Author Archives

Unknown's avatar

Mark Cohen （柯恒）

Mark Allen Cohen (柯恒) is currently the Senior Technology Fellow at the Asia Society of Northern California and an Edison Fellow at the University of Akron School of Law. He also serves as a Non-Resident Scholar at the University of California Haas School of Business as well as the University of California, San Diego, and the National Bureau of Asian Research. He previously served as the first Intellectual Property Attaché at the U.S. Embassy in Beijing and as Attorney-Advisor in the Office of International Relations at USPTO. He is a recipient of the Meritorious Honor award from President Barack Trump on recommendation of President Obama. This is the highest award in the U.S. civil service. In total, he has over 40 years private, public sector, in house and academic experience on IPR issues in China. This blog represents the opinions of Mark Cohen and any guest authors only and should not be construed as the position of any third party.

Phase 1 and CAI: A Tale of Two Agreements

By on • ( Leave a comment )

CAI, RCEP and the Phase 1 Trade Agreement all responded to different economic, trade demands and political urgencies. The CAI has been understood as a sign by the Biden administration that the European Union will pursue its own trade relationship with China based on its own interests. While the IP and forced technology transfer provisions of the Phase 1 Agreement helped establish new standards in China that are applicable to all countries, the non-IP provisions of the Phase 1 Agreement were not kind to Europeans and other allies in their preferential buying requirements. The EU, however, did not significantly advance IP protections in the CAI text. The bright side of this picture is that the CAI leaves space for the United States and the European Union to further coordinate strategies on IP protection in China.

Due Process and ASI’s: Wuhan and Texas

By on • ( Leave a comment )

There are now numerous IP cases where foreign judges have decided that Chinese courts failed to provide adequate notice or procedural transparency. Should concerns over a failure to comply with general notions of due process, including notice or access to counsel mandate that a court limit the impact of a foreign court’s anti-suit injunction?