Category Archives: Protection

How Does Monsanto Apply GMOs Patent into Company Operation?

Posted on by

Record of the Visit to St. Louis, Part I

 (By You Yunting) In late March, the author had the opportunity to take a journey to the United States at the invitation of the US government in order to better understand how the US IPR system operates. The third he visited was St. Louis in the midwest, and while he was there there he visited the well-known bio-tech company, Monsanto Company (NYSE: MON, the “Monsanto”), and was received by senior legal officers. The following is the brief record of the visit there. The author notes that the title of this essay only covers part of the content of the essay and should not be adopted as theory.

READ MORE

How Does the Federal Trade Commission Decide Whether Intellectual Property Licenses Violate Anti-trust Laws?

Posted on by

Day Five of the US Visit II

In late March, the author had the opportunity to make a journey to the United States at the invitation of the U.S. government in order to better understand how the US intellectual system operates. On the fifth day of the visit, the author went to the Federal Trade Commission (the “FTC”), and the following is a brief record of his visit there.

The FTC is the administration in charge of investigating and taking action against unfair competition and anti trust in the US. During the visit, FTC officials showed us a map showing that as of 1900, only the US and Canada had enacted competition laws, including unfair competition law and the anti trust law. Later by 1960, Sweden, France, and Japan passed legislation on competition. By 1980, many countries in Europe and South America passed competition laws, as well as Australia, India, Thailand, and South Africa. By 2012, almost all states of the world had laws in that field, except for a few African countries.

READ MORE

Is a Notarization Made under False Pretenses for the Purpose of Evidence Collecting Valid in China?

Posted on by

(By  Luo Yanjie) In a civil lawsuit, the collecting of evidence for the purpose of notarization is quite common. However, during the process of collecting evidence that concerns the selling of infringing goods, the rights holders or their attorneys typically utilize a system of collection in which they set up a “customer” to purchase the infringing product as evidence of infringement. So the question is, should evidence collected in this manner be considered legally effective for the purposes of a lawsuit for infringement or unfair trade practice? For our understanding on the issue, and our experience in this decidedly complicated process, we would like to share with our readers today’s post concerning our opinions on the issue:

READ MORE

What Chinese Intellectual Property Legal Issues Are American Companies Dissatisfied With?

Posted on by

Day three of the visit to the United States

(By You Yunting) Beginning at the end of this March, on the invitation of the US government, I visited America with the goal of understanding its IPR system. On my third day in the US, I visited the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (“PhRMA”), the United States-China Business Council (“USCBC”), the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), and the East Asia Bureau of the US Department of State. The following is the brief record of my meetings on that day.

READ MORE

How does the U.S. Government Guide Companies Registering IPR in China?

Posted on by

(By You Yunting) This March, at the invitation of the U.S. government, Mr. You Yunting, the founder of Bridge IP Commentary began his journey to the United States. The main purpose of this visit was to better understand the system of intellectual property rights in the United States. Mr. You would like to share with our readers his experiences there in several posts here on our website. Of course, the content of the posts may not be truly comprehensive or strictly accurate; that being said, if you find any mistakes or comments that can be corrected or improved upon, please let us know. We encourage more dialogue with the IPR community and welcome all constructive commentary. The following is the first post in a series of Mr. You’s visit to the United States: 

READ MORE

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