Showing posts with label Philips. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Philips. Show all posts

Monday, January 10, 2011

Greatest Start of the Year: Global Forum on Intellectual Property 2011 Singapore

The Global Forum on Intellectual Property (GFIP) 2011 in Singapore (6-7 January), a bi-annual event, was greater than ever before. It is clear Singapore is committed to becoming a IP hub. Over 95 professors and practitioners (lawyers, judges, inhouse counsels, business people), bloggers and readers who gave speeches about their reflections on the past, their thoughts about the present, and their forcasts for the future of IP. Theory, practice, strategies and tactics on the protection and enforcement of IP were all evocatively conveyed to an audience that was as learned as the speakers. Professor David Llewelyn, chairman of the GFIP and external director of the IP Academy of Singapore, mastermind behind the whole operation has outdone himself. The theme 'Turbulant Times: Onwards and Upwards for Intellectual Property?' was well chosen and during the opening ceremony even Mr K. Shanmugam, minister of home affairs and law gave his acte de présence.

IP rules the world economy


The first keynote address by Professor Peter Williamson (Judge Business School, University of Cambridge and co-author of 'Dragons at Your Door: How Chinese Cost Innovation is Disrupting lobal Competition') was talking about IP and China.

Chinese innovation: using seemingly obsolete technology to gain cost reductions



Professor Williamson asserted that China's innovation did not fall out of the sky. Rather, it was an evolving innovation after 25 years of simple innovations. Look for example to BYD, the car manufacturer who started as a battery manufacturer. The 1990s had an emphasis on cost cutting, according to Professor Williamson. Now Chinese companies look at technologies that seem obsolete and see whether they can transform it into an innovative product. "Can I use low costs to do innovation? It's the thrust of Chinese innovation." Professor Williamson gave the example of the digital direct x-ray equipment. The market for x-ray equipment was first dominated by GE and Philips. The Chinese companies applied their low cost invention to mainstream application. It's not patentable, but it changes the market. Innovations are fast in China, because the cycles they make are frequent. In the West there are less developments between innovations. These Chinese innovations are on a large scale and made for commercialisaton.

Williamson said that patents in China were quite isolated; not many collaborations were going on. He said that China is going to find its own kind of institutional structure, unlike Japan who copied US institutions. which was not such a great success.
During a judges' debate which included the retired Chief Justice of the IPR Tribunal of the Supreme People's Court, Dr Jiang Zhipei, who is now senior advisor to Fangda Partners, a Chinese law firm in the commercial field, the Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Washington D.C., Hon. Randall R. Rader, made an appeal to all judges present: to learn as much as possible from each other and to look at the consequences of their judgments, and if they would not they will be sanctioned by the market.

Judge Rader: "If you [as a judge] will not oversee the consequences of your actions, you will be punished by the market"



Photo panelists from left to right: Justice Andrew Phang (Judge of Appeal, Supreme Court of Singapore), Judge Joachim Bornkamm (Presiding Judge, Federal Supreme Court of Germany), Hon. Randall R. Rader (Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Washington D.C.), Professor Llewelyn (moderator), Sir Richard Arnold, Judge of the High Court, Chancery Division, Hon. Robert van Peursem, Vice President, District Court of The Hague, the Netherlands. Dr Jiang Zhipei part of the panel is 0n the next photo.

To facilitate and not only regulate the market. Judge Rader was not only very informative but entertaining as well and he inspired at least two other speakers to give the audience a choice about the topics on which he was willing to speak. Judge Rader's dramatic descent from the stage to level with the audience was only replicated by Mr Tilman Lueder, head of the unit Copyright and Knowledge-based Economy, Directorate-General Market and Services, who gave attribution to the judge. Judge Rader's singing was only replicated by himself.


Dr Jiang Zhipei is the author of China IPR Law. He asserted that the patent system in China, that has just been amended in 2008, must be reformed and perfected. He offers 8 suggestions:

Dr Jiang: 8 improvements to China's patent law


1. China should deepen its reform and opening up policy, and constantly improve the development mechanism;

2. A stronger, more mature, transparent and consistent China is a prerequisite for the litigation process. Litigants should have confidence that China's litigation process system operates objectively and fairly;

3. Chinese courts should realize uniform and efficient IP judicial protection according to the Compendium of China's National IP Strategy;

4. The Supreme People's Court should establish and perfect relevant litigation procedures such as judicial IP authentication, procedures for expert witnesses, technical investigation and pre-trial interim measures;

5. Chinese courts will explore the possibility of establishing specialised IP tribunals accepting civil, administrative and criminal cases together, and to integrate and optimize resources;

6. Enhancing communication between countries is important;

7. To raise the level of enforcement judgments, strengthening of law enforcement cooperation between difference departments;

8. Summarizing the experience in the process is sometimes more important than just continuing.

More postings about the GFIP 2011 event will follow.

continue reading ...

Friday, January 30, 2009

Huawei Top PCT Applicant 2008; China Sixth Largest User of PCT

The People's Republic of China has the ambition to shift its manufacturing based economy to a knowledge based economy. Therefore Chinese companies need to innovate, and protect their innovations by patents, internationally.

If a company registers its patent in one country, it is only protected in that country. Therefore companies need to register their patents in every single country were they want to be protected. Using the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), however, they can file patent applications in different countries in an efficient way: filing at patent applications in more than one country using one patent office. A real internatonal patent does not exist yet, but the second best is to get a bundle of national patents, using the PCT.

Is China a heavy PCT-user?

A press release of the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) reports that Shenzhen based Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. filed the most Patent Cooperaton Treaty (PCT)-applications in 2008, namely 1,737. More than the 1,729 PCT-applications filed by Panasonic Corporation of Japan or the 1,551 patents by Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. of the Netherlands.

One other Chinese company, ZTE Corporation, also a Shenzen-based telecommunications company, ranks at the 38th position in the top 50 PCT applicants 2008 list. So Chinese companies in general might be not heavy PCT-user yet, but two Shenzhen ( 深圳市) companies certainly are.

The People's Republic of China improved by one place, to become the sixth largest user of the PCT (overtaking United Kingdom's position). It is expected that China will France's fifth position in 2009.

Read more here.
continue reading ...

Thursday, January 17, 2008

Patent Challenge in China: What's the State of the Art?

The last quarterly newsletter of the European Patent Office (EPO) has an interesting article about the difficulty for foreign patent applicants to determine prior art (state of the art) in China, because all prior art in China is in Chinese. To determine prior art is crucial, because the patent can only be granted to an invention that is both new and inventive. So what is already known and what is new in China if you cannot search in and read Chinese? Machine tranlations are expected to be possible in three years time.Mr. Ruud Peters, CEO of Philips Intellectual Property and Standards, who spoke at the EPO Patent Information Conference in Riga criticised "missing out the increasingly large collection of Chinese prior art". The translations of only the claims from Chinese into English is estimated to be 15 million euro per year. The EPO would like the funding to be done in a way that allows that the translations are published for free online, Commercial companies such as Thomson Scientific, East Linden and Beijing Zhongxian Tuofang Co. Ltd. of course want to earn money for their translations. Mr. Peters had some harsh words about the patent system in relation to China: "stifling" instead of "stimulating innovation". Then again, an amendment of the Chinese patent law is coming up, so maybe all is not so bleak.
Read the EPO article here.
continue reading ...

Tuesday, June 12, 2007

Patent Examiner SIPO Blogs

I got an email from Cliff Zhao, Patent Examiner of the State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO)who is also a translator.
Mr Zhao set up a Chinese/English blog called Intellectual Property in China 知识产权与中国发展 about intellectual property policy in China. Recently Mr Zhao wrote an article about Intellectual Property Education - In the Law School and Beyond about Philips' efforts to share knowledge about IPR:

"In recent years, Royal Philips Electronics of the Netherlands has partnered with several leading Chinese law schools strong in IPR field, e.g., Renmin University, Tsinghua University, Fudan University, etc., to set up IP Academy aiming to promote Chinese IPR studies to cope with international competition."

I am looking forward reading more articles of Mr Zhao. Read Mr Zhao's article about Philips here.
continue reading ...

Tuesday, January 23, 2007

Compulsory Licensing: Philips About to Bring A WTO Case Against Taiwan

Taiwanese company GigaStorage has a conflict with Dutch company Philips about a patent for the manufacturing of CD's since 1999.

After a complaint at the Taiwan's Fair Trade Commission it applied for a compulsory license of Philips' patent for the manufacturing of CD's, based on article 79 Taiwan's Patent Law, which states:

"In the case of national emergencies or of non-profit-seeking use of a patent for the enhancement of public welfare, or in the case of an applicant's failure of reaching a licensing agreement with the patentee concerned under reasonable commercial terms and conditions within a considerable period of time, the Patent Authority may, upon application by the applicant, grant a compulsory license to the applicant to put the patented invention into practice provided such practice shall be restricted mainly to the purpose of satisfying the requirements of domestic market. (..)"

Philips is considering to take the case to the WTO, because Taiwan's patent law is allegedly compliant to article 31 TRIPs. Taiwan is since 2002 a member of the WTO.

See an analysis of this case and also about compulsory licensing in Mainland China entitled 'Trends in Compulsory Licenses in Greater China' by Lily Lim of Finnegan Henderson here.

H/T to Andrew Leonard of How the World Works
continue reading ...

Wednesday, January 10, 2007

Pyrrhic Victory For Anti Patent Pool Professors Against Philips

Remember Zhang Ping, the IPR professor of Peking University who in December 2005 attacked a patent of Philips that was part of the 4C DVD pool because it was alleged to be not essential, read here. Emma Barraclough followed the story for Managing IP:

In January 2006, Zhang got support of four other law professors who joined her case.
In August 2006 the Patent Reexamination Board began hearing the dispute, see Barraclough's article about this here.

However, the parties have agreed to settle the matter.
Philips will remove the Chinese patent from the patent lists attached to the DVD patent licence agreement and "never again claim the rights of the Chinese patent".
The academics have withdrawn their request for SIPO to invalidate the patent.

Notwithstanding this settlement, the total royalty of $ 3.50 per unit charged to DVD manufacturers would not change, according Barraclough who cited a spokesman for Philips.

This position was anticipated by Zhang. Barraclough quoted Zhang in her August article:
"Even if a questionable patent is declared invalid, typically, royalties are unchanged. It seems as if that unless the last so-called essential patent is declared invalid or expires, the licensing policy will stand unchanged. Therefore, by imposing prohibitive costs on the opponent and by offering little fruit to the challenger, patent pools are protected from challenge and public supervision."

In this respect Philips' withdrawal is a Pyrrhic victory. However, manufacturers can start using the technology, although non-essential, manifested in the withdrawn patent without authorisation. This could stimulate innovation. Besides, the professors have acquired a new case study for their students.

Read Barraclough's January 2007 article here (free access as part of MIP Week).
continue reading ...

Sunday, December 03, 2006

Counterfeit Spelling Contest How To Write ....

Philips.

China is warming up relations with the African continent. One side effect is the growth in Chinese counterfeit products. Oskar Himmelreich made a nice picture in Kumasi, Ghana, August 2006 of a counterfeit mixer of the Dutch multinational with two LL's and sent it to IP Dragon.

Thanks a lot Oskar.
continue reading ...

Friday, August 11, 2006

IP Professor Attacks Philips' Right To Collect Royalties For DVDs

Zhang Ping, a professor from the Intellectual Property Rights Institute of Peking University, has filed an argument against Philips, a member of the 3C DVD Patent Group.

The 3C DVD Patent Group consists of Philips, Sony, Pioneer (that's 3), but LG Electronics joined them, so in fact it is now 4C DVD Patent Group, read here.

According to China Tech News Professor Zhang has been working on a case against Philips' DVD patent since september last year, accumulating evidence. If Zhang's validity report on the Philips' DVD patent and "the rationality of their patent fee in China passes the review of the State Intellectual Property Office, Philips and other 4C members will no longer have the right to charge a DVD patent fee from Chinese enterprises."

It's expensive not to own technology standards. Edward Jung of Intellectual Ventures quoted China’s Minister of Science and Technology Xu Guanhua saying:

"Since 99 percent of Chinese companies fail to file for patents, royalties are a high burden, including a 20 percent royalty stack on mobile phones, 30 percent on computers, and 40 percent on programmed numerical control machine tools paid to overseas patent holders. A Chinese exporter of a $32 DVD player exporter makes one dollar in profit and pays $20 to patent holders outside China." Read more of Edward Jung's testimony to the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission about China's Intellectual Property Right enforcement here.

"A final judgment will be made next Thursday. Philips may have to return the patent fees it has already collected from Chinese enterprises if it loses the judgment."

Read the China Tech News article here.
continue reading ...