China’s new Judicial Interpretation on Plant Varieties harmonized IP protection for plant varieties with other reforms in IP laws in China. It also reflects China’s increasing efforts to accelerate agricultural reforms including strengthening legal protection for germplasm resources.
USTR, IP and US-China Trade
On October 4 2021, USTR Katherine Tai delivered her much-awaited speech at CSIS outlining US-China trade policy under the Biden Administration. The speech summarizes her “top to bottom” review of US-China trade policy. Sadly, it was one of the most IP-free speeches that we have heard from USTR on China trade policies. USTR Tai mentioned intellectual property only once when she briefly talked about the Phase 1 Agreement. An Administration orientation towards increasing market access for grains and goods, but not protection and commercialization of intangible rights, could have long-term adverse consequences.
Forthcoming Book Talk on the Past and Future of Chinese IP
Berkeley Law will be hosting a book talk on the treatise, Intellectual Property Law in China (2d ed.) on September 23, 2021 at 5 PM Pacific Time. Registration is free. We will discuss the rapid evolution of China’s IP regime over the past 40 years as well as the likely directions that China’s IP regime will take place in the years ahead.
China Responds to EU Article 63 Request
On September 7, 2020, China responded to the EU Article 63 request. The one-page Chinese response repeats the position taken by China in 2006, that Article 63 only affords an opportunity for a member to make a transparency request of another member. As China notes in its response, “there is no such obligation under the TRIPS Agreement for China to respond.” This position repeats the position taken by China that “the TRIPS Agreement only refers to a Member’s right to request information, but there is no mention of a corresponding obligation of the requested Member to actually follow the request.” (Para. 8, P/C/W/465, Jan. 23, 2006). As this prior Article 63 response appears to be the template for some elements of the current response, I have inserted it below. The Chinese responses might be understood as rejecting a teleological interpretation of the TRIPS Agreement to effectuate its purposes, or one based on the good faith of the parties, as it is difficult to conceive of the reason for a treaty provision that offers an opportunity to make an inquiry of another country, but does not require that country to respond. The response also ignores the significant developments in case law in China in recent years.
u-blox v Techtotop: China’s Developing Jurisprudence on Evidentiary Burden Shifting
Hangzhou court makes cutting edge decision in July 2021 in copyright case of u-blox v. Techotop by drawing adverse inferences as to copying based on Defendant’s refusal to produce code to challenge prima facie evidence of infringement, relying on a 2001 Judicial Interpretation.
Take Me Out to the Law Game: China’s Patent Linkage Doubleheader
Over the July 4 2021 weekend, NMPA and CNIPA promulgated patent linkage measures and the SPC promulgated its patent linkage JI. Draft measures for public comment had been released publicly. The timing of the release of these document suggests a continuing level of bureaucratic competition between the two agencies.
IPO Comments on CNIPA Provisions On Patent Application Behavior
The China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) published its Revised Draft Provisions Concerning Regulating Patent Application Behavior (Draft for Public Comment) (关于规范申请专利行为的若干规定修改草案[征求意见稿]) on May 6, 2021 (the “Draft Provisions”). The purpose of this […]
The Forgotten Chinese Pioneers of the Predictive Keyboard
The challenges of inputting Chinese characters has contributed to modern technologies for inputting characters of all language through predictive technologies. One of the early pioneers of the Chinese typewriter lived in New York City. This Chinese-American inventors held several patents in typewriting and transmission of information.
May 2021 China IP and Antitrust Events
There is still time to register for “Quantum Leap: Developments in China IP Law over the Past Two Years”. The program will discuss the major changes in Chinese IP that have occurred […]
Bureaucracy and Politics in Recent SAMR Legislation
There are numerous heirarchies to Chinese legislation and IP laws are certainly not an except to this. Due to the government reorganization in 2018, Chinese efforts to become an innovative economy, and external political pressure from the Trade War, there has also been extensive external political pressure on Chinese IP legislative efforts. The different approaches to legislating may indicate potential weaknesses in the laws. They may also be the outcome of internal bureaucratic struggles.