Beijing Law Intellectual Property Agency Co., Ltd.
北京律诚同业知识产权代理有限公司
北京律诚同业知识产权代理有限公司
search
Search

PATENT

To apply for patent applications to overseas countries ...

TRADEMARK

To apply for patent applications to overseas countries ...

COPYRIGHT

To apply for patent applications to overseas countries ...

JUSTICE

To apply for patent applications to overseas countries ...

PATENT

To apply for patent applications to overseas countries ...

China Responds to EU Article 63 Request 2021-09-13
  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). 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.   Generally speaking the WTO has considered the term “general application” in the WTO agreements to mean having application beyond the specific parties. The Chinese view, however, is that the various types of cases “mentioned in the EU communication are cases for reference and have no legal effect of general application” (para. 4, emphasis supplied). However, “legal effect” is not a term found in Article 63. By contrast the Chinese submission identifies the function of the cases sought by the EU as as “summarizing trial experiences, strengthening publicity of the rule of law and providing references for judicial practices and legal education.” This should satisfy the the test of what constitutes “general application”, i.e., application beyond the parties in suit.   Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the test were one of “legal effect”, China’s experiments with using cases to provide greater consistency in decision making have generally helped guide both foreign and domestic litigants and should satisfy such an expanded “general application” test. One significant effort involves China’s “guiding” or “leading” cases. It had been the focus of a widely-supported project at Stanford University, which also involved Chinese lawyers and scholars. Another project was undertaken at the Beijing IP Court in 2016, which resulted in citation of 279 case precedents of various types in 168 cases. Guiding cases have also been used by the courts to help guide lower courts and rightsholders in complex areas of intellectual property, such as in determining how to determine essentially derived varieties in plant variety cases.   Beyond “guiding cases”, the Chinese typology of different types of reference cases is complicated, and may involve different levels of internal review and consequential impact. The types of cases are subject to a range of policy documents by China’s Supreme People’s Court, as detailed (for example) in this Chinese language article. Whatever the distinction among these various types of reference cases, all of these cases offer useful reference points in considering similar cases whether or not they might be cited in a legal brief, a court opinion, an oral argument, considered in judicial deliberations, or reviewed by the general public when it considers the legal implications of a course of conduct. Their significance may vary by the nature of the nature of the typology applied to them, but their “general application” remains constant.   What is perhaps most surprising is what is not included in the docket thus far: an inquiry of the United States supporting the EU’s position regarding publication of cases by China. During the Obama administration, the US government had expressed considerable interest in China’s development of guiding cases and precedent. Moreover, the Article 63 mechanism had originally been advanced by the United States in an earlier WTO dispute with China.
The 23rd China Patent Award Selection Launches 2021-09-13
  Recently, the 23rd China Patent Award Selection co-organized by CNIPA and WIPO is under way. Awards include China Patent Gold Award, Silver Award and Excellence Award, as well as China Design Gold Award, Silver Award and Excellence Award, in a bid to encourage and cite those patentees and inventors who contribute significantly to technology (design) innovation and socio-economic development.   The patent gold, silver and excellence awards will be selected from inventions and utility models with the total number of gold awards not exceeding 30 and silver not 60. The design gold, silver and excellence awards will be chosen from designs with gold items not surpassing 10 and silver not 15. The event adopts the way of project recommendation and highlights the principle of high-quality development, giving priority to the core patents in basic research, basic research for application and key and core technological breakthroughs. Relevant departments under the State Council, local intellectual property offices and national industry associations can select and recommend prominent projects to the Award Committee. Since 2021, associations that fail to win prizes in two consecutive sessions of the event will be suspended from the qualification for recommendation for one year.   This year's selection further highlights high-quality development. CNIPA will decrease the number of candidates in areas with serious patent quality problems, and organizations and individuals with a large number (proportion) of abnormal patent applications will be disqualified from application, recommendation, participation or award winning. According to the awards of the recommended projects, CNIPA will select 5-8 winners of the Best Organization Award and 15-20 winners of Excellent Organization Award of China Patent Award, and give the Best Recommendation Award of China Patent Award to academicians whose recommended projects win the China Patent Gold Award.   Previous sessions have witnessed an increasing number of recommended projects, which were all high-quality and created significant social and economic benefits. For example, the 21st China Patent Award last year focused on core technologies in key industries and fields and highlighted the pillaring role of manufacturing industry. Data showed that 62% of the 766 award-winning invention patents were from the emerging sectors of strategic importance, and 83% were from the IP- or patent-intensive industries. 40 of the award-winning projects had created RMB 660 billion yuan of new sales revenue, RMB 62.9 billion yuan of new profits, and RMB 136.3 billion yuan of new amount of exports.
Beijing Law Intellectual Property Agency Co., Ltd.
Beijing Law Intellectual Property Agency Co., Ltd.

Business life

Beijing Law Intellectual Property Agency Co., Ltd.
Beijing Law Intellectual Property Agency Co., Ltd.

Copyright: Beijing Law Intellectual Property Agency Co., Ltd.          Powered by www.300.cn         京ICP备09099344号-1

Beijing Law Intellectual Property Agency Co., Ltd.

Copyright: Beijing Law Intellectual Property Agency Co., Ltd.          Powered by www.300.cn​         京ICP备09099344号-1