About a dozen years ago while reviewing SIPO monthly statistics, I noticed that the percentage of foreign applications for invention patents for the prior year had shrunk to the point where they […]
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.
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.
Four upcoming speaking events on China IP in February 2021.
I will be talking February 22, 2021 at 7 PM at a virtual Duke University webinar on “China’s Emerging Intellectual Property Edge: Challenges and Opportunities.” The program is sponsored by Duke’s Asia/Pacific […]
What is the future of US – China dialogues on IP? Perhaps the future is better in IP than in other areas, regardless of the fate of the Phase 1 Agreement – at least those were lessons that could be drawn from the recent Berkeley-Tsinghua program on transnational IP litigation.
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.
Several press outlets are running articles about how the Biden team’s trade posture will “involve a laser focus on what improves wages and creates high-paying jobs in the United States, rather than making […]
I previously blogged about several China-oriented proposals released after the November elections here. Three additional proposals have recently been released that involve how the USG engages China on IP and innovation issues. 1.The […]
This is the second article on recent research on Chinese IP law and practice. The focus of this blog is a widely read article of Judge Zhu Jianjun, Shenzhen Intermediate Court, Intellectual […]
On January 14, 2021, IPO submitted comments to the China National Intellectual Property Administration on its Recommendations for Amendments to the Implementing Regulations of the Patent Law (Draft for Comment) 《专利法实施细则修改建议（征求意见稿）》 IPO’s comments included suggestions […]