Mark Cohen’s spring lecture agenda focuses on new developments in US-China IP relations, developments under Donald Trump, and practical aspects of licensing to or from China.
Navigating Innovation: How the Presidential Candidates Address Technology, IP, and the China Challenge
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.
EU Files Request for Consultations on Chinese Judicial SEP Practices
On February 18, 2022, the EU filed a request for consultations at the WTO regarding China’s SEP practices as well as China’s failure to respond to the prior Article 63 transparency request […]
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.
Synthesizing Developments on Linkage from the July 15 Berkeley Program
China’s new patent linkage regime involves parallel civil and administrative enforcement mechanisms. Innovative pharmaceutical companies should prepare for the possibility of generic challengers and determine which mechanism will best suit their purposes. Biologics are not protected under this new regime.
What the 301 Report Says About Future Relations on IP with China
USTR released its Special 301 Report (the “Report”) on April 30, 2021. The China except is attached here. The Report addresses a wider range of IP issues than in many prior years. […]
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.
The NTE Report On Chinese IP And Its Relationships To Chinese Legal Developments
USTR’s recently released NTE report shows continuing lack of clarity over key Chinese legal terms. The report also declines to discuss commercial rule of law issues raised in last years Special 301 report. What role does commercial rule of law have in the Biden Administration’s trade diplomacy? The answer is unclear.
A Season of CNIPA Rulemaking
Several new rules from China’s State Administration for Market Regulation portend a more active role for administrative enforcement of patents, in both patent linkage and major disputes affecting Chinese national interests. How much due process do these rules afford? Are they compatible with the TRIPS Agreement? Will foreigners be treated fairly? Will the administrative agencies be transparent in their decisions and make their cases publicly available. SAMR’s database of IP cases is also relatively new.
There are a number of open issues.
The Phase 1 Agreement and the Prospects for Piloting a New IP Dialogue
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.
China IPR - Intellectual Property Developments in China 