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.
Several press outlets are running articles about how the Biden team’s trade posture will “involve a laser focus on what improves wages and creates high-paying jobs in the United States, rather than making […]
I previously blogged about several China-oriented proposals released after the November elections here. Three additional proposals have recently been released that involve how the USG engages China on IP and innovation issues. 1.The […]
This is the second article on recent research on Chinese IP law and practice. The focus of this blog is a widely read article of Judge Zhu Jianjun, Shenzhen Intermediate Court, Intellectual […]
On January 14, 2021, IPO submitted comments to the China National Intellectual Property Administration on its Recommendations for Amendments to the Implementing Regulations of the Patent Law (Draft for Comment) 《专利法实施细则修改建议（征求意见稿）》 IPO’s comments included suggestions […]
This is the first in a series of blogs on recent research. The USPTO just released its report on Trademarks and Patents in China, The Impact of Non-Market Factors on Filing Trends […]
On January 9, 2021, MofCOM released the Measures to Block the Improper Extraterritorial Application of Foreign Laws and Measures, (Docket Number 1)（中华人民共和国商务部令 二〇二一年 第1号）(the “Rule”). The Rule was promulgated with “approval from […]
Berkeley and Tsinghua Law will co-host their third annual program on transnational IP litigation, focusing on the impact of the trade war on settlement of IP disputes.
I have posted a draft Chinese civil procedure flow chart that highlights unique aspects of China’s Civil Procedure Law. Please feel free to comment.
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?