Trade Wars: A New Beginning?

Why is this year’s  Special 301 Report (the “Report”) from USTR (April 29, 2019) different from prior reports?  In prior years, this report often repeated materials found elsewhere, such as in the  National Trade Estimate Report (March 2020).  This year’s Report reflects the Phase 1 Trade Agreement (January 15, 2020) (the “Agreement”) and the subsequent Chinese Action Plan (April 20, 2020). More importantly, it also suggests how the US might wish to see the implementation of the Agreement and negotiate a Phase 2 Agreement. There are a number of welcome surprises that suggest a new beginning.

Most importantly, the Report demonstrates a renewed commitment to the rule of law and the role of markets in protecting IP.  As noted in many of the postings of this blog, these were areas that I found seriously deficient in the Agreement.  The Agreement revitalized administrative campaigns and enforcement mechanisms and encouraged punitive mechanisms.  It generally underemphasized compensatory damages and other civil remedies, including appropriate civil procedures, and did not adequately emphasize the need to let market mechanisms govern IP creation and commercialization.

The Report addresses issues that the Phase 1 Agreement war did not, such as “poor quality patents”, “the presence of competition law concepts in the patent law” and challenges faced in trademark prosecution.  The Report also notes that  there are “obstacles in establishing actual damages in civil proceedings,” including a lack of “preliminary injunctive relief.”  These are useful statements, but even more important are the references to judicial procedures.

The Report states that “Chinese judicial authorities continue to demonstrate a lack of transparency”, including publishing only “selected decisions rather than all preliminary injunctions and final decisions.”  In addition, “administrative enforcement authorities fail to provide rights holders with information.” The issue of transparency has been repeatedly reported on in this blog as key to effective oversight of the Agreement.  The Report also notes that “[a] truly independent judiciary is critical to promote the rule of law and to protect IP rights.”  The Report mentions the need for transparency in China’s IP system five separate times.  By comparison, Chapter 1 of the Agreement mentions transparency once (with respect to Geographical Indications),  and not once with respect to judicial or administrative proceedings.

The Report comes down particularly hard in favor of legal process in its discussion on the social credit system, particularly the CNIPA/NDRC  et al, Memorandum of Cooperation on Joint Disciplinary Actions for Seriously Dishonest Subjects in the Field of Intellectual Property (Patent) 关于对知识产权(专利)领域严重失信主体开展联合惩戒的合作备忘录》(the “Dishonesty Measures”) (December 5, 2018) by noting that “these measure lack critical procedural safeguards, such as notice to the targeted entity, clear factors for determinations, or opportunities for appeal.” The Report further concludes that “The United States objects to any attempt to expand the ‘social credit system’ in the field of IP.”

This statement suggests a further distancing of the administration from rhetoric and outcomes of December 2018-May 2019 when the primary goal appeared to be strong legal commitments to punish IP infringement without explicit consideration of due process.  The Dishonesty Measures were likely enacted to appease US concerns on IP on the margins of the G-20 summit (November 30- December 1, 2018).  The concern then appeared to be that they were not sufficiently well-codified, not that they lacked due process.  Larry Kudlow said after the G-20 in 2019, that IP-related provisions (most likely the Dishonesty Measures) need to be “codified by law in China” and should not just be a “state council announcement.”

I am personally gratified to see the reintroduction of concerns over due process and rule of law into the Administration’s discourse of IP, although I believe the complexity of the relationship between IP protection and the social credit system may require further study.  I suspect that it may be difficult for rightsholders commercializing their rights or seeking to enforce judgments to completely distance themselves from the social credit system.

The Report also notes that the US had initiated dispute resolution proceedings against China at the WTO regarding China’s technology licensing regime and that China revised the measures the US had challenged in March 2019. The Report concludes that “[t]he significance of these revisions is under review.”  The Report does not note that the US had agreed to suspend the WTO case due to these legislative revisions, until May 1, 2020, at which time (the date of writing of this blog) it needs to decide whether or not to reinstate this case.  Perhaps USTR did not want to show its hand regarding what it would do effective May 1, 2020 – two days after the Report was issued.  Presumably, the United States will seek an extension of time in light of the continuing “review.”

Whatever decision is made at the WTO, the US team deserves credit for the legislative changes in licensing, forced tech transfer and trademarks that were made in the spring of 2019 and for re-emphasizing due process, the market, and rule of law, in the Report and in United States advocacy for better IP protection in China.

Is It In There – CNIPA’s “Phase 1” IP Action Plan?

CNIPA released on April 20, 2020, its  2020-2021 Implementation of the “Opinions on Strengthening the Protection of Intellectual Property” Promotion Plan” (2020—2021年贯彻落实《关于强化知识产权保护的意见》推进计划) (the “Promotion Plan”).  Attached are a copy of the Promotion Plan from the CNIPA website and a machine translation, as well as a bilingual translation provided by the USPTO. All translations are provided for readers’ convenience only, are unofficial and do not carry any representations as to accuracy.  Please review them carefully before commiting to any course of action based on the translation, and please bring any errors to our attention.  We greatly appreciate USPTO,  China Law Translate, and the numerous trade associations and law firms that have made translations publicly available over the years.

The Promotion Plan specifically references and appears to be a further implementation of the CPC/State Council  Opinion on Strengthening the Protection of Intellectual Property, released in November 2019 (关于强化知识产权保护的意见) (CPC/State Council Opinion), which I blogged about here. In November I described this CPC/State Council Opinion as going “part way” in addressing US concerns about IP theft that were being raised by the Trump Administration. This Promotion Plan issued by CNIPA is more comprehensive and more directly reflects the Phase 1 Trade Agreement between the US and China that the CPC/State Council Opinion, including setting specific timetables and interagency responsibilities. However, it is being promulgated at a considerably lower level of governmental authority than the CPC/SC Opinion. CNIPA is a division within a ministry-level agency (SAMR) and is arguably weaker and less independent today than when SIPO was a separate agency. In this respect, the Promotion Plan is also weaker than previous action plans promulgated under MofCOM’s leadership. MofCOM and its predecessor agencies were ministries. In a sense, it harkens back to action plans from the 1990s.  The IPR Leading Group was chaired in the 1990s often by a Vice Minister, including Wu Yi, who later became Vice Premier. One may wonder: is this “déjà vu all over again”?.

Some caution also needs to be maintained in approaching this document. First and foremost, are all the Phase 1 commitments, in the words of a once famous  commercial for spaghetti sauce – “in there”? Please write to me with your observatinons.  A second issue involves CNIPA’s authority. Although this document sets out plans for the courts, procuracy, and legislative branches, Chinese state council government agencies do not have the authority to bind these other branches of government.  Nonetheless, these agencies often coordinate their activities together, including through national and local leading groups and coordinating bodies. The puzzle deepens further, however, as the Promotion Plan itself does not indicate the authority by which it has been enacted. Rumor had been that the Promotion Plan was delayed because NPC approval was needed.

To an experienced reader, this Promotion Plan also has the “look” and “feel” of the National IP Strategy Implementation Plan (NIPS Implementation Plan) with its extensive, specific commitments. I  blogged about the NIPS Implementation Plan here.  The NIPS Implementation Plan has a statutory basis in the China Science and Technology Promotion Law (2007). Moreover, the NIPS Implementation Plan similarly has a focus on China becoming a “strong” IP country.

One difference between a NIPS Implementation Plan and an implementation plan from MofCOM in the past is that a NIPS Implementation Plan would have likely needed more local coordinating entities to be implemented nationwide. MofCOM had such authority through its coordination of the former State Council leading groups on IP.  While serving in the Embassy (2004-2008), I visited many of the local IP coordination offices to discuss local IP coordination and enforcement issues. This plan, if it is to be rolled out locally through new mechanisms, will need the support of the CPC and State Council, or local CNIPA offices, or through other local structures.

Several friends have been asking me this morning if this is the Chinese IPR “Action Plan” as required by the Phase 1 Agreement.  The Phase 1 Agreement provided that “Within 30 working days after the date of entry into force of this Agreement, China will promulgate an Action Plan to strengthen intellectual property protection aimed at promoting its high-quality growth. This Action Plan shall include, but not be limited to, measures that China will take to implement its obligations under this Chapter and the date by which each measure will go into effect.”

On the first review,  this Promotion Plan appears to directly reflect the commitments made by China in the Phase 1 Agreement. What the US has called “high-quality growth” might be its misapprehension of China’s recent mantra of building a “strong IP economy.” There are many action items in the Promotion Plan that are focused on strengthening China’s IP resources. Considering the current pandemic, the timing for the release of the Promotion Plan is also about right. Moreover, it makes sense for China to release this document as part of the flurry of announcements surrounding April 26 (World IP Day). CNIPA releasing this document also does not contradict any explicit commitment in the Phase 1 Agreement. The negotiators of the Phase 1 Agreement did not apparently agree to nominate which Chinese agency would issue the Action Plan.

Based on a quick read, this Promotion Plan also appears to share the same weaknesses of the Phase 1 Agreement, with its selective focus, under-emphasis on the courts, lack of clarity around “patent linkage” (including “artificial infringement” determinations by the courts), continuing emphasis on ministry action plans and administrative enforcement, lack of historical context or data to ensure that the Promotion Plan actually delivers results, “old wine in a new bottle” commitments in Customs, criminal thresholdsd and other areas, and lack of any commitment to increasing administrative and judicial transparency.  The lack of strong commitments to increasing judicial and administrative transparency remains the most troubling of all and makes the agreement difficult for governments and rightsholders to adequately apprehend, including making sure that concrete improvements are not only “in there” but being fully implemented.  If the Phase 1 commitments implemented in the 133 action items of the Promotion Plan are the “Action Plan” it is a further indication that any forthcoming changes in China’s IP regime that arose from the trade war are likely to be significant, but not necessarily the kind of  “structural change” that would dramatically mandate more market reform through less government intervention in China’s IP regime.

Foreign Investment Law Implementing Regs Open For Public Comment: Administrative and Punitive Enforcement Ascends Again

The Ministry of Justice had published a draft of the Foreign Investment Law Implementing Regulations for public comment.  Chinalawtranslate has prepared an English translation of the proposed regulations and of the law itself.   The due date for submitting comments is December 1.  The US-China Business Council has graciously already made its comments available in English and Chinese to the public.  The Foreign Investment Law was one of several laws enacted earlier in 2019 that appear to be responsive to US concerns and pressure.

The primary provisions addressing IP are Articles 24 and 25, which state:

Article 24: The state is to establish a punitive compensation system for violations of intellectual property rights, promote the establishment of rapid collaborative protection mechanisms for intellectual property rights, complete diversified dispute resolution mechanisms for intellectual property rights disputes and mechanisms for assistance in protecting intellectual property rights, to increase the force of protections for foreign investors’ and foreign-invested enterprises’ intellectual property rights.

The intellectual property rights of foreign investors and foreign-invested enterprises shall be equally protected in the drafting of standards in accordance with law, and where foreign investors’ or foreign-invested enterprises’ patents are involved, it shall be handled in accordance with the relevant management provisions of state standards involving patents.

Article 25: Administrative organs and their staffs must not use the performance of administrative management duties such as handling registration, approvals or filings for investment projects, and administrative permits, as well as implementing oversight inspections, administrative punishments, or administrative compulsion, to compel or covertly compel foreign investors or foreign-invested enterprises to transfer technology.

(chinalawtranslate translation).

The language in the first paragraph of Article 24 appears to track trade war pressures, including demands for punitive compensation.   As I have argued repeatedly, a better focus might be on deterrent civil damages, and/or the basic structure set forth in the WTO of having adequate and effective civil remedies with criminal remedies as an adjunct for willful, commercial-scale harm.  In this scheme, there is little place for administrative remedies, as was noted in DS362 (the IP enforcement case at the WTO).  The WTO panel, in that case, noted that “neither party [the US nor China] to the dispute argues that administrative enforcement may fulfil the obligations on criminal procedures and remedies set out in Article 61 of the TRIPS Agreement. Therefore, the Panel does not consider this issue.”  There have also been numerous academic studies on the challenges of creating a sui generis administrative IP enforcement system in China.  The language in Article 24 is also highly repetitive of the November 21, 2018 special Memorandum of Understanding/campaign mechanisms involving 38 government agencies to address six types of faithless IP conduct, about which I previously blogged.

What is notably absent from these commitments is an obligation to increase transparency, which is especially concerning due to an apparent slowdown in the publication of foreign IP-related court cases since the trade war began.   I will be blogging more about this soon, but here is what the decline in published US cases looks like based on IPHouse data, with a flatlining since January 1, 2018:

iphouse

See also my slides from the recent Berkeley transnational IP litigation conference available here.

The language regarding standards in the second paragraph repeats long-standing concerns about foreigners being excluded from standards-setting processes, as was addressed in the 2015 JCCT.  It does not set forth commitments about fairness or equal treatment which have been raised before in industrial policy drafting (as was addressed in the 26th JCCT on semiconductor policy), antitrust investigations, patent prosecution or litigation (for which there is a wealth of empirical data).

Article 25 also appears trade responsive.  It would be useful at this time to determine the current magnitude of forced technology transfer in foreign direct investment, and to determine how it subsists and whether it has measurably decreased since the trade war began, including whether legitimate licensing transactions have stepped in to provide increased revenue for technology licensors as a result of these and other reforms, including revision of the Administration of Technology Import/Export Regulations.

 

 

 

Trademark Law and AUCL Revisions Passed Into Law

Jill Ge of Clifford Chance has brought to my attention that the changes proposed  to the Trademark Law and Anti-Unfair Competition Law that I reported on April 21, have now been passed at the 10th session of the Standing Committee of the 13th National People’s Congress on April 23, 2019. There does not appear to have been the usual process for public comment on these changes.  This was fast!

Here is a link to the iprdaily.cn reporting of this news, a pdf of the article as it appeared on that website, as well as a machine (google)  translation of the article.  I wanted to distribute these to readers quickly in the interest of time.  If any readers have more polished translations that I can use, please send them to me.

No doubt, these changes are intended to help address US concerns over “forced technology transfer”, “IP theft” and related issues.  A significant concern I have about these positive legislative changes is whether they will be accompanied by the requisite transparency of the implementing and enforcing agencies.  Because trade secret cases in particular often include confidential technical or business information, they are often not reported by the courts in public databases.  In recent months, there has also been a reported slowdown in the adjudication of foreign-related cases in the courts, which may also affect reporting on IP litigation by the courts.  Unless there is comprehensive reporting of this information, it will be difficult to assess the problems they had sought to address, their impact, and their compliance with expectations of the NPC, rightsholders or foreign governments.

These legislative changes are also timed with events around IP Week in China, which typically includes releases of statistical data on patent and trademark prosecution, significant cases, policy initiatives, etc.  In light of other pending legislative changes (such as the patent law, the drug administration law, etc.), the government reorganization, the new IP court, a reported “surge” in IP litigation in China in 2018, and US-China trade relations, we can expect that there will be other useful information released in the days ahead.

Update of April 25, 2019:  Here are the NPC Observer’s comments on the revised laws as well as Jim Pooley’s observations on the new AUCL amendments in the context of international developments.

Reviewing the 2017 SPC Report on IPR Judicial Protection: The Generalities and the Exceptions

There have been a number of empirical reports in recent weeks on China’s IP system. In this blog, I look at the annual Supreme People’s Court 2017 Report on the Situation Regarding Judicial Enforcement of IPR in China  (中国法院知识产权司法保护状况) which was released during IP week (the “Report”).

According to the Report, 2017 saw a major increase in IP litigation in China.  There were a total of 237,242 cases filed and 225,678 cases concluded, with an increase of 33.50% and 31.43%, respectively, compared to 2016.

First instance cases increased by 47.24% to 201,039.  Patent cases increased 29.56% to 16,010.  Other increases were in trademarks (37,946 cases/39.58%); copyright (137,267/57.80%); competition-related cases (including civil antitrust cases of 114) (2,543/11.24%).  Two counter-cyclical numbers stand out:  technology contract cases dropped by 12.62% to 2,098, and second instance cases increased by only 4.92% or 21,818 cases. Note that disaggregated numbers for civil trade secret cases are not disclosed in the Report, but are presumably included under “competition” cases.

Comparing dockets with the United States, in 2017 United States courts heard 4,057 cases patent cases, 3,781 trademark cases, and 1,019 copyright cases, according to Lex Machina.  The biggest margin of difference between the US and China was clearly in copyright cases.  Chinese courts heard 134.7 times more cases than the United States. However, Chinese copyright cases are less likely to be consolidated amongst different titles, claims or causes of actions, which can inflate the statistics  — although I doubt to a 100 or more fold level.

Administrative cases, the majority of which are constituted by appeals from the patent and trademark offices, showed an overall increase while patent validity cases decreased.  Administrative patent appeals dropped 22.35% to 872 cases, while administrative trademark cases increased to 7,931 cases, or by about 32.40%.  The drop in administrative patent cases is particularly notable in light of the increased activity in patent prosecution and patent licensing.  By comparison the numbers of Inter Partes Reviews undertaken by the USPTO during 2017, according to Lex Machina, were 1,723, in addition to 9 cases involving covered business method patents.

The SPC did not offer disaggregated reversal rates of the PRB and TRAB in its data; combined patent and trademark cases included 964 cases involved  affirming the administrative agency decisions; 150 involving a change in the administrative decision; 5 cases involved a remand for further review; and 24 cases were withdrawn.

Criminal IP cases have also continued to decline.  There were 3,621 first instance criminal IP cases in 2017, a decline of 4.69%.  Among those 3,425 involved trademarks (-3.93%) and 169 involved copyrights (-13.33%).  There was also a decline of 35% in adjudication of criminal trade secret cases to only 26 cases.  The decline in criminal cases since 2012 (when cases totaled over 13,000) especially in copyrights and trade secrets is odd as Chinese leadership has in fact recognized the need for deterrent civil damages, including punitive damages and criminal trade secret remedies.

The five provinces that receive the most IP cases continued to grow in influence. Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu, Zhejiang and Guangdong saw an aggregate increase of 56.63% in IP cases, to 167,613 and now constitute 70.65% of all IP cases filed in China (p. 6).  Guangdong alone saw an increase of 84.7% to 58,000 cases and Beijing trailed behind at 25,932 cases with an increase of 49.2 percent.  Other less popular destinations also saw dramatic increases.  Jilin province had an increase of 210 percent, while Hunan and Fujian each saw increases of 73.8% and 73.14%.

Settlement and case withdrawal rates also changed in 2017.  Shanghai had the highest reported rate of the big five at 76.31%, while the inland province of Ningxia had an overall rate of 88.46%, including a 100 percent rate where litigants accepted judgments without appealing  服判息诉 (!).

The SPC also reported supporting 11 cross-district IP tribunals in Nanjing, Suzhou, Wuhan, Chengdu, Hangzhou, Ningbo, Hefei, Fuzhou, Jinan, Qingdao and Shenzhen.  In addition, 10 provinces or autonomous cities established a system of combining civil, criminal and administrative jurisdiction over IP cases in their IP tribunals in the first half of 2017.  As noted however, despite this change in judicial structure, there was a decline in criminal enforcement and in some administrative appeals in 2017 overall (p.11).

The Report also notes that the SPC is actively supporting research on establishing a national specialized appellate IP Court (p. 10).   The SPC also actively participated in the providing comments on other draft laws, and devoted some effort to the revisions of the Anti-Unfair Competition law, including meeting three times with the legal affairs committee of the NPC, as well as numerous phone calls   According to the Report, the “majority of the opinions proposed were adopted into law” which leaves the question of what was not adopted.  One possibility may be the removal of a specific provision treating employees as “undertakings” under the revised AUCL.  In fact, I have heard that some NPC legislators are continuing to push for a stand-alone trade secret to further improve upon the revised AUCL.

The Report also points to several research projects undertaken by provincial courts.  Amongst those of interest are: a research project on disclosure of trade secret information in litigation in Jiangsu; a report on using market guidance for damages compensation of Guangdong Province; a report on standards essential patents in Hubei; and a research project of the Beijing IP Court on judicial protection of IP in international competition.

Regarding transparency, the Report notes that the SPC has published all of its cases on the Internet, however similar data is not provided for other sub-SPC courts (p. 16).

In international affairs, the Report notes that the SPC has participated in the discussions on the proposed treaty on recognition and enforcement of foreign civil judgments (p. 17), in the China-European IP dialogue, and has sent people to the annual meeting of INTA, amongst other activities.  No mention is made of US government engagements (p. 17).  This omission may be due to current political sensitivities.  Nonetheless, due to the increasing number of cross-border disputes and the need for better understanding of both our judicial systems, I believe judicial engagement with Chinese courts would continue to be a fruitful enterprise.  Indeed, Berkeley hopes to host a program on cross-border IP litigation with Tsinghua University Law School later this year.

Finally, while we are on the subject of the courts, I commend Susan Finder’s recent blog on how to translate court terminology.   I hope I have not departed too far here from her excellent suggestions!

The Widening Impact of China’s Publication of IP Cases

I recently had the opportunity at the Fordham IP Conference to discuss the potential impact of the continuing publication of court decisions by China’s courts since 2014, including their wide-ranging impact on legal research, China IP strategies, and trade.  China’s publication of court cases has had a dramatic impact on political science, legal research and IP strategy.  Here is an extended version of my presentation:

A good starting point for understanding these developments is the important paper of Profs. Benjamin Liebman, Margaret Roberts, Rachel Stern, and Alice Wang on the China Judgements Online Database (CJO) entitled Mass Digitization of Chinese Court Decisions: How to Use Text as Data in the Field of Chinese Law (June 13, 2017) (21st Century China Center Research Paper No. 2017-01; Columbia Public Law Research Paper No. 14-55).  This team looked at 20,321 land use administrative court judgments in Henan Province. The authors critical approach to CJO is summarized below:

First, it is critical to take missing cases into account, rather than succumbing to the temptation to treat even a very large sample as an accurate reflection of reality. … Second, viewing millions of court decisions provides an unparalleled wide-angle perspective on courts’ daily activity, and exposes underlying patterns… Scholars must remember that court judgments provide only one, often limited, view of actual practice. Third, a migration toward treating text as data in the field of Chinese law will require a multi-method approach that combines expertise and insights from law, the social sciences, and computer science.

Their article also discusses motivations for transparency (including reducing corruption), and motivations for individual courts to disclose cases. They note as well that an “incentive bias” now exists which includes making judicial decisions available at the end of the calendar quarter before court evaluations (p. 16).

Moving from the use of the CJO to look at legal issues generally to IP, an important recent study on foreign participation in China’s IP system has also recently been-published by Berkeley JSD Candidate Bian Renjun. Her provocatively-entitled articleMany Things You Know About Patent Infringement in China are Wrong  is scheduled to appear in the Berkeley Technology Law Journal. Ms. Bian uses CJO to analyze 1,663 patent infringement judgments decided by local courts in 2014. Her research provides a much-need supplement to the scholarship of Brian Love, Xuan Thao Nguyen, as well as this blog, about foreign “win” rates in the Chinese courts.

Ms. Bian observes that foreigners asserting invention patents are not underrepresented in the courts. The proportion of invention patents granted by SIPO to foreigners was roughly equivalent to the proportion of foreign invention patent cases decided to overall invention patent cases in court (7.16%/6.92%). The gross number of decisions however was only 115 cases. During that year foreign win rates were higher compared to domestic litigants (84.35%/79.84%), as were injunction rates (92.78%/90.05%) and damages (201,620.45 RMB/66,217.93 RMB).  In sum, Ms. Bian provides a more compelling narrative of the probability that foreigners win in patent litigation in China than predecessors such as Brian Love. However, she does not address how to consider issues involving validity in overall success rates, as has been attempted by such databases as Darts IP, nor does she include metrics to assess any differences in the quality of the patents being asserted, for which additional research would be required.

The third article to look at judicial practices in IP, including the IP databases is Max Goldberg’s promising paper Enclave of Ingenuity: The Plan and Promise of the Beijing Intellectual Property Court (May 2017). Mr. Goldberg is a 2017 graduate of Yale College. His paper won an award as the best student paper in East Asian Studies during the year he graduated.

Mr. Goldberg draws from the work of Martin Dimitrov in suggesting that China’s administrative enforcement system is more politically reactive and less independent. He shares the view of this author and others that the Guiding Cases System of the Supreme People’s Court has had limited uptake by the courts, while the precedent system of the Beijing IP court (BJIPC) appears to have been more widely adopted by judges and practitioners of that court in part due to the releative ease of introducing this system into one highly trained court in an affluent city. Mr. Goldberg offers a reply to the concerns of Benjamin Liebman et al. over the large number of “missingness’” in court cases, by noting that while “the phenomenon of sensitive cases’ omission from government databases in China is well documented, lapses of this size are “much more likely the result of a lack of attention and resources than deliberate censorship.” He bases this part on the more comprehensive reporting rate of IP House at 94.25% based on the docketed numbers of cases at the BJIPC, while CJO had only about 50% of the cases from the same period in 2015.

Mr. Goldberg also focuses on specific judicial policy developments, many of which have been little noticed in the West. For example, he notes that “BJIPC opinions are 40-50% shorter than the decisions of more traditional IP tribunals, despite the fact that the BJIPC jurisdiction specifically includes the most technical cases.” He also notes that the court is also interested in soliciting the opinions of third parties, in a manner akin to an amicus brief. Amicus briefs have been advocated for some time by the US-China IP Cooperation Dialogue, with some important experiments, of which this author is a member. Mr. Goldberg also notes that the Beijing IP Court permits dissenting opinions and that the courts have held open “adjudication committee” meetings, which is an important new innovation. Finally, he notes, that the courts are more actively engaged in use of precedent. The court also had an administrative decision revocation rate of administrative decisions of 17% and a withdrawal rate (where complainant withdraws a case before final decision) of only 7%, which suggests the court is acting to reverse administrative decisions and that litigants have enough confidence in the court that they are willing to pursue cases to their final determination.   Many of these innovations were described in an IP House report previously discussed on this blog, but Mr. Goldberg adds a useful gloss to these developments.

Mr. Goldberg’s article is another important indicator of how China is “crossing the rule of law river by feeling the IP stones.”  Importantly, Mr. Goldberg focuses less on whether foreigners’ win and more on whether procedures compatible with an advanced legal system are being put in place.

Adela Hurtado, one of my former students at Fordham law School has also recently written a useful note in the Fordham Intellectual Property Law Journal that, like Mr. Goldberg’s article, looks at the use of judicial and administrative remedies, including criminal procedures, in addressing rampant infringement. Ms. Hurtado believes that reactive, politically motivated administrative enforcement brings few sustainable results. In her view, foreign companies should consider using the civil system, with its relatively high win rates (as reflected in the new databases) and look to models of successful law enforcement campaigns in the United States which provide for more interagency coordination and sustained efforts to address specific problems. She uses data drawn from Walt Disney’s use of civil and administrative campaigns, comparing Disney’s actions in China with its use of civil remedies in the United States to suggest that Chinese IP enforcement campaigns by Disney should similarly return to greater reliance on civil remedies. Ms. Hurtado may be the first author to look at company specific behavior in different markets by using both Chinese and US databases and thereby highlights another future area of inquiry.

There have been several other efforts that look to China’s legal databases as analytical and research tools. Among other recent scholarship, Susan Finder has also recently written an excellent article on the evolving system of precedent in China in the Tsinghua China Law Review. For those individuals and scholars craving analytics, IP House has also begun publishing important analytic studies on trends in the courts. Topics covered include patent and health, motion picture and television industry and analyses of the decisions of the Beijing IP Court.  Another important application of China’s new databases is in development of course materials on China’s IP system.  In this respect, Profs. Merges and Seagull Song’s forthcoming book on Transnational Intellectual Property Law Text and Cases  (April 2018), comparing US, Chinese and European cases in the full range of IP law with a view towards their importance in developing global strategies, is also a promising step towards incorporating Chinese jurisprudence into the global discussions of IP issues.

China’s decisions to make cases more widely available  also has important consequences for trade-related discussions on IP. Approximately 13 years ago, a TRIPS “Article 63.3” transparency request was made by the United States, Japan and Switzerland at the WTO of China. This request demanded “clarifications regarding specific cases of IPR enforcement that China has identified for years 2001 through 2004, and other relevant cases.” The US delegation, of which I was a part, requested the cases to better analyze developments in China’s IP environment since WTO accession and to prepare for a forthcoming dispute. China refused to produce these cases either in the response to the request or during the dispute.  During the ensuring IP enforcement dispute (DS/362), the WTO itself refused to demand that China produce cases relevant to the outcomes of two claims – one involving copyright, and the other involving criminal thresholds. Indeed, rather than make an adverse inference from China’s unwillingness to produce cases, the WTO panel found that the United States failed to make out a prima facie case with respect to a claim that Chinese criminal thresholds failed to satisfy WTO requirements.

With the benefit of hindsight, one could argue that the WTO established a lower standard in DS/362 for analytical research on Chinese case law than China has since established. Additionally, DS/362 may also stand for the proposition that certain cases may be ahead of their time, particularly in light of China’s own commitments to innovation and development of its IP system.  But that is a topic for another blog….

 

IPHouse And IP Litigation Strategies

cases-at-ip-court

  (IPHouse data on foreign-related IP cases at the Beijing IP court)

A Chinese judge recently told me that amongst the most important developments in the Chinese judiciary in recent years has been the increasing transparency of the courts.  I agree.  The increased transparency of the courts has also been noted by Susan Finder in her excellent blog.

One of the significant developments this year has been in the availability of value-added database services that utilize the underlying case data. IPHouse is a new database, set up this year, which provides comprehensive search capabilities for over 200,000 IP-related cases in China to date. It is operated under the guidance of former SIPO Commissioner Gao Lulin, a partner at the Beijing East IP  law firm.

IPHouse has prepared a 110 page English language statistical analysis of the work of the Beijing IP Court in 2015, available here.   IPHouse has told me that the report is prepared at the request of the Beijing IP court as part of its statistical review of the court’s activities.  It includes extensive data on types of cases, practices of individual judges and foreign-related activities, and summaries of cases.

As another sample of their work, regarding the important role of the Beijing IP Court in reviewing Chinese Trademark administrative decisions, IPHouse also prepared a brief report that shows from 2011 – 2015, there are 5,121 cases involved plaintiffs from foreign countries and Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan regions, where 1,010 administrative decision were reversed by the courts, accounts for 44.81% of all reversed cases. The rate of reversing cases involving foreign and Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan region plaintiffs is 19.72%. This is 1.89% higher than the average reversal rate.  IPHouse’s snapshot data of overall foreign IP cases shows a foreign plaintiff success rate in the courts of 70%.    Together these data suggest that foreigners have are faring well in the courts in China.  Finally, IPHouse has also prepared a short statistical summary of patent and trademark administrative decisions adjudicated at the IP Court, available here.

For US and Chinese counsel seeking to more accurately assess litigation risks and opportunities, IPNow builds on the existing IPHouse database. It provides search results in five different categories – courts, judges, agencies, attorneys, and parties. The search results are presented in various graphical charts depending on the search criteria, as follows:

  1. Courts – Collects judgments from over 800 courts across the country

–          Provides historical cases, length of trial, support rate of claimed damages, etc.

  1. Judges – Collects over 9,000 judges’ opinions

–          Provides the number of cases tried, case decisions, rate of support of claimed damages, etc.

  1. Agencies – Collects from over 29,000 intellectual property agencies

–          Provides winning rate from historical data.

–          Each agent can be compared with other agencies in more than 20 different selections.

  1. Attorneys – Collects from over 100,000 attorneys’ information

–          Provides winning rate from historical data, result of cases represented, and adversary party’s statistics.

  1. Parties – Collects over 148,000 parties

–          Provides party who filed the cases, the agency and agents hired, winning rate, and support from the court for the claimed damages.

Please contact IPHouse directly for further information.