New China IP Positions

With the summer almost upon us, the tours of many diplomats posted overseas are slated to end.  No less so with IPR-diplomats.

Chris Adams will be departing from his post as USTR’s representative in China.  The notice for his job posting is available here: .  Chinese language is no longer mandatory for this position, but is highly desirable.

Continue reading

Understanding China’s New Environment for Intellectual Property

On April 11th, Fordham Law School held its first China focused IP Conference, “Understanding China’s New Environment for Intellectual Property”.  The program covered a range of issues, from patenting trends, to challenges in design protection, and intellectual property protection challenges for cloud computing in China, with mixed panels of academics, practitioners, judges and government officials from both countries. Continue reading

Another Early Chinese “Imperial” Patentee: Young Kie Buell

In our posting of 2012/01/12 (“China’s First Overseas Patent Filer?”), we talked about Jin Fuey Moy, the first Chinese citizen who filed a patent application in the United States. In fact, there are other pioneers. Another “subject of the Emperor of China” received approval earlier than him. On Sep. 18, 1907, Young Kie Buell, also residing in New York, filed his patent on an improved pepper holder (“Receptacle For Powdered Substances,” USPN 873,497), which was granted in less than three months, on Dec. 10, 1907.

Continue reading

Simulating the China IPR Enforcement case

For the past few years, I have been conducting moot court simulations of DS/362, the WTO US-China IPR “enforcement case” with students and colleagues at Fordham University and elsewhere. The heart of DS/362 was the US’s argument that, by establishing prosecution and conviction thresholds that were too high, China did not provide an adequate criminal remedy to address commercial scale counterfeiting and piracy. The WTO panel determined that the United States had not made out an adequate case that China did not, in fact, provide such protection.   The U.S. argued that China had not complied with an earlier request, under “Article 63” of the TRIPS Agreement, to provide additional data (including cases) about its IPR enforcement system that would have been germane to the case, while the panel believed that such data would not have been difficult to obtain. Continue reading