Showing posts with label State Council. Show all posts
Showing posts with label State Council. Show all posts

Tuesday, February 22, 2011

Your Opinion On Draft Regulations on Patent Agency Please

On March 4, 1991 the State Council promulgated the Regulations on Patent Commissioning, which became effective on April 1, 1991, see here.

In China's 2006 Action Plan of IPR Protection, it announced its plan to revise the Regulations on Patent "in order to standardize the conduct of patent agents, safeguard the normal order of the patent agency industry, and protect the legitimate rights and interests of interested parties." The old regulations were after nearly twenty years deemed out of touch with reality.

The State Council has issued the Regulations on Patent Agency (Draft Amendments for Examination), reported by SIPO and solicited opinions "of all walks of life" before September 25, 2010 March 10, 2011.

The regulations state how someone can become a patent agent, what are the educational requirements, how a patent agency should be run and what is not allowed for agents and agencies. It is clear that the self-regulatory industry group All-China Patent Agents Association plays an important role.

The Chinese version you can see here. If someone has an English version let me now.
continue reading ...

Sunday, December 12, 2010

32 Senators Urge Vice-Premier State Council to Fix IPR and Indigenous Innovation Policy in China

32 U.S. senators have sent an open letter to Wang Qishan, China's Vice-Premier of the State Council. They urge him to use the U.S.-China Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade (JCCT) to address the problems U.S. companies face in regard to:
  • Intellectual Property Rights in China;
  • China's policy to favour indigenous innovation and not signing the World Trade Organization's Government Procurement Agreement.
Evidently the trade organisation that was created to advance the interests of the software industry Business Software Alliance (BSA) was quite successful in putting their case on the agenda:

"The United States has been raising this issue for many years, and China has repeatedly committed to take steps to address U.S. concerns. For example, in 2006, China committed in the JCCT to ensure that Chinese government agencies and state-owned enterprises use only licensed software. But China has failed to implement this commitment. We urge China to implement this commitment on a timely basis, and in a transparent manner that allows IPR holders to verify the legitimacy of the software used by these entities."

Read the bipartisan letter on the Fair Currency Coalition Blog here.
continue reading ...

Tuesday, January 06, 2009

Comparison Between The IPR in China Relevant Provisions Of the Foreign Trade Law 2004 and 1994

I have just added links to the Foreign Trade Law of the People's Republic of China 1994 and 2004 on IP Dragon's blogroll ( under "IPR in China Laws and Regulations").

The IPR relevant article 6 Foreign Trade Law 1994 is almost identical to article 6 Foreign Trade Law 2004 (most favoured nation treatment and national treatment because of articles 4 and 4 TRIPs, respectively, before 2001 because of article 5 (1) Berne and aricle 3 Paris Conventions)

Article 14 Foreign Trade Law 1994 is similar to article 13 Foreign Trade Law 2004 (the departments that get information from the foreign trade operaters should keep business secrets to themselves, see pages 15-16 Thesis).

Article 27 (2) Foreign Trade Law of 1994 prohibits explicitly infringing upon intellectual property rights and article 27 (5) Foreign Trade Law 1994 "other acts violating laws or administrative rules and regulations" can also be used to base a prohibition against IPR infringement.

It can be concluded from article 14 Foreign Trade Law of 2004 that import and export of goods is not free if law or administrative regulation provides otherwise.
Different from Foreign Trade Law 1994 is that Chapter V of the 2004 amendment is dedicated to Foreign-trade-related Intellectual Property Protection. Article 29 Foreign Trade Law 2004 includes: "Where any of the import goods violates any intellectual property right and, at the same time, endangers the foreign trade order, the foreign trade department of the State Council may take such measures as prohibiting the import of the relevant goods that the infringer has produced or sold for a certain period of time." No word about export goods that violate IPRs. This is in compliance with TRIPs, since article 51 TRIPs only obligates that WTO members shall adopt procedures to enable a right holder that has valid grounds that counterfeit trademark or pirated copyright goods import may take place, to lodge an application. Article 2 Regulations of the People's Republic of China on Customs Protection of IPRs 2003, however, goes beyond this obligation and applies to both import and export.

Article 30 Foreign Trade Law 2004 is to give the foreign trade department of the State Council the legitimacy to take measures in case of an IP right holder that hinders the licensee from questioning the validity of the IPR involved in the license agreements, conducting forced package license or providing exclusive selling back conditions in the license agreement, etc.
Picture: threecee
continue reading ...

Thursday, February 01, 2007

Patent Law Draft About to be Adopted: How Will Patent Law Change?

China Daily's reports via People's Daily that China's third revision of its patent law is drafted.

On July 31, 2006 SIPO promulgated the Draft of Amendments to the Patent Law for public comments. Draft amendments to the law were handed to the State Council for deliberation on December 27, according to the State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO), which was in charge of drafting the amendments.

SIPO spokesman Yin Xintian said that half of the current 69 provisions will be changed.

If the draft will be adopted, what will change? The article 'China: Third Time Lucky' by Yong Li Wenping Chen of King & Wood published for Managing Intellectual Property sheds light over the possible outcome:
  • the absolute novelty standard (currently it is a blended novelty standard; where prior art includes publication inside or outside China, but public use or other means of disclosure only in China); in the draft prior art is broadened to include public use or other means of disclosure outside in China;
  • a design patent shall not be identical or similar to a prior design, but it shall also be significantly different from element combination of prior designs;
  • the optional brief description of the design under the current rules will become compulsory for design applications;
  • a design application for multiple similar designs of a product becomes possible.
  • infringement determination standards will be incorporated, that strengthen patent protection, extend the scope of patent infringement exemptions and further clarifies stipulations on compulsory licenses;
  • only inventions made during execution of employment duty or made mainly by using the employer's technical secrets are statutory service inventions. However, inventions made mainly by using the employer's other materials and technical means will be deemed as non-service inventions unless otherwise agreed. In the latter case, the employer has a non-exclusive and non-assignable right to use the inventions.
  • SIPO is getting more powers, including examining witnesses and other relevant parties; reviewing and making copies of relevant contracts, receipts, accounting books and other documents; conducting inspections of premises; seizing infringing goods and specialized equipment for infringement; issuing orders to stop infringement; and confiscating infringing goods and specialized equipment for infringement in severe cases;
  • the doctrine of equivalents, prosecution history estoppel, and defence based on practicing prior art in infringement are incorporated in the draft. Infringing equivalents are limited to equivalents of technical features rather than the whole solution, and the well-known function-way-effect test is adopted. Any written amendments or statements that restrict the patent scope which the patentee made during the patent prosecution or invalidation proceeding to comply with the granting requirements will have estoppel effects. No infringement shall be found if the alleged infringing product or process belongs to prior art;
  • patentee is liable for bad faith actions;
  • for injunctions issued by a court or a decision of an administrative authority, if the same infringer conducts a similar act infringing the same patent, the patent administrative authority may take the following actions: ordering the infringer to stop the infringement and publishing the order; confiscating the illegal revenue; and imposing a fine of up to three times the illegal revenue. Where there is no revenue, the fine can be up to Rmb100,000;
  • pre-suit injunctions and property preservation orders are available under the current Patent Law, and include evidence preservation;
  • the provision on statutory damages is incorporated in the Draft, and the upper limit is increased to Rmb1,000,000;
  • parallel import is explicitly defined as non-infringement, and the Bolar exception is adopted for pharmaceutical related patents. According to the Draft, an entity may make, use or import patented pharmaceuticals or medical devices solely for acquiring information necessary for obtaining regulatory approval, and a third party may make or import and sell the patented pharmaceuticals or medical devices to that entity. The Bolar exception in effect shortens the protection term of pharmaceutical and medical device patents. However, the Draft has no corresponding provisions for possible extensions of the term of those patents. Even worse, the Draft does not provide a time limit for starting activities under the Bolar provision;
  • after five years from knowledge of the infringement, no injunction may be issued if the infringer is willing to pay royalties as agreed by the parties or decided by the court.

Read Yong Li and Wengpin Chen's article here and the People's Daily article here.

continue reading ...