There is still time to register for “Quantum Leap: Developments in China IP Law over the Past Two Years”. The program will discuss the major changes in Chinese IP that have occurred […]
USTR released its Special 301 Report (the “Report”) on April 30, 2021. The China except is attached here. The Report addresses a wider range of IP issues than in many prior years. […]
There are numerous heirarchies to Chinese legislation and IP laws are certainly not an except to this. Due to the government reorganization in 2018, Chinese efforts to become an innovative economy, and external political pressure from the Trade War, there has also been extensive external political pressure on Chinese IP legislative efforts. The different approaches to legislating may indicate potential weaknesses in the laws. They may also be the outcome of internal bureaucratic struggles.
Two upcoming events to be hosted by Berkeley. On April 27, we will host our third annual Tech, Trade and China program and on May 6 we will host “Quantum Leap”, an overview of the dramatic developments in China’s IP environment in the past two years.
USTR’s recently released NTE report shows continuing lack of clarity over key Chinese legal terms. The report also declines to discuss commercial rule of law issues raised in last years Special 301 report. What role does commercial rule of law have in the Biden Administration’s trade diplomacy? The answer is unclear.
he Supreme People’s Court issued a draft of a second draft judicial interpretation on plant varieties for public comment on March 23, 2021. Comments are due April 15, 2021.
What are the priorities for USTR in engaging China on IP issues? Will USTR reach out to other agencies to build an informed and efficient process to bear on Chinese and IP and tech issues? There are many built-in impediments in the US government structures to making that reality possible.
Here is a listing of recordings of some recent programs that are now available as well as a listing of upcoming events. The Third Berkeley-Tsinghua Conference on Transnational IP Litigation was held […]
Several new rules from China’s State Administration for Market Regulation portend a more active role for administrative enforcement of patents, in both patent linkage and major disputes affecting Chinese national interests. How much due process do these rules afford? Are they compatible with the TRIPS Agreement? Will foreigners be treated fairly? Will the administrative agencies be transparent in their decisions and make their cases publicly available. SAMR’s database of IP cases is also relatively new.
There are a number of open issues.
EUIPO has issued a report “China EUTM and RCD Focus” on 10 years of China trademark (TM) and registered community design (RCD) filings in the EU. The report also details the impact […]