Federal Circuit Affirms Findings of Non-Infringement and Invalidity in Interdigital 337 Appeal

In a non-precedential opinion authored by Chief Judge Prost and released today, the Federal Circuit  affirmed findings of non-infringement or invalidity in the five patents asserted by InterDigital in Certain Wireless Devices with 3G Capabilities and Components  thereof,Inv. No. 337-TA-800 (Dec. 19, 2013), in which Huawei and ZTE, amongst others, were respondents.  Huawei initiated  law suits in China in response to InterDigital’s original 337 filing, including claims for prospective damages for abuse of dominance by reason of InterDigital’s seeking an exclusion order at the ITC for claimed standards essential patents.

 

New Patent JI Released by SPC

On January 29, 2015 (last week) the Supreme People’s Court released the newly revised Judicial Interpretation “The Supreme People’s Court’s Decision on Revising Application of the Law in the Hearing of Patent Dispute Cases” (最高人民法院关于审理专利纠纷案件适用法律问题的若干规定). I previously posted the American Bar Association’s comments on this JI here. The JI came into effect February 1.

Revised Patent Administrative Enforcement Rules – Is SIPO Building an Administrative System so the Patent Law Amendments Will Come?

On January 27, 2015 SIPO released a revised draft of its Patent Administrative Enforcement rules for public comment.  The released draft includes a line by line comparison with the last version (Feb. 1, 2011) as well as an explanation of the changes. The due date for comments is March 15, 2015. The purpose of these amendments is to address such matters as reducing the time frame for patent administrative litigation, improving procedures, and improving enforcement in the on-line environment.

Separately SIPO Commissioner Shen revealed at a SIPO Party Meeting on January 23, that in addition to rapidly increasing patent filings (2.361 million in total in 2014), , the total number of patent administration enforcement cases was 24,479, increasing 50.9% from the prior year.  This is a nearly 16 fold increase since 2009.  Past efforts like these have typically brought surges in “patent passing off” cases, which is most like false marking.   SIPO’s administrative enforcement in recent years has also shown irregular month to month cycles that are likely tied to enforcement campaigns (see my chart below).Patentadminenf

I estimate that this high level of enforcement activity is likely due to a combination of four factors, including an NPC Standing Committee to supervise administrative patent enforcement in eight provinces and regions that was launched in 2014. a campaign from last year to address counterfeit and substandard products (打击侵犯知识产权和制售假冒伪劣商品), a renewed commitment to amend the patent law, which Commissioner Shen noted in his talk at the meeting to local IP Offices on January 19, and SIPO’s own desire to ensure that its administrative enforcement system is not sidelined by recent efforts to improve judicial adjudication of high technology IP cases, including the establishment o f the specialized IP courts.   Indeed, the explanation advises that this draft reflects the commitments to improving rule of law in China.

The different roles of China’s administrative and judicial systems in patent enforcement has been previously discussed by me in this blog,  I quoted David Kappos at that time as recommending that “China should consider concrete ways of promoting and improving the civil judicial enforcement system by providing more resources, promoting the independence of the judiciary, providing for more training of judges, particularly on technical patent matters, and in general, improvements in the civil legal environment”  Many of these efforts are now underway in the judicial system.   Maybe the administrative system is trying to catch up?

Photo below, from Beijing airport – a foreign company advertising its patented product in 2015.

patentedmakeup.jpg

Updated January 17, 2016.

Ministry of Commerce IP Program in DC December 5

Chen Fuli, IP Attaché at the Chinese Embassy in Washington, DC the morning of December 5.   The program is free of charge, but seating may be limited.   You should RSVP at: lishuai@mofcom.gov.cn.

The topics are all ones that I have actively followed in this blog.  Here is the tentative agenda:

International High Level IPR Cooperation Forum

Dec 5,  Georgetown Holiday Inn

2101 Wisconsin Ave, NW, 20007, Washington DC

 9:00-9:20  Opening remarks, by Both China and U.S. Representatives

 9:20-9:40   New developments in IP enforcement in China, by Director Jing Zhang from the Office of Fighting Against IPR Infringing and Making or Selling Counterfeit and Shoddy Products under the State Council

9:40-10:00  New amended Chinese Trademark Law, by Deputy Director General Qing Xia from CTMO

 10:00-10:15 Q & A

 10:15-10:30 Coffee Break

 10:30-10:50  Amending of Chinese Copyright Law by Deputy Director Ping Hu from NCAC

10:50-11:10  Amending of Chinese Patent Law and Regulation on Service Invention by director Yanhong Wang from SIPO

11:10-11:30  New practice of IP trials after the amendment of Chinese Civil Procedure Law by Judge Yuanming Qin from SPC

11:30-11:50 Q & A

11:50-12:00 Closing Remarks

—————-

12:00-13:30                    Lunch (hosted by China for all the participants)

In addition to the speakers noted above, there will also be Chinese official participants from public security, Customs, procuratorate, AQSIQ and other agencies, which should help make for lively discussion and interaction.  I hope to see you there!

Challenges for IP Protection in the Innovative Economy: The Case of Pharma in China

Attached are English and Chinese versions of a speech by USPTO Acting Director Teresa Rea that was first delivered at China Pharmaceutical University earlier this month.  The speech underscores the challenges for innovative pharmaceutical companies in China’s current IP environment.

SIPO’s 2012 “Report on the Situation Regarding National Patent Strength”

SIPO’s recently released its  “Report on the Situation Regarding National Patent Strength”, (Chinese: “2012年全国专利实力状况报告”)This report provides a glimpse into the various measures that SIPO uses to quantify how local patent offices are being rated by SIPO.  Knowing these data can be very useful in understanding what the incentives are for evaluating innovation and patent protection in China’s various localities and, accordingly, can help in how a foreign company approaches a local IP office to better enlist their support.  In theory, it should also help in identifying the regions that are affording better patent protection in China to foreigners. 

 The report  is intended to be based on certain objective, common, sustainable, and easy to obtain data.  Some of the data that is used are:

(a)    Number of invention patents in effect held per capita.  This is the first item listed by SIPO and it does not include utility model and design patents, which are not substantively examined. 

(b)   Other patent data: including Patent Cooperation Treaty patent filings; patent maintenance rates; patent abandonment rates (as a negative factor).

(c)    Type of patent applicant data: service invention patent rates; patents filed by large and medium sized enterprises.

(d)   Commercialization data: ratio of R&D to patents filed; hypothecation of patents; licensing contracts for patents; patents that are being used in commercial production (based on a ratio of new products from high tech industries and patent applications from high tech industries); and awards for high quality patents.

(e)   Litigation and enforcement data: First instance patent cases in the courts; settlement rates for patent litigation; data on patent “passing off”; data on cross-boundary cooperation on administrative patent disputes; data on human resources in administrative patent enforcement, use of administrative complaint lines, and expenses for special enforcement campaigns.

(f)     Legal and administrative structure: SIPO is trying to encourage local patent offices to be active and independent of other agencies, such as Science and Technology Bureaus, in which some local patent offices are located.  In addition, SIPO is encouraging promulgation of local legislation on patents, including incorporation of the national IP strategy and economic plans into local level policy and actions.

(g)     Cooperation with SIPO on national projects: including recognition as a model locality for IP protection, or the presence of model enterprises for IP protection.

(h)   Services and civil society: presence of in-house IP departments in companies; presence and availability of Patent Agents; use of electronic filing mechanisms for patents and electronic information services; presence of public service organizations for patents (typically government-organized non-governmental organizations); participation in SIPO training programs (including distance learning programs).

The overall leaders in this statistically-intensive report: Guangdong, Beijing, Jiangsu, Zhejiang and Shanghai (in that order).   Comparative data to last year and to individual benchmarks are also provided.  These five leaders are not necessarily the leaders in other areas, including those that may be of concern to foreigners.  For example, in IP protection, the leaders were: Guangdong, Shandong, Hunan, Sichuan and Jiangsu.  Beijing and Shanghai were a more distant 11th and 16th place, respectively.  Beijing, Guangdong and Shanghai were also the top three jurisdictions for IP services.

The report should be used cautiously by foreign investors and rigthsholders as there is much  of concern to foreigners that is not utilized in the report, for example: numbers of foreign-related civil or administrative cases, availability of provisional measures, receptivity and accessibility of local complaint centers (including trade fairs) to  foreign complainants, availability of expert foreign language lawyers and service providers,  presence and engagement  of foreign-related civil society (INTA, QBPC, RDPAC, AmCham’s, etc.),  existence of policies that on their face discriminate or support foreign rights holders ,  availability of criminal remedies for IP infringement,  existence of “notorious markets” for IP infringing products, and evaluation of the locality by other reports on IP protection (e.g, annual Chamber reports, Section 301 reports).  In addition, as indicated above, the priorities that SIPO assigns to different factors would be different for foreigners.  Nonetheless, this is a useful report that can help foreigners in determining how “patent-friendly” different jurisdictions in China are, and can also assist in compiling a more narrowly focused report that highlights issues of concern to foreigners regarding IP protection in different regions of China.  

I also personally commend SIPO for its transparency in making this available on line.

Supreme People’s Court Annual Report Shows Continued Meteoric Growth in Litigation and Increasing Professionalism of the Court

It is IPR Week in China, and once again there will be a flurry of reports that were presumably embargoed by Chinese agencies for the festivities of the week.  It’s a bit of an ironic week, since IPR Week is followed in the United States by the Section 301 Report of the US Trade Representative, which means that most of the data released this week has not been made available to the US government in time for its consumption for the Section 301 Report.

One of the more interesting reports is the Supreme People’s Court report on IPR protection, which has been released in English and Chinese for some years now.  It is available here in Chinese and English.

This year’s report is particularly detailed and appears to build upon concerns and critiques raised by many over the years.  In this context, I believe the hard work of individuals like Chief Judge Rader, the annual visits of Intellectual Property Owners, concerns about the general commercial rule of law developments, and my own sporadic inquiries on various issues are also helping the SPC to look into trends that impact foreigners, as well as to collect information on local trends.

Here are some highlights:

Civil IPR Cases Continued Their Meteoric Growth.  There were 87,419 civil IPR cases in 2012, an increase of 46% over 2011.  Copyright cases and trademark cases both increased by approximately 53% to 53,848 and 19,815 respectively.  Patent cases showed a more modest growth of 24%. Technology contracts remain disproportionately small, with an increase of 34% to only 746 cases.  Antimonopoly cases numbered 55, and antiunfair competition cases (which include trade secrets) numbered 1123, a drop of 1%.  This drop in unfair competition cases in the face of escalating IP cases generally and an increased interest in trade secret matters, suggests to me that the anti-unfair competition law needs revision to become more relevant to today’s market in China.

Provisional Measures are Still Under Utilized.  Of the nearly 90,000 civil IPR cases, there were only 27 applications for a preliminary injunction, with a grant rate of 83%.  There were 320 requests for provisional evidence preservation and 74 cases for provisional evidence preservation, with grant rates of 97% and 95% respectively.

Criminal Cases Showed an Even More Rapid Growth.  According to the report, there was an increase of 130% in judicial adjudication of criminal IPR cases, to 13,104 cases.  Infringement cases numbered 7840 cases, of which 4664 involved trademark infringement matters.  The remaining cases appeared to involve IPR infringements that were prosecuted under non-IPR laws, such as illegal business operations. Some of these non-IP laws carry more severe penalties.  This data also shows the impact of the efforts made by the State Council Leading Group in dealing with infringements and substandard products.

Administrative Cases Also On the Rise. There were 2928 IPR administrative appeals last year, an increase of 20% from 2011.  Patent cases increased to 760 (16%) and trademark cases increased to 2150 (22%).   I believe that most of these cases are appeals of patent and trademark validity decisions by the relevant administrative agencies.  Relatively low growth in administrative appeals in the light of rapidly increasing patent and trademark filings and infringement cases, may reflect the difficulty of reversing administrative agencies.

Foreigners Play a Diminishing Role in Civil IPR Litigation, But a Significant Role in Administrative Litigation on IPR Validity.  There was an increase of 8% in 2012 in foreigners using the civil IPR system, or 1,429.  However, as a proportion of total civil IPR litigation, foreigners dropped from 2.2% to 1.6%.    If current trends continue, I expect that foreigners will be less than 1% of the civil IPR docket in the next few years.    By contrast, foreigners constituted 47% of administrative cases, for a total of 1,349.   The large foreign share of administrative cases underscores the importance that foreigners attach to obtaining relevant rights, even if they are reluctant to enforce these rights, and also suggests that the foreign community should continue to engage the Beijing Intermediate and High Court on these important issues.   The introduction in this year’s report of information on foreign utilization of the administrative system is a welcome set of data.

Transparency and Commercial Rule of Law Are Improving.   The report notes that 47,422 IPR cases had been posted on the Supreme People’s Court case network through year-end 2012, which is still a fraction of the total numbers of cases.    Another challenge that needs to be faced is finding a way to make these cases more easily searchable.  The report also highlights numerous provincial-level local initiatives in improving IPR adjudication, on a range of issues such as electronic evidence, karaoke copyright disputes, notarization of evidence, etc. which is a useful listing of otherwise hard to get local initiatives.  Another useful data point is that the overall judicial settlement rate of IP cases last year was 70%.  As some have expressed concern about undue pressure to settle, comparative data on settlement rates in prior years might have been useful.    It might also be useful in future years if the court provided more data to compare with general civil law developments, such as the availability of provisional measures in the civil procedure law, comparisons to trends in contract disputes generally, and comparisons to overall civil and criminal litigation trends.

The report also notes that the SPC has been actively involved in commenting on the revisions to the IPR laws now underway, as well as responding to requests from lower courts on various research projects.  Considering the expansion in administrative enforcement in recent years, the constructive engagement of the courts on enforcement matters should be helpful to developing more balanced policies.  Also, simultaneously with the court’s release of its white paper, it announced the 10 leading cases in China, 50 typical cases and 10 innovative cases.  The innovative cases involved new legal issues and new thoughts on the application of law.  As there is no IPR-specific case that has yet been announced by the Supreme People’s Court in its Guiding Cases Project these cases are likely to be of greater influence.

The report also gives a shout-out to the highly successful Federal Circuit Bar Association program of May last year, which had over 1,200 attendees, 240 Chinese judges, over 200 US attendees, and seven federal circuit judges in attendance including Chief Judge Rader.

At a meeting hosted on April 22 by the US Chamber of Commerce, speakers noted that the IPR tribunal is once again looking at the possibility of establishing a specialized IP court in China, an issue that was previously flagged in the National IPR Strategy Outline of some years ago.  In this context, the report also discusses the numbers of IPR judges, IPR tribunals, experiments in combining civil, criminal and administrative adjudication, and background of the judges.

The report provides a useful snapshot of an increasingly influential, busy and complex IPR adjudication system in China.