Zhou emphasized again the role of judicial protection of IP rights. This report often provides a hint of the more detailed IPR White Papers that the SPC publishes around IP Week in April.

Wan Gang (万钢), minister of the Ministry of Science and Technology, also addressed IP related issues during a press conference. A more detailed report on that is forthcoming.

A number of NPC delegates also made proposals regarding IP issues. Many of these are unlikely to be enacted into law. For instance, a delegate from Royalstar (荣事达) proposes using Chinese character as one of the basic requirements in trademark registration; a delegate from Su Ning urges IP protection/clarification for live broadcasts of sporting events (see my blogs on the ongoing debate over copyright protection for sports broadcasts); and a delegate from Nanjing Normal University urges stronger protection for Internet service platform, a topic which is long overdue for reform.

2.  Huawei tops European patent applications Huawei ranked the first in patent applications in 2017 on the European Patent Office patent-filing list, the office said in its latest reporting. With 2,398 patent applications in 2017, Huawei became the first Chinese firm that tops the EPO ranking in the office’s history, followed by Siemens with 2,220 and LG with 2,056.

3.  CAS plans patent auctions  The Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) will hold a patent auction for the first time, involving a a portfolio of 932 patents. The patents were selected from those obtained by 104 institutes and 89 national labs affiliated with the academy, and cover a wide spectrum of fields, including new materials, intelligent manufacturing, advanced biomedical technology, new energy and ecological environmental technology. The 932 patents are a small subset of CAS’ patent holdings in China of approximately 46,000. According to An Lili from CAS’s intellectual property center, the minimum starting bid for the patents is expected to be 100,000 yuan (15,700 U.S. dollars). The Intellectual Property Operation and Management Center of CAS is promoting the patents in the coastal provinces of Shandong, Jiangsu and Zhejiang as well as the cities of Shanghai, Fuzhou and Shenzhen, where auctions will be held in March.

4.  SIPO releases basic statistics of patent application in 2017  As detailed in this collection of tables (Chinese language), the United States was the second largest foreign filer at SIPO, after Japan (about 41,000 to 37,000 applications — see chart above).   State Grid was the largest Chinese invention patent grantee, with about 3,622 patents, ahead of Huawei (3,293).  Among foreign filers, the United States had four companies in the top 10: Qualcomm (no 1), Intel (7), IBM (8) and General Motors (10). Huawei was the single biggest Chinese user of the PCT system. The report also provides snapshots of One Belt One Road filings. China’s top two filing destinations were India and Russia, while China’s top two foreign filers in the OBOR were Singapore and Israel.


SIPO/IP Agencies to Be Reorganized and Consolidated

Several Chinese news agencies have reported on by the State Council, the proposed reorganization now being presented to the National People’s Congress, which will significantly rearrange all Chinese agencies, including IP agencies.

According to the plan, after the reform, the number of state-level ministries and commissions will be reduced by 8 and vice-ministerial agencies were reduced by 7.  State Councilor Wang Yong(王勇), who was formerly a Minister at AQSIQ (Administration for Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine, 2008-2010) where he addressed tainted milk amongst other issues,  noted in introducing the changes to SIPO that “SIPO would be newly organized.  The creation, protection, utilization of IP will be strengthened as an important measure to speed up the establishment of an innovative economy.” The proposal includes combining trademarks and patents which are separately managed and have “redundant” enforcement authority.   These authorities will be combined with ASQISQ’s authority over Geographical Indications to establish a national State Market Supervision Adminsitration (国家市场监督管理总局) (“SMSA” for purposes of this blog).

Wang Yong’s statement in Chinese:


The creation of SMSA suggests that SIPO’s once lofty goal/dream of serving as an integrated IP agency, which was initiated by Dr. Gao Lulin when he was Commissioner, may have come to a temporary end.  At one time a stumbling block to this proposal may have been integrating the vast trademark enforcement resources of SAIC.  It appears that such an integration would likely be accomplished under the new SMSA.  Another legacy issue that may need to be addressed involves SIPO’s legacy authority over international IP which often overlapped with MofCOM’s authority over trade-related IP, which became especially important after WTO accession by China and may be even more challenging by the integration of SIPO into a bigger agency.  Noticeably absent from this proposal, however, are the copyright authority (under the National Copyright Administration), as well as trade secret protection (under SAIC).  Plant variety protection, already divided between two agencies (Agriculture, Forestries) with SIPO helping to support international engagement, is is also absent.  One view of these changes is that voices within China that look at IP (including patents) as an instrument of market regulation, including consumer protection, may have won out.  This approach was evident in the work of the National Leading Group Fighting IP Infringement and Substandard Products (全国打击侵权假冒办公室), as well as the increased activity of SIPO over the years in conducting market supervision actions involving false marking and patent infringements.  Indeed the wisdom of keeping this Leading Group within MofCOM in light of a new SMSA may be questioned; however, the Leading Group consists of many more agencies than SIPO, SAIC and AQSIQ.   Nonetheless the State Council had previously called for reducing redundancies in enforcing the market order, and it was also part of the yet to be adopted patent law revisions.  In that State Council opinion, which may be a guiding part of this reorganization, there is a call for  “the elimination of duplicative multilayered enforcement”, including territorial and subject matter overlaps. See: 

The approach of creating a SMSA to address enforcement challenges is also distinct from the technology-oriented reforms of China’s judicial system in recent years, which have led to the creation of technology oriented IP courts as well as the creation of more autonomous IP  tribunals.  The incorporation of sui generis GI protection into SMSA agency also pits two sometimes rivalrous agencies with different perspectives on utilization of the trademark (private rights) system with a sui generis (more public rights oriented) system to protect GI’s.  Finally, it would also likely have the effect of elevating SIPO to a General Administration in the State Council structure, which is just below a Ministry-level agency.   This is somewhat more similar to the structure of the USPTO which is within the Department of Commerce in the United States.

How do the other IP agencies shake out?  It is too soon to know.  The Ministry of Culture is merging with the Tourism Administration.  Will the National Copyright Administration remain within the General Administration of Press and Publications/State Administration for Radio Film and Television structure? Also, there are some reports that the Ministry of Science and Technology is also being reorganized to absorb the State Foreign Experts Bureau and the China National Science Foundation.  Finally, the Legislative Affairs Office of the State Council is reportedly moving to the Ministry of Justice.    The SCLAO has exercised a tremendously important role over the years in crafting IP legislation.  The impact of some of these changes will also likely depend on personnel shifts within the agencies.  In addition, it could impact or accelerate efforts already in place by these agencies.  For example, will the change in the SCLAO structure affect long-overdue proposed revisions to China’s copyright law, which reportedly are once again the subject of active discussion? Similarly, it is unclear to me at this stage what impact there will be on the China Food and Drug Administration (reorganized in 2013), in light of other changes to health-oriented agencies and SIPO, and if this will affect, or perhaps accelerate, efforts to reform IP administration by SFDA, such as through a patent linkage regime.  

These proposed changes elicit more questions than answers; we will need to see how they are enacted and implemented in the coming months.  We welcome corrections and additional information from readers!

Update of March 14: Fu Yiqin at Yale has put together a useful summary of proposed State Council reorganizations.  Here is the link:  Fu Yiqin notes that the State Food and Drug Administration and antitrust enforcement agencies will be combined in the State Market Supervision Administration (where SIPO, et al will also be located).  SARFT is maintained as a separate agency in this chart.  Other news has SARFT being restructured:  Clearly we need some more dust to settle on some of these issues. Hypothetically if antitrust and IP are combined into one agency (perhaps including copyright), and if IP enforcement also is combined into that agency, the problem of the inherent conflict of interests between IP grants, IP enforcement and controlling for IP abuse would be heightened.  However, if SFDA is also combined with SIPO/other IP agencies, there is also the possibility for greater coordination on pharma-related IP issues, such as linkage. I will be updating this as more information becomes available.  Note that in a prior blog, I abbreviated SMSA as GAMA – I am following the nomenclature of Fu Yiqin.




February 27 – March 5, 2018 Developments

  1. China’s cabinet issue new policy initiatives on reforms of IP judiciary systems

On February 27, 2018, the top policy-making body of China (General Office of the Party and General Office of the Council) issued its policy roadmap, entitled “Opinions on Several Issues regarding Strengthening Reform and Innovation in IP Trial” (“Opinions” hereafter). The Opinions set forth the basic guidelines, principles, reform targets and critical measures for reforms and innovations in IP trial. The key points are summarized below.

  • Improve IP litigation system: The Opinions propose several measures to reduce the burden of proof to be borne by the IP owners, and also propose determining damages mainly based on compensation and with punishment as a supplement. In addition, the IP case guidance system will be improved.
  • Strengthen IP Judicial System: a national IP appellate hearing mechanism is to be established and more specialized IP venues are to be set up
  • Strengthen the body of jurists: The Opinions propose picking IP judges from law-making staff, lawyers and legal experts. In addition, the Opinions propose strengthening capacity building of technology investigation officers and making rules for the admission of technology investigation comments.

In addition, during a press conference, China’s leading IP jurist and Supreme People’s Court Vice President Tao Kaiyuan 陶凱元 commented on the Opinions. Justice Tao again emphasized again the role of judicial protection of IP rights (Justice Tao’s prior comments on this is reported here). She announced that 2017 saw a 40% jump in IP-related litigation in the country. The number for new first-instance cases for all categories of intellectual property rights nationwide was 213,480. Justice Tao did not provide an overall number of cases involving foreign parties, but she did noted that on average, foreigners are parties in 20% of all cases, a number that is significantly higher than official statistics on foreign-related cases (涉外案件). That number is even higher Beijing IP Court, where up to 30% of cases are foreign related. Justice Tao said that judicial authorities strive to make Chinese courts preferred venues for international IP disputes which are trusted by litigants.  Justice Tao also noted that Chinese companies face problems overseas, such as at trade fairs (note that the topic of US trade fair enforcement, which often involves Chinese defendants is the subject of two forthcoming articles by Prof. Marketa Trimble and a forthcoming conference to be held in October 2018 at University of Nevada Las Vegas).  More comments on the Opinions are available here.

  1. China has formed a “15 + 3” judicial protection of intellectual property  structure

On March 2, the Zhengzhou Expanded Intellectual Property Tribunal (知识产权法庭) in Henan Province was established. Another two same kind of tribunals: Tianjin and Changsha were also established past week. Up to this point, all 15 expanded intellectual property tribunals (知识产权法庭) in Zhengzhou, Tianjin, Changsha, Xi’an, Hangzhou, Ningbo, Jinan, Qingdao, Fuzhou, Hefei, Shenzhen, Nanjing, Suzhou, Wuhan and Chengdu have been set up, together with the three specialized IP courts (知识产权法院) in Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou,  forming a new  “15 + 3” intellectual property protection program in China. However, those expanded intellectual property tribunals still need to go through legislation process to become free standing specialized IP courts, which had not been completed thus far.


Asia/China at IP Scholars Conference at Berkeley: Call for Papers

The Intellectual Property Scholars Conference brings together intellectual property scholars to present their works-in-progress in order to benefit from the critique of colleagues. This year, the IPSC will be held in Berkeley August 9-10, and will include a special track dedicated to Asia IP law, including – I hope a focus on empirical research and China.   I will be blogging shortly on some of the interesting research I am seeing, and I hope that scholars from different disciplines will come to discuss their work.
Regular registration for IPSC will open later this year, but if you would like to present a paper, please submit an abstract using this form: y4eniAX6tuud63.
Deadline for submission of abstracts: May 25, 2018.
Deadline for submission of full papers or presentation slides: August 1, 201

IP House’s Snapshot of Medical and Health Industry

IP House  has recently published a  Statistical Report on IP Cases in the Medical and Health Industry (December 2017) (Chinese language) covering 391 medical and health industry cases closed from January 1, 2016 to June 30, 2016. Among those cases, 158 were civil cases (67 patent and 91 trademark) and 233 were administrative cases (40 patent and 193 trademark).

As explained in further detail below, this time-limited snapshot of medical and health industry cases shows a relatively low utilization by foreigners of civil infringement remedies in both patent and trademark matters.  Foreigners, including Americans, did actively use judicial review procedures of patent and trademark office decisions.  The cases also show low damage awards for pharma infringement cases despite a high win rate.


  1. Civil Cases

There was a total of 67 civil patent cases in medical and health industry. Guangdong and Jiangsu were the top 2 provinces with close to 42% of the patent litigation. Among all the civil patent cases, around 74.6% were infringement cases, with the balance involving ownership and contract disputes. Infringement of utility model patents and invention patents were the top two claims of action at 24 and 19 cases respectively.   Amongst invention patents, 14 involved medical devices and 5 involved compound patent claims.

Foreigners were minority plaintiffs in these cases, accounting for only 6 out of 67 civil patent cases.  Only one case involved a US party.   Other countries included Japan (2), Norway (2) and Germany (1).   The foreign plaintiff win rate was 83.3% with average damage of 162,001 RMB, slightly higher than the overall winning rate of   82.1%. This “win rate” is approximately similar to win rates being generally report for patent infringement cases in China as reported in a recent article by Bian Renjun.   First instance (一审) infringement trials on average took took 226 days; second instance infringement actions  (二审) on average took 120 days.

Average damages in these actions was 439,896.2 RMB.   Of these, more than 95% of cases used statutory damage to calculate damages.  Two cases that awarded more than 1 million RMB in damages, which were calculated as lost profits.

The principle reason that plaintiffs lost was that the accused product was deemed “not within the scope of protection.” Invalidity was another reason.

  1. Administrative Cases

There was a total of 40 patent administrative cases in the medical and health industry, involving appeals of decisions of patent office decisions.   US entities were a party in seven of the fourteen foreign administrative cases.  This relatively high proportion of foreign administrative cases follows a pattern in judicial IP actions in China where foreign companies generally enjoy a  higher proportion of cases involving validity than in infringement matters.  Amongst all of these cases, the administrative judgment was vacated by court for 6 cases.

As for review period, action of first instance on average took 446 days, and actions of second instance took on average 248 days. Administrative cases took much longer than civil cases to review.  Amongst the administrative cases 72.5% (29 cases) involved drugs, and 27.5%, (11 cases) involved medical devices.  Furthermore, 33 cases involved invention patents and 7 utility model patents


  1. Civil Cases

There was a total of 91 trademark cases, where Jiangxi and Guangxi were the top 2 provinces with most cases.  A majority of these cases involved trademark infringement (88). Plaintiff won 78 cases with a win rate of 85.7%. Trademark civil cases on average took 185 days until the first instance judgment and 106 days for second instance judgment.  Drug and health products constituted 81.8% of these cases, with average damages of 61,412.9 RMB.  All these cases used statutory damages, and only one case involved a foreign party (USA).

The relatively low level of trademark infringement cases may be due in part to the active roles played by SAIC in administrative trademark matters, including their handling of foreign related cases as well as administrative enforcement matters undertaken by CFDA and takedown activities by online etailers.  However, the concentration of cases in Jiangxi and Guangxi is difficult to explain, except perhaps due to inexact reporting procedures.

  1. Administrative Cases

There was a total of 193 trademark administrative cases. Among those cases, 62.2% or 120 cases were brought for review on refusal (驳回复审). Administrative judgements were vacated by court for 49 cases. On average, trademark administrative cases took 266 days for actions of first instance, and 113 days for action for second instance.  Foreign cases accounted for 75 of these administrative trademark cases with the US being the party for the most cases (22 cases), following by Japan and Germany.

In administrative trademark cases, when the applicant had been refused grant of the trademark, the courts primarily ruled on the basis that the same similar trademark was used in the same or similar type of product (87 cases).   Another frequent basis was that a trademark was deceptive, and led to consumer confusion regarding quality and origin.

Implications for the future:

This data, although limited, is suggestive of what a further landscape for pharma patent litigation will be if China institutes a patent linkage system.  To speculate: the data does not suggest that foreigners will rush in to assert infringement of their patents, but rather that foreigners currently play a limited role in infringement litigation.   The high foreign and domestic win rate on infringement matters also suggests that a linkage regime could therefore be very helpful in securing cost effective and timely protection of patent rights, even if this right may not be asserted with great frequency.  Finally, the data also suggests that foreigners appear relatively comfortable in pursuing challenges to administrative action in pharma IP matters, and therefor may ultimately be willing to avail themselves of a patent linkage regime administered by CFDA and the courts. I believe a greater factor in determining how much a linkage system may be utilized may be the development of new, innovative drugs that are patent protected by foreign or domestic entities.

Perhaps the readers of this blog have a different opinion –  we look forward to receiving them.

Written by Mark Cohen with the assistance of Emily Yang.





February 13 – 19 Updates

  1. Honda takes Chinese competitor to Beijing IP Court

Honda Motor has asserted two patents against Chinese carmaker Great Wall Motors, according to a recent announcement by the Beijing IP Court. The Beijing IP Court said it had accepted the two suits in a statement made on 31st January, but it appears that the cases may have been first filed as far back as October. The Japanese automaker is demanding over 200 million yuan ($32m) in damages for the infringement of two invention patents, both filed in 2006. The first is titled “Hatchback door structure for vehicles” and has just a Japanese counterpart. The second, covering “Garnish attachment structure of vehicle body”, has family members in the US and Europe as well.

It is not the first time that Honda asserted patents right in China. A design patent dispute against Shuang Huan Automobile it initiated in 2003 went  to the Supreme People’s Court (SPC), where Honda lost. (See judgment (2014)民三终字第8号)

  1. The China Dashboard 2018: Chinese Innovation Catching Up

Rhodium Group in partnership with the Asia Society Policy Institute released the Winter 2018 edition of the China Dashboard, a project designed to gauge China’s implementation of its self-stated reform goals in the 10 policy domains it judges essential to long-term growth potential. According to the report, Beijing continues to prioritize high growth by deferring implementation of its comprehensive economic reform program. The bulk of Chinese reform priorities – 8 out of 10 areas of the Dashboard – show little or no forward movement. However, “innovation continues to show positive movement, but by using industrial policies favoring domestic players that are fomenting strong push back from Western policymaking.”

The report predicts that Chinese innovation is rapidly catching up to US levels in its role in the domestic economy: “China will catch up to the 2011–2014 levels of U.S. contribution from innovative industries to the industrial structure in the quarters ahead. Based on our methodology, structural adjustment toward innovation is taking place in China, backstopped by serious policies for both promoting innovation and suppressing sunset industries.”  Of particular note were innovations in the auto sector, ICT and instruments and meters. More details on innovation policy reform are available here.

  1. 2017 Top 100 Global Blockchain Patent Holder: China is the leading country

IPRdaily, a Chinese site dedicated to IP news, together with incoPat, an innovation research indexing center, recently released a report on global blockchain patents. The report (in Chinese) shows Alibaba leaping to pole position for the number of patents publicly published globally in 2017 across all three patent types (invention, design, and utility). Out of the top 100 companies 49 were Chinese, 23 from the US.

In second place is Bank of America with 33 new patents taking its total to 44. Third place went to another Chinese organization, the PBoC’s Digital Currency Research Institute (中国人民银行数字货币研究所) which also published 33 patents despite only opening in June 2017.

4.The Status Quo of NPE Litigation in China

IPHouse, a leading product and service provider of IP law in China reported an article written by King & Wood Mallesons on the status quo of NPE litigation in China. The article describes the various types of NPE’s in China, including: research-based NPE, conversion NPE, intermediary NPE and litigation NPE. Of particular interest is  深圳中科院知识产权投资有限公司 (Translation: Shenzhen Chinese Academy of Sciences IP Investment Company Ltd.,  or CASIP) is a research-based NPE under the Chinese Academy of Sciences which aims to commercialize the intellectual property of Chinese Academy of Sciences. CASIP’s website may be suggestive of its goals:  “Cash IP” –  CASIP brought a patent infringement lawsuit against Cree last year. The article describes the case as a battle between the “great research capacity of the Chinese Academy of Sciences” and the American “LED industry giant” Cree. But overall, NPEs’ activities in China are minimum. The article’s author expects NPEs to become more active in China in the near future.