CAI, RCEP and the Phase 1 Trade Agreement all responded to different economic, trade demands and political urgencies. The CAI has been understood as a sign by the Biden administration that the European Union will pursue its own trade relationship with China based on its own interests. While the IP and forced technology transfer provisions of the Phase 1 Agreement helped establish new standards in China that are applicable to all countries, the non-IP provisions of the Phase 1 Agreement were not kind to Europeans and other allies in their preferential buying requirements. The EU, however, did not significantly advance IP protections in the CAI text. The bright side of this picture is that the CAI leaves space for the United States and the European Union to further coordinate strategies on IP protection in China.
Due Process and ASI’s: Wuhan and Texas
There are now numerous IP cases where foreign judges have decided that Chinese courts failed to provide adequate notice or procedural transparency. Should concerns over a failure to comply with general notions of due process, including notice or access to counsel mandate that a court limit the impact of a foreign court’s anti-suit injunction?
The WTO IP Cases That Weren’t
Does the WTO / TRIPS Agreement still have teeth on IP? This blog explores the possible claims that could be made involving TRIPS Agreement violations and China. The more important claims are complex, data-dependent, and would require a whole of government approach by the Biden adminisitration.
RCEP And Phase 1: Strange Bedfellows in IP
RCEP and the Phase 1 Trade Agremeent are strange historical bedfellows, joined by common approaches to IP that diminish its role as a private right. The differences between the two agreements are also significant. The Phase 1 Agreement explicitly contemplated a Phase 2 Trade Agreement. It also only involved one country. RCEP intends to be comprehensive and regional, if not global. It is an alternative to the TPP. It will help China establish global IP norms.
The Cart Before the Horse in China’s Patent Linkage Regime
Judicial involvement in this legislation is needed to harmonize the legal complexities of patent linkage which complex issues of patent law, civil law, administrative law, and pharmaceutical regulation.
Beijing IP Court Report on Proposed Patent Linkage Regime
The Beijing IP Court has recently released a Report on patent linkage, which highlights the legal challenges that the courts may face in implementing the proposed linkage regime, entitled “Research on the China […]
More Encouraging News of Trade Secret Reform… But Is It Always Good for the Foreign Community?
James Pooley posted a great blog on IPwatchdog on the recently released draft judicial interpretation on trade secrets (the “Trade Secrets JI”). In his blog, “Has China Finally Embraced Trade Secret Protection […]
Antitrust Aspects of “Unfairly High Patent Pricing” for Licensing Transactions in China
This guest blog has been written by Prof. HAO Yuan of Tsinghua University School of Law. China is facing a pressing need to build its innovation-driven economy. To facilitate key features of […]
IMPACT OF RECENT AML LEGISLATION ON THE IPR/ANTITRUST INTERFACE
This blog provides an update on recent legislative developments involving the interface between IP and China’s Anti-Monopoly law. On November 28, 2019, SAMR published the Anti-Monopoly Compliance Guidelines for Undertakings (Draft for […]
Wang Binying and the Opportunity within the WIPO Crisis
The vote for WIPO Director General will be made in early March. The Chinese candidate, Madame Wang Binying, is known to many in the foreign IP community in China, IP diplomats, and […]
