Category: Phase 1 Agreement

Reading the SPC IP Court’s 2025 Annual Report: Data, Composition, and Reporting Structure

By on • ( Leave a comment )

This post examines the SPC IP Court’s 2025 Annual Report by focusing on underlying data, case composition, and reporting structure rather than headline claims. It shows that foreign participation is concentrated in administrative appeals, that punitive damages and trade secret cases remain a small share of the docket, and that plant variety protection is receiving increased attention. The post argues that careful attention to denominators, omissions, and how data are presented is necessary to understand what the report actually shows.

Post-Filing Data in Chinese Pharma Patents: Why It Took So Long — and What Finally Worked

By on • ( Leave a comment )

Recently, the Supreme People’s Court of China (SPC) upheld a decision of the Beijing Intellectual Property Court reversing a China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) invalidation decision and confirming the validity of Novo Nordisk’s semaglutide compound patent. Although the final written decision has not yet been publicly released, official summaries indicate that the court accepted post-filing experimental data where “the technical effect can be derived from the original specification” (技术效果可由原说明书得出), reversing an administrative invalidation decision. Public reporting further indicates that the dispute turned on whether CNIPA would accept post-filing experimental data demonstrating semaglutide’s surprising pharmacokinetic effects in animal models, where the application as filed contained no experimental data.

Navigating Innovation: How the Presidential Candidates Address Technology, IP, and the China Challenge

By on • ( Leave a comment )

This article examines the candidates’ positions and accomplishments in four key areas implicating technological competition: derisking, negotiating, and advancing new trade policies, reorganizing government structures to promote competitiveness, and developing policies to address new technology issues.  On the surface, the differences in approaches appear to focus primarily on matters of degree.  Both parties support such tools as continued tariffs against Chinese imports, use of export controls and other trade sanctions, and enhanced efforts to “de-link” or “de-risk” from dependency on Chinese imports.  Nonetheless, candidates Trump and Harris have sparred over the extent and impact of the tariffs, and the track records and rhetoric of the candidates suggest more differences than may initially be evident.

USTR, IP and US-China Trade

By on • ( Leave a comment )

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.

Bureaucracy and Politics in Recent SAMR Legislation

By on • ( 3 Comments )

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.