Category Archives: Patent

Analysis over the Patented Design Dispute between FIAT and GWM in China

Posted on by
u=1885643774,3302847458&fm=23&gp=0_副本

You may click here for the simplified version of this post, if you feel the current one is too long to read.

Case summary:

On June 30, 2003, the Plaintiff FIAT AUTO S.P.A (“FIAT”) applied for a design patent named “automobile” with the State Intellectual Property Organization (the “SIPO”). That application was approved on May 19, 2004 with patent number ZL03353217.6 (the “Patent”).

In November 2006 and April 2007, Great Wall Motor Company Limited (GWM) exhibited its vehicle, the “GreatWall Jingling” in the Beijing Auto Show and Shanghai Auto Show. FIAT alleged that the vehicle exhibited by GWM infringed upon its patented design, and subsequently filed a lawsuit in the Shijiazhuang Intermediate People’s Court, demanding an apology and compensation.

READ MORE

Introduction and Legal Analysis on the Patent Design Dispute between the Honda CRV And Shuanghuan Auto

Posted on by
02010732171_副本

(By Luo Yanjie) The patented design dispute between Shuanghuan Auto and Honda Motor Co., Ltd. (the “Honda”) has been a subject of strong focus within the industry. With the review of the case in the Supreme People’s Court, it determined the patented design right enjoyed by Honda and overthrew the annulled sentences in the first and second instance, The case has been battled through the courts for eight years, and now returns to its starting point. This post will discuss the arguments adopted in a review of the sentence, and why it shall be different from those in the first and second instance.

READ MORE

Analysis of the Assumption of Liability for E-Merchants in IPR Disputes in China, II

Posted on by

—Interpretations on Solutions to Several Issues in Hearing E-Commerce IPR Infringement Cases

In today’s post we will continue to discuss the standards to be considered in determining the liability of e-merchant platforms.

III. Standards in Determining the Indirect Infringement Liability of E-Merchant Platforms

As discussed above, an e-merchant platform may only assume indirect infringement liability under the law, and therefore it would not be necessarily always be liable for infringement occurring on its platform. The pressing question then, is what standards shall be utilized when determining their liability? In response to this question, we would like to share our analysis based on a comparison of similar statutes:

READ MORE

Analysis of the Assumption of Liability for E-Merchants in IPR Disputes in China, I

Posted on by

—Interpretations on Solutions to Several Issues in Hearing E-Commerce IP Infringement Cases

(By Luo Yanjie) In recent years, E-Commerce in China has thrived along with the development of online shopping. According to some news reports, the volume of the transactions from 360buy.com totaled more than RMB sixty billion Yuan, and Suning’s online sales achieved a comparatively paltry RMB 18.336 billion Yuan. With respect to Taobao.com and its affiliated websites, their business gains have vastly superseded all other rivals. By November 2012, Taobao.com and Tmall had sales of over RMB 1000 billion Yuan, which is almost three times that of Bailian Group, Suning and Gome’ s annual income in 2011 combined. The aforesaid three companies are currently the top three retail chains in China.

READ MORE

How Do Chinese Courts Distinguish “Manufacture” and “Sale” When Hearing Design Patent Infringement Cases?

Posted on by
360截图-27970776

(By Luo Yanjie) Generally, the manufacture and sale of patented products are easily distinguished. Sale normally refers to infringing sale and purchase of patented products with no engagement in assembly or manufacture. In the case introduced in this essay, however, whether the behavior of the defendant was “manufacture” or “sale” is the key point argued. Now we would like to use the case and relevant law to introduce the difference between design patent “manufacture” and “sale.”

READ MORE

Is it Infringing LV’s Trademark Right when Registering Similar Images as Patented Design?

Posted on by
20130215-周五

(By Albert Chen)  Brief of the case:The Louis Vuitton Company (the “LV Company”) holds the rights to the “LV” trademark in Mainland China, and it registered the trademark “LV” as early as January 15, 1986. At present, the term of protection of the mark has been extended to January 14, 2016. The registered classes for the “LV” trademark include toys, Chinese checkers, Backgammon, golf gloves, etc. On November 13, 2003, Guo filed an application for a patented design called “Mahjong (23)”, and the application was approved and published on July 14, 2004. The published patent includes 5 pictures, which contain the front view, left view, back view, top view and three-dimensional views. Among them, the front view contains an image consisting of the letters “L” and “V.”

READ MORE

Who Has the Burden of Proving “Profit After Tax” When Calculating Remuneration for a Patented Invention?

Posted on by

(By Albert Chen) In the previous post, the author introduced how to determine the unit granted the patent right by looking at a case decided by a Shanghai court. Today, the author will use a case from a Guangdong court to introduce how the court there held on who must prove “the profit after tax” when a dispute breaks out on invention remuneration payable by the unit granted the patent right.

Summary of the case:

The employee inventor, Mr. Zhu, worked for Dongguan Wei Ba Cleaning Equipment Co., Ltd (the “Wei Ba Company”) from 1998 to 2006. During his employment, Mr. Zhu participated in the development of sixteen patents and was also registered as a joint inventor in the company’s patent applications. Afterwards, the Wei Ba Company exercised some of the patents but did not pay Mr. Zhu any remuneration. For this reason, Mr. Zhu filed a lawsuit against the Wei Ba Company, claiming that remuneration payable for his invention should be calculated based on the 2004 Annual Joint Inspection Report that the Wei Ba Company submitted to the Ministry of Commerce, which indicated the company’s total profit after tax. Moreover, Mr. Zhu claimed that the remuneration shall be calculated for the past two years.

READ MORE

Shall Parent Company Make the Payment for Subsidiary Employees’ Invention for Hire?

Posted on by

(By Albert Chen) In past essays, the author has introduced the legal issues related to the establishment of remuneration for inventions developed under work for hire schemes, and payment of said remuneration. Through a study of two recent cases, the author has found that the comments made by the judge in them is of reference value when deciding the “unit granted the patent right” and the “one liable to prove after tax profits”. In the meantime, the author would like to share his interpretation and analysis in these two posts.

READ MORE

New Rules on the Protection on the Patent Made for Hire in China

Posted on by

(By Albert Chen) In previous posts, we introduced our readers to ways to pay remuneration for the invention made for hire, and the standard adopted by Chinese courts in related disputes. On 26th November 2012, the State Intellectual Property Office (the “SIPO”), accompanied by 12 other authorities, jointly released the “Several Opinions on Further Strengthening the Protection of Service Inventor’s Legal Interests and Promoting IPR Implementation (the “Opinions”), which demand a strengthened protection on the rights of service inventors in several aspects. In today’s post, you will be able to become more familiar with the main points contained within the Opinions.

READ MORE

How Chinese Courts Determine Remuneration for Employee Inventions?

Posted on by

(By Albert Chen) Yesterday’s post introduced regulations concerning calculation and payment of remuneration for the invention made for hire. The post also pointed out problems in the existing law, both at the by the central government and local level, namely that they lack binding authority, have low enforcement, or provide inadequate regulation on the liability of the unit.

The author has conducted research on these points in the established cases in China and found a case decided last year by the Guangdong High People’s Court (“Guangdong Court”), which is of referential value to settling the above problems.

READ MORE

How Should Chinese Businesses Pay Remuneration for Inventions Created by Their Employees?

Posted on by

(By Albert Chen) Statistics have shown that since 2007, the invention made for hire have comprised over half of China’s patent applications, and the number is still increasing. According to Article 16 of the Patent Law: “The unit that is granted the patent right shall reward the inventor or designer of an employee invention. After such patent is utilized, the inventor or designer shall be given a reasonable amount of remuneration according to the scope of application and the economic results.”

READ MORE

How to Complain Infringement on Taobao.com after It Moved out of “Notorious Markets” List

Posted on by
360截图-27039341

(By Albert Chen & Huang Mengren) As said in a news report, the trade representative recently announced Taobao.com is removed from US notorious market list, and that could be contributed to Taobao.com’s effort in the last year, including the cleaning up on the website under the cooperation with the right holders and the industry association.

Really, in the last year, we have noticed the endeavor from Taobao.com. The website has executed a MEMO with MPAA, Motion Picture Association of America, to combat any illegal sales of the works registered in MPAA. And also we have seen the it launched the system of spot check over all the products sold on it, the IPR protection platform, and the amendment on IPR articles in Taobao Rules in accordance with its experience on IPR protection and the trend of the market.

READ MORE

How to Record Patents with Chinese Customs？

Posted on by

(By Luo Yanjie) According to the Customs Protection Regulations for Intellectual Property (“Regulations”) patent protection through customs recordation means that customs protects the intellectual property rights related to import and export as well as those rights protectable under Chinese laws and regulations. It generally covers the protection of trademark’s exclusive use right, copyright, and patent. As to trademark protection through custom recordation, you may check our past article “How to Apply for Trademark Recordation in China Customs”. Today we would focus on patent protection through customs recordation.

READ MORE

The Judicial Jurisdiction of Network Infringement in China

Posted on by

By Albert Chen

In the post Could Apple Use Objection to Jurisdiction to Prolong the Litigation Period?, we introduced the objection to jurisdiction Apple submitted to the Beijing Second Intermediate Court after it was sued by the China Writers Alliance over downloads in Apple’s App Store. In China, the infringement or tort cases shall be brought to the court of infringement place or the domicile of the defendant, and the infringement place may include the place where the infringement takes place or the place where the consequences of the infringement are felt. With regard to network infringement, could the place where the consequence of infringement is felt include any computer terminal? Today, we will introduce the relevant system.

READ MORE

Supreme Court Loosened Procedural Standards of Evidences Collected Outside China

Posted on by

By Luo Yanjie

The so-called overseas evidences refer to those evidences developed outside China. In IPR cases, for most right holders are admitted in foreign countries, we have seen a high chance of overseas evidences’ showing up. By Article 11 of Rules on Civil Evidences (the “Rules”):

“If the evidence submitted by the party is developed outside P. R. China, they shall be notarized by the authority where it is collected, and be witnessed by Chinese Embassy or Consulate there; or to be verified through the procedures agreed in the convention between the country and China”.

READ MORE