With recent antitrust investigations in China, as well as China’s design to have more market-oriented targets for IP, export growth in IP rights from China is slated to grow from 1.36 billion USD in 2013 to 8 billion USD in 2020, according to the Action Plan for the National IP Strategy. Commercialization-related goals were also found in the Third Plenum, to increase IP utilization generally.
In this light, attached is the agenda for a forthcoming USPTO-SIPO program on licensing of intellectual property, which will take place April 15 in Beijing. There is no fee for the program. Seats are currenlty only available on a wait-list basis. U.S. companies and their counsel can wait -ist for the program by contacting Ms. Liu Jia at the USPTO office in Beijing: firstname.lastname@example.org.
I also recently recovered from my own files an unpublished case on technology transfer from China to the United States, from over 10 years ago in the Eastern District of Texas. The case involved a Chinese university professor that licensed his technology to a US company to collect revenue and litigate, as necessary. I was an expert witness in that case, involving Infineon Technologies. Although China’s tech transfer regime has since changed considerably, as I recall the case dealt with using US choice of law for the licensing of a Chinese-owned Chinese patent and US patent, including whether defects in Chinese ownership or regulatory approval for the license could be cured after the case was filed.
In a previous blog post, I noted that “choice of law in IP and technology transfer contracts is a “sleeper” issue – i.e., one that is too infrequently considered for all its strategic implications. There may be situations where foreign law is preferred for a Chinese contract, or when Chinese law is preferred for a contract to be implemented overseas, or where choice of Chinese law brings some unhappy surprises.” Although the choice of US law was ultimately sustained by the court, this decision demonstrated that there could be “unhappy surprises” in China’s then-existing over-regulation of technology contracts, including choosing United States law as a means to avoid these controls.
Since this case, China’s antitrust regime has interjected another level of uncertainty into licensing contracts for standards setting including by substituting Chinese law for a previously agreed choice of law. .
Here’s a link to recent testimony I gave in an official capacity on licensing challenges in China.
As always, this blog reflects my non-official, personal views.
Categories: China IPR