Developments in Foreign-Related Cases, IP and Otherwise

Here’s an excellent posting from a “sister blog”, Susan Finder’s Supreme People’s Court Monitor, on developments in foreign-related cases in China.   The blog points to legal reforms in process that could result in a more activist role of China’s judiciary in international affairs, including by participating in international norms setting, strengthening judicial cooperation with Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan, and perfecting judicial assistance.  The court also noted that it would also “vigorously” assert jurisdiction in international matters, (this was briefly discussed on this blog in the Huawei vs Interdigital case).

Judge Luo Dongchuan,  chief judge of the number four civil tribunal, and a respected former IP judge, is cited by Susan Finder, as suggesting four areas of additional engagement by the courts:

  • “Establishing an electronic platform for service of legal process outside of the jurisdiction (intended to mean Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan, as well as foreign countries);
  • Investigating and obtaining evidence …
  • Determining foreign law, through establishing a database of experts (Chinese and foreign).
  • Restricting parties to litigation from leaving China”

Clearly, international engagement by the courts is on the increase.  Transnational IP could be greatly influenced by these developments.

Some Comments on MIIT’s Template for IP Policies in Industry Standards Organizations

Late last month, MIIT’s IP Center had released a Template for Intellectual Property Rights Policies of Industry Standardization Organizations for public comment. According to MIIT’s IP Center, this is not a government policy or regulation or standard, nor is it mandatory. However, it may offer useful and authoritative guidance for Chinese standards setting organizations in this complex area, particularly in the IT sector.

Comments are due by November 30, 2014, and can be sent to shishaohua@infoip.org. The short time frame in providing comments is due to my only recently having become aware of this document. However, my experience of MIIT’s IP Center is that they have always been open to useful exchanges of information to improve their policies and practices. Moreover, they may have released this draft in advance of their Dec. 10 – 11 conference (https://chinaipr.com/2014/11/25/two-upcoming-conferences/), where I am sure this will be discussed.

Here are some general and personal observations that I have on this policy in four areas: Foreign-Related Issues; Licensing and Standards Development Organization (SDO) Conduct; Patent Type and Quality; and Copyright.

Foreign-Related Issues:

Article II: “Membership” is broadly defined. However, I am concerned about membership management rules that may not fully admit patent owners of all countries/nationalities, or require them to participate only as observers. This should be clarified, as FRAND obligations should be imposed only upon those who can fully participate in standards setting practices, otherwise patentees may unknowingly forfeit their rights to exclude.

As licensing agreements are also often global in nature, it would be helpful if this guidance also confirmed that foreign law could apply to license agreements, notwithstanding that the Template is explicitly governed by Chinese law.

Regarding cross-licensing (Article XII), it would be helpful if the Template recognized that due to restrictions imposed by local laws, it may occasionally be difficult to cross license on exactly comparable terms even when the patents are equal in value. For example, Chinese law requires indemnities against non-infringement for foreign licensors licensing to China. No similar specific provision applies to Chinese domestic licenses or Chinese outbound licenses. This additional cost to a foreign licensor (or benefit to the Chinese licensee) can legitimately result in additional demands imposed by the foreign licensor on the Chinese licensee in a cross-license arrangement that might otherwise be construed as a violation of any FRAND commitment (Ar. XI).

Licensing and SDO Conduct:

Some greater clarification might be helpful on what constitutes “failure to participate” in licensing negotiations, such as that FRAND licensing benefits may be forfeited (Art. X). “Participate” might be interpreted to merely suggest that showing up to licensing negotiations is enough, when good faith and non-prejudicial negotiations are what should be most critical. Clarification might consist of stating, that the prospective licensee “fails to conclude a licensing negotiation in a timely or good faith manner” or in a manner “that doesn’t prejudice the licensor”. Considering that China has a two year statute of limitations on patent infringement, if the parties do not conclude a license or agree to a suspension of the statute of limitations after two years, and the prospective licensor in fact risks loss of revenue or negotiating position due to the relevant statute of limitations, such conduct might be considered dilatory.

Another question is what is an “affiliate” (Article IV and definitional section) when the licensor/patentee is an SOE? Since “affiliate” includes “direct or indirect beneficial ownership” of stock, would an SOE be licensing on behalf of the Chinese government and other SOE’s, or perhaps on behalf of the State Assets Administration? I believe this may not have been what was intended.

Article XI picks up on the hot issue of what is a “smallest component” as a subject of licensing. However, I am sometimes personally bewildered by what might be a “smallest” unit and why this is a necessary concept. First, why “small”? Perhaps the intent is the least expensive and this is a euphemism? Why not the largest or most expensive, with perhaps a smaller royalty base – which might more fairly reflect the contribution of the patent? Moreover, why does it have to be a component, if for example, the R&D can easily be quantified to exact a royalty and it is a technology that is pervasively used in a given product? Also, what if the claims read on services or methods of operation, etc. and are not sold as a physical “component”?

Article XV: Licensors should not transfer Patents containing essential claims for “the purpose of” evading licensing obligations. I am unclear why willfulness (“for the purpose of”) is apparently required here. If a licensor participates or intends to participate in a standards setting organization, it probably should not transfer patents to licensing obligations which arise as part of its participation in the standards setting body. Perhaps a “should know” requirement can ameliorate this problem.

Article XXXVI: While the SDO can interpret the policy, it is unclear to me whether, under Chinese law, this type of policy is contractual in nature, a matter of corporate governance, a matter of governmental policy, and the legal mechanisms that may be available to challenge SDO policy.

Patent Type and Quality:

Although Utility Model Patents are subject to these rules, it would be useful to have some additional guidance. In view of the explosion in low quality, unexamined UMP’s, and the lack of adequate deterrence against their assertion, UMP holders might be required to first submit their UMP’s to examination prior to offering them to the SDO for licensing. Also, consideration should be given to situations where UMP’s are withdrawn in favor of an invention patent which describes a similar set of claims, such as be requiring that the counterpart invention patent be subject to the FRAND commitment. Consideration might also be given to different valuations for UMP’s in light of their more limited scope, limited duration, and lack of substantive examination.

The template should also further clarify its coverage over foreign patents and patent applications, which appear to be covered by these practices in the appendix on licensing terms.

Copyright:

Article VIII and others: I was glad to see copyright-related issues in standardization being addressed. The non-exclusive license of copyright for purposes of making a draft standard granted by the licensor, – that is, the licensor’s retention of copyright interests – may be in conflict with Article XIX which requires that “no Member shall publish or distribute a Draft Standard” and additionally is conflict with the provision that grants the SDO the copyright in the standard itself. Put simply, what rights does the licensor retain?

Past experience in piracy of standards also suggests that the SDO should have clear obligations regarding publishing the standard and protecting the copyright in the standards against piracy.

I am also unclear what rights a Member that is a “reference implementer” software developer retains under the terms of the provisions which grant royalty free rights to an implementer to use the software. (Art. XXI). Might the draftors have better intended an open-source type arrangement, where subsequent improvements may be made available at least to the licensor? Art. 16 of the Computer Software Regulations already grants software licensees the rights to make alterations to the software. This might make a grant back of any improvements by the licensee an equitable adjunct to this provision. If software is being made available, I presume it is being made available in object code format, although this is also unclear. In sum, these terms should be coordinated with the already robust research exemptions available under China’s Software Copyright Protection Regulations (esp. Arts 16, 17), to insure that incentives to developing relevant software remain in place. 第十七条 为了学习和研究软件内含的设计思想和原理,通过安装、显示、传输或者存储软件等方式使用软件的,可以不经软件著作权人许可,不向其支付报酬.

These are my personal observations. I welcome comments/corrections from others who may be more familiar with some of these practices, especially in China!

IPO Webinar on Specialized IP Courts and A Blog Too from Nottingham

Intellectual Property Owners hosted a great webinar on “China’s New IP Courts: What U.S. Companies Need to Know.” Speakers include Benjamin Bai from Allen & Overy, Gang Hu from CCPIT Patent and Trademark Office, and me (Mark Cohen).   The program occurred on December 2 at 12:00 noon. The fee was  $130.00. The content is available on line.

Here’s a recent blog I did for the University of Nottingham on the same topic.

As I noted in the webinar and the blog, the IP Courts are a bit of a misnomer.  The lion’s share of iP litigation (trademark. copyright) will not be handled by them.  The new courts are, however, closely related to judicial reform efforts.   Moreover, the courts are closely related to what China understands to be “innovation” – including utility models, and design patents, and excluding most copyright claims.  The fact that only technical trade secrets are protected and not business secrets such as marketing plans or client lists, underscores that these courts are not comprehensive IP courts but are targeted at China’s innovative sectors — as China understands them.

 

Mark

Two Upcoming Conferences

MIIT’s IP Center is hosting its annual program on Intellectual Property Standards and Anti-Monopoly Law December 10-11 in Beijing. Information is available here.  For information on the IP Center see http://www.miitip.com/, or http://www.miitip.com/.  This is a particularly timely conference in light of ongoing developments in these three areas in China.

Another upcoming conference is the IP Key-Chinese Academy of Sciences Institute of Policy Management conference on December 4th 2014 at CAS IPM in Beijing on the Economic impacts of IP-Centered Government Incentives in Europe and China, which promises to look at tax and other government incentives to patenting and innovation. The agenda is found here.

Indie Music and Copyright in China

The Dong Dong 东 动 Music Festival takes place in Beijing Nov. 26 – 29.  On Nov. 27 and 28 there are programs on the business side of the music industry, including a panel on the 27th from 11:30 to 12:30 on developments in copyright in English and Chinese including IFPI’s chief china representative, as well as a representative from CAVCA, a Chinese collecting society  (http://www.dongdong-event.com/program-convention/).

 

IP in the Xi-Obama Meeting – Following the Data Stream

There wasn’t much IP in the recent meeting of the Chinese and US heads of State at APEC in Beijing, nor should one expect more than a brief mentioning amongst all the other issues that the U.S. and Chinese leadership have to discuss. However there were two points of reference.  One was in the Chinese tabulation of the list of agreed outcomes which stated:

七、双方同意于2015年初举行中国公安部和美国国土安全部部级会晤。双方将利用这一契机深入探讨加强反恐、执法等相关领域合作。双方同意继续在追逃追赃、遣返非法移民、禁毒、打击网络犯罪、加强知识产权执法等领域开展对话与合作。

Essentially this commits the Ministry of Public Security and the Department of Homeland Security to their first Ministerial-level meetings in 2015 to discuss deepening cooperation in enforcement related actions. In addition they agree to dialogue and cooperation in addressing including online crimes and strengthening intellectual property enforcement.

President Obama also noted in the joint press conference that he “stressed the importance of protecting intellectual property as well as trade secrets, especially against cyber-threats [with Xi Jinping].”

This is one instance where the statistical back story supports the respective statements of the leadership.

In China, there has been a big increase in domestic criminal IP cases in China during 2014. In the first half of 2014, the number of all the intellectual property-related criminal cases of the first instance was 5,429,r ising 29.35% over the same period of last year.

In 2013, intellectual property-related criminal cases. of first instance handled by local courts, were reduced by 28.79% to 9,331 cases, including 5,021 infringement cases (3,473 involved infringement of registered trademarks, such as use of counterfeit marks, and 1,484 cases involved copyright infringement).  This drop of 35.96% from the prior year was probably due to the end of a special campaign.

The multi-year trend clearly shows continuing increases in criminal enforcement. Wang Yu(王瑜),an IP lawyer, tabulated the number of IP cases in a recent blog (Oct. 29, 2014), translated here.

From the above chart, the IP-related criminal cases appear to be rising again.  Copyright cases are also rising fast, from 0.6% of 2010 to 39% of 2013.  Trade secret cases, however, are a small percentage and hover around 50 total.

USDOJ data shows that there were about 168 and 178  federal cases filed in 2011 and 2012 respectively. As the data shows, the US federal government has a much smaller litigated criminal IP docket than China.

The data suggests that: (a) China has a comparatively large, and rising docket of criminal IP cases, and (b) the numbers and proportion of Chinese criminal trade secret cases are rather few. The above data, of course, does now reveal qualitative differences, plea bargaining, or how many cases were international in nature, amongst other important differences between the US and Chinese systems..

In sum, after looking at the data, if I were Mr. Obama, I might ask Mr. Xi about improving trade secret enforcement. If I were the Chinese leader, I might ask Mr. Obama about cooperation on criminal IP cases.

And that’s what they appeared to do.

Making the List: China Law Blogs

Carla Spina at Harvard Law School has compiled the following list of China Law Listserves, Blogs and Forums.  We are honored to be on this list, with some great company:

Chinese legal study.

See: http://guides.library.harvard.edu/content.php?pid=189933&sid=3922661.

Thanks to the Chinalaw Blog for pointing this out!