Pursuant to the Anti-Monopoly Law, the Civil Procedure Law and the Arbitration Law, there is no limitation of applying arbitration clause as a settlement to monopoly disputes in China. The Arbitration is well acknowledged for its confidentiality, flexible legal or commercial basis of arbitrating and its finality of one award, which are perfectly adapted to the requirements of confidentiality, efficiency and reliance on customs in business operation. Therefore, the practice of arbitration clause can bring about significant values and meanings to commercial subjects, and furthermore help indicate various risks and opportunities of different timing in relevant market. In this essay, we will introduce relevant cases and investigate whether the judicial opinions on arbitration clauses applied in monopoly disputes are appropriate.
(By You Yunting) Recently, the Foshan Higher People’s Court in Guangdong province heard a case and determined that medical instruction manuals provided with pharmaceutical and other medical products do not receive copyright protection.
In my opinion, this viewpoint is worth discussing. Although it is probably reasonable to presume that the defendant, as a drug distributor, has less of an obligation to be vigilant about copyright infringement than that of the drug manufacturer, the overall scenario coupled with the court’s decision to find non-infringement seems correct. However, in regard to the question whether the copyright law should protect medical product instructions, we find ourselves in a rather difficult position; it is not that easy to come to a simple conclusion. In today’s post, we will introduce and share the aforementioned case, as follows:
(By Albert Chen) Past essays on this websites have introduced the design patent dispute between Honda Motor Co., Ltd. (“Hongda”), Hebei Xin Kai Auto Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (“Hebei Xin Kai”) and Shuanghuan Auto Co., Ltd. In another dispute involving Hongda and Xin Kai, the Supreme People’s Court has rendered a decision on jurisdiction. This dispute deserves attention and will be introduced in today’s post.
In 2005, Hongda and Dongfeng Hongda Auto Manufacturing (Wuhan) Co., Ltd. (“Dong Feng”) filed a lawsuit in the Beijing Higher People’s Court (the “Beijing Higher Court”), claiming that Hebei Xin Kai, Gaobeidian Xin Kai Auto Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (“Gaobeidian Xin Kai”), and Beijing Xin Sheng Bai Li Auto Trading Co., Ltd. (“Beijing Xin Sheng”) infringed their design patent. The Beijing Higher Court accepted the case.
(By Albert Chen) Past essays on this websites have introduced the design patent dispute between Honda Motor Co., Ltd. (“Hongda”), Hebei Xin Kai Auto Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (“Hebei Xin Kai”) and Shuanghuan Auto Co., Ltd. In another utility model patent dispute involving Hongda and Xin Kai, the Supreme People’s Court has rendered a decision on jurisdiction in design patent disputes. This dispute deserves attention and concentration and will be introduced in today’s post.
(You Yunting) In the widely-covered corporate espionage dispute between Sany Heavy Industry (“Sany”) and Zoomlion Heavy Industry Science & Technology Development Co., (“Zoomlion”), Sany has criticized the Hanshou Public Security Bureau (“Police”) in Changde City, Hunan Province, stating that it did not have jurisdiction to investigate the case and that its investigation was in violation of the law. The Hanshou Police, however, replied there is no problem with it handling this investigation. As of now, there has been no final decision in the case, but the jurisdiction issue it has raised has captured the public attention. Coincidently, the author also believes that there are Police jurisdictional issues in the recent Tabao malicious review extortion case.