The United States, Japan, and Canada have now asked to join the EU consultation request with China at the WTO regarding Chinese practices in issuing anti-suit injunctions (“ASIs”) for standards-essential patents (SEPs). […]
Translations and comments are made available 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.
Two books, China and the WTO: Why Multilateralism Still Matter (Mavroidis and Sapir), and Chinese Antitrust Exceptionalism (Zhang) consider trade and competition law aspects of the U.S.-China trade dispute. They discuss the treatment of state-owned enterprises under international trade and domestic competition law rules. They also discuss IP-specific issues, particularly forced technology transfer by or for the state and the control of abusive technology licensing practices, including the licensing of standards essential patents and China’s discriminatory Administration of Technology Import/Export Regulations (“TIER”), which has since been amended. The books and article are part of several academic and popular discourses on the disruptive and unpredictable policy agenda of the Trump administration, which also provide cautionary roadmaps for future engagement – or confrontation – with China.
For those who missed them, are the video recording to some recent events: On April 27, 2021 BCLT hosted our third annual “Tech Trade and China” program. The focus this year was […]
In furtherance of the August 20 Notice of the Ministry of Commerce on “Issuing the Overall Plan for Comprehensively Deepening the Innovation and Development of Service Trade” (商务部关于印发全面深化服务贸易创新发展试点总体方案的通知) (商服贸发)〔2020〕(165号), CNIPA issued two […]
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 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.
On September 4, 2020, the State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) released Draft Trade Secret Protection Rules for public comment [商业秘密保护规定（征求意见稿）] including an accompanying explanation. Comments are due by October 18, 2020. […]
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 […]
On November 24, 2019, the General Office of Communist Party of China and the State Council jointly released the Opinions Concerning Enhancing Intellectual Property Rights Protection (关于强化知识产权保护的意见). It is often too easy […]