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 […]
Here is a listing of recordings of some recent programs that are now available as well as a listing of upcoming events. The Third Berkeley-Tsinghua Conference on Transnational IP Litigation was held […]
The National Security Commission Report on Artificial Intelligence has been released. Chapter 12 covers IP-related issues, focusing on China. The report calls for greater interagency coordination, more stability in patent-eligible subejct matter, and a critical view of China’s SEP-contributions.
Even during a time of trade conflict, there was considerable litigation and patent licensing activity with China, including a pronounced role in global markets for Chinese companies and in China for US companies. Patent disputes and licensing involved a diverse group of technologies. Chinese companies have become more active in SEP litigation overseas. The United States is an important venue for litigating overseas patent disputes with Chinese entities. Both the patent licensing and pharma data show the importance of tracking market value and trends to determine the real-world impact of IP-related policies.
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 […]