Here are some upcoming programs that involve China in North American in October:
October 11-12, 2017, I will be speaking on a China IP Panel at the ABA IP West conference in Long Beach, California. The panel will focus on China’s recent (paradoxical) emergence in IP protection and enforcement. Mike Mangelson, China IP Attaché in Shanghai will also be speaking at a session focused on the China IP Attaché program at this ABA program.
On October 14, 2017, I will be moderating a session on new trends in Chinese IP litigation, courts and enforcement at the Sixth Annual IP Summit hosted by Loyola University of Los Angeles.
On October 18, 2017, the University of Indiana/USPTO will be hosting a China “Road Show” in Indianapolis.
On October 20, 2017, the John Marshall Law School will be hosting a China “Road Show” with USPTO in Chicago.
On October 26, 2018, I am scheduled to be commenting (as an academic) at the Fordham IP Institute on a presentation by Dr. David Cole of the Hagley Museum and Library on “A Nation of Inventors: The Politics of American Patent Models“. The Hagley Museum is planning an exhibit in China of its patent models in 2018.
Apart from these events, there are also China IP road shows scheduled for Salt Lake City and Denver in October. Watch the USPTO website for more information on these and other programs.
An addenda to October offerings, per its Federal Register Notice, on October 10, 2017, USTR will be hosting a hearing on the Section 301 investigation involving China’s Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property and Innovation – Related Rractices.
Ahead of schedule, George Mason University’s Global Antitrust Institute (“GAI”) has prepared its comments on the NPC’s proposed revisions to the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, available here.
GAI commended the National People’s Congress for deleting Article 6 on abuse of superior bargaining position and recommended that any provisions that relate to conduct covered by China’s Anti-Monopoly Law (AML) be omitted entirely. GAI also strongly urged that Article 11 (which provides that “[b]usiness operators selling goods must not bundle the sale of goods against buyers’ wishes, and must not attach other unreasonable conditions”) be omitted in its entirety, as such conduct is already covered by Article 17(5) of the AML or at the very least, Article 11 should be revised to adopt an effects-based approach.
In my opinion, the argument that the AUCL shouldn’t duplicate the AML can also be said of other laws in China, notably the Technology Import / Export Regulations and Article 329 of the Contract Law regarding monopolization of technology. Other laws, such as the Pricing Law also have a strong overlap with the AML, particularly as administered by NDRC.
GAI’s comments on a prior State Council Legislative Affairs Office draft, along with the comments of the American Bar Association and American Intellectual Property Law Institute are available through this link.
I hope to post the comments of other organizations on the AUCL on this blog in the future. If you would like your organization’s comments to be considered for distributing here, please send your comments to me at: email@example.com.