Author Archives

Mark Cohen （柯恒）

Mark Allen Cohen （柯恒} is a Distinguished Senior Fellow and Director of the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology at the University of California, Berkeley. He is also a Guest Professor at Renmin University, China. He has served as the Senior Counsel, China for the USPTO. Formerly, he was Director of International Intellectual Property Policy at Microsoft Corporation. Prior to that time he was Of Counsel to Jones Day's Beijing office. Before then, he served as Senior Intellectual Property Attaché at the U.S. Embassy in Beijing and as Attorney-Advisor in the Office of International Relations at USPTO. In total, he has nearly 30 private, public sector, in house and academic experience on IPR issues in China. This is his private blog. This blog represents the opinions of the author(s) only, and should not be construed as the position of any employer, client, or other party, including (and especially) the US government.

Patent Litigation, IP Monetization and Technology Decoupling: Lessons for the Future

By on • ( 1 Comment )

Even during a time of trade conflict, there was considerable litigation and patent licensing activity with China, including a pronounced role in global markets for Chinese companies and in China for US companies. Patent disputes and licensing involved a diverse group of technologies. Chinese companies have become more active in SEP litigation overseas. The United States is an important venue for litigating overseas patent disputes with Chinese entities. Both the patent licensing and pharma data show the importance of tracking market value and trends to determine the real-world impact of IP-related policies.

CNIPA’s Notice on Cancelling Patent Subsidies: A Deeper Dive

By on • ( Leave a comment )

On January 27, 2021, the CNIPA issued the “国家知识产权局关于进一步严格规范专利申请行为的通知” (Notice on Further Strictly Regulating Patent Application Behavior)”. Although the Notice, on first glance, is reacting to the USPTO Report and is transformative in nature, it in fact builds upon prior efforts of CNIPA and other agencies, it does not completely address issues involving market externalities, such as subsidies, in patent filings.

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.