Category: WTO

Post-Filing Data in Chinese Pharma Patents: Why It Took So Long — and What Finally Worked

Recently, the Supreme People’s Court of China (SPC) upheld a decision of the Beijing Intellectual Property Court reversing a China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) invalidation decision and confirming the validity of Novo Nordisk’s semaglutide compound patent. Although the final written decision has not yet been publicly released, official summaries indicate that the court accepted post-filing experimental data where “the technical effect can be derived from the original specification” (技术效果可由原说明书得出), reversing an administrative invalidation decision. Public reporting further indicates that the dispute turned on whether CNIPA would accept post-filing experimental data demonstrating semaglutide’s surprising pharmacokinetic effects in animal models, where the application as filed contained no experimental data.

The Revised US-China Science and Technology Agreement – A Narrow Bridge To Drive Further Cooperation

The State Department has recently posted the revised US-China Science and Technology Agreement. The revised agreement was concluded in the waning months of the Biden Administration. The revised STA is more narrowly focused on government to government cooperation. It only partially addresses the range of IP-related issues. Nonetheless, it provides a framework for future cooperation.

CHINESE THREE DIMENSIONAL SEPS: RECENT CASES,  THE WTO, AND TRANSPARENCY

Three major court decisions involving SEPS, patents and foreign companies have been recently decided in China. In addition, the EU has recently released two of its submissions to the WTO regarding its dispute with China on antisuit injunctions. Nokia has also announced a global settlement with Oppo. What does the future hold for SEP litigation in China and the WTO dispute?

Australia, US, and EU Submissions at the WTO on China and Anti-Suit Injunctions

By assembling the briefs submitted by the EU, Australia and the United States in the WTO case DS611, a stark difference in approach emerges between the United States and the EU/Australia. It appears that the United States is allying itself more closely with China, perhaps with a goal of limiting WTO jurisdiction in certain areas. At the same time, however, the United States appears to be retreating on its long-held commitments to increasing transparency in China’s judicial and legal system.

SAMR’s “Choreography” of  SEP AML Rulemaking

How should one understand the overlapping rules enacted by SAMR on IP, SEPS and antitrust? Is a new wave of legislation under way? Is China planning on ramping up antitrust enforcement in SEPs? What do these legislative experiments portend in terms of China’s commitments to rule of law and the challenges faced by high tech companies – whether implementer or licensor in China?