From 1:00 to 2:30 Pacific Time today (May 10, 2022), BCLT will be hosting a “SEP Year in Review” as part of our “IP + Tech Month”, with Professors Jorge Contreras and […]
The United States, Japan, and Canada have now asked to join the EU consultation request with China at the WTO regarding Chinese practices in issuing anti-suit injunctions (“ASIs”) for standards-essential patents (SEPs). […]
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 […]
USPTO released a study on February 15, 2022 entitled “Patenting Activity among 5G Technology Developers”.
The Report uniquely “examines overall patenting trends as well as trends in patent filings and value indicators in the four most-patented 5G-related technologies. The Report does not fully consider China’s role as a major patent office in evaluating the quality of filings.
Translations and comments are made avialable on patent and trademark examination guidelines, Seed Law, Plant Variety JI, AUCL JI, and Oppo v Sharp. With regard to the SPC decision in Oppo v Sharp a question is raised concerning China’s efforts to regulate and take jurisdiction over global SEP royalty rate setting.
Beginning October 6, 2021, Berkeley Law begins a four-part series on IP enforcement in China. The highly successful four-part SEP series of Prof Hao Yuan continues on October 15 with a discussion of the role of antitrust in SEP licensing and litigation.
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.
Registration is now open for the second in the “Towards a Deeper Understanding” series regarding SEPs in China. This next session will focus on “Concurrent Litigation and Jurisdictional Competition”, including the “hot” […]
On July 6, 2021, the European Union filed an “Article 63.3” request at the WTO requesting further information on four SEP cases in China. publication of these importance cases will benefit all parties through increased transparency and disclosure of how China has evolved its policy in this contentious area.
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 […]