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.
China’s New Judicial Interpretation on Harmonizing Plant Variety Protection with IP Reforms and Agricultural Policy
China’s new Judicial Interpretation on Plant Varieties harmonized IP protection for plant varieties with other reforms in IP laws in China. It also reflects China’s increasing efforts to accelerate agricultural reforms including strengthening legal protection for germplasm resources.
On October 4 2021, USTR Katherine Tai delivered her much-awaited speech at CSIS outlining US-China trade policy under the Biden Administration. The speech summarizes her “top to bottom” review of US-China trade policy. Sadly, it was one of the most IP-free speeches that we have heard from USTR on China trade policies. USTR Tai mentioned intellectual property only once when she briefly talked about the Phase 1 Agreement. An Administration orientation towards increasing market access for grains and goods, but not protection and commercialization of intangible rights, could have long-term adverse consequences.
Beginning October 6, 2021, Berkeley Law begins a four-part series on IP enforcement in China. The highly successful four-part SEP series of Prof Hao Yuan continues on October 15 with a discussion of the role of antitrust in SEP licensing and litigation.
On October 13 from 5:00 – 6:30 PM Pacific Time, Berkeley Law will be offering a free webinar to discuss developments in plant variety and agricultural IP protection in China. The program will also provide a window in many of the legal reforms now taking place in IP in China.
According to an article coauthored by mark Cohen in the September 2021 issue of Nature Biotechnology, government planning and targets for patents in China, while boosting overall quantity, negatively impacted overall quality. Quality concerns were manifested by a clear end-of-year trough in forward citations of patents filed near year’s end.
Berkeley Law will be hosting a book talk on the treatise, Intellectual Property Law in China (2d ed.) on September 23, 2021 at 5 PM Pacific Time. Registration is free. We will discuss the rapid evolution of China’s IP regime over the past 40 years as well as the likely directions that China’s IP regime will take place in the years ahead.
On September 7, 2020, China responded to the EU Article 63 request. The one-page Chinese response repeats the position taken by China in 2006, that Article 63 only affords an opportunity for a member to make a transparency request of another member. As China notes in its response, “there is no such obligation under the TRIPS Agreement for China to respond.” This position repeats the position taken by China that “the TRIPS Agreement only refers to a Member’s right to request information, but there is no mention of a corresponding obligation of the requested Member to actually follow the request.” (Para. 8, P/C/W/465, Jan. 23, 2006). As this prior Article 63 response appears to be the template for some elements of the current response, I have inserted it below. The Chinese responses might be understood as rejecting a teleological interpretation of the TRIPS Agreement to effectuate its purposes, or one based on the good faith of the parties, as it is difficult to conceive of the reason for a treaty provision that offers an opportunity to make an inquiry of another country, but does not require that country to respond. The response also ignores the significant developments in case law in China in recent years.
Registration is now open for the second in the “Towards a Deeper Understanding” series regarding SEPs in China. This next session will focus on “Concurrent Litigation and Jurisdictional Competition”, including the “hot” […]
Hangzhou court makes cutting edge decision in July 2021 in copyright case of u-blox v. Techotop by drawing adverse inferences as to copying based on Defendant’s refusal to produce code to challenge prima facie evidence of infringement, relying on a 2001 Judicial Interpretation.