Wednesday, February 27, 2008

China's Third Patent Amendment: Curb Your Enthousiasm

China's upcoming third amendment of its patent law has moved a lot of pens, or rather fingers, to write critiques and analyses.

Mr Timonthy J. Maier partner of Maier & Maier PLLC, a law firm in Alexandria Virginia (US) and blogger of Post-Grant gives a good overview of the most controversial paragraphs of the draft. These include articles 49, 50 and 74, read Mr Maier's article here.

Mr Thomas T. Moga of law firm Butzel Long, which is a member of the China Alliance (which includes two other US law firms: Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Michael Best & Friedrich LLP, and Canadian Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP and is combining its resources to support their clients in China), is looking whether the draft is compliant to the Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property rights (TRIPs), read here.

Read the draft and the comments upon it by the International Chamber of Commerce the World Business Organization (ICC) here. The comments of the Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) can be found here.

The Fédération Internationale Des Conseils En Intellectuele Propriété (FIDCI) has an elaborate power point presentation about the subject here.

4 comments:

Cheap Pens said...

China - Intellectual Property - What Does The Third Amendment To China´s Patent Law Mean To Pharmaceutical Companies?China is rich in genetic resources and traditional knowledge, and the Chinese government supports and encourages research to develop intellectual property derived from these assets. For inventions "completely relying" on genetic resources or traditional knowledge, the Draft for the first time imposes a requirement that the patent applicant disclose in the application the direct and original sources of the genetic resources or the source of the traditional knowledge.

Biotechnology companies need to pay close attention to this disclosure requirement because failure to comply could result in either the denial or invalidation of a Chinese patent. It should be noted that there is no equivalent requirement in the patent laws of Europe, Japan, or the United States.

ipdragon said...

Dear Sir/Madam,

Good point. What the exact meaning is, is indeed a good question.
Thanks for your comment.

Danny Friedmann

IP Dragon 知識產權龍
Gathering, commenting on and sharing information about intellectual property in China to make it more transparent, since 2005
http://ipdragon.blogspot.com

Anonymous said...

Great compilation of articles. Thanks. Much has been made in the media, both western and Chinese, of China’s adoption of the “absolute novelty” standard. Does any other county in the world use this standard?

Anonymous said...

Great compilation of articles. Thanks. Much has been made in the media, both western and Chinese, of China’s adoption of the “absolute novelty” standard. Does any other county in the world use this standard?