Is there Any Local Protection in the Patent & Anti Monopoly Lawsuit between Monsanto and DuPont?


Visit to St. Louis in the US, Part II

(By You Yunting) At the end of this past March, at the invitation of the US government, the author visited America with other Chinese legal experts with the goal of better understanding its IPR system. The third city in the visit was St. Louis, located in the middle of the United States. On March 26 2013, the day where the most-watched lawsuit in the bio-science industry, the lawsuit between Monsanto and DuPont, entered into a mediation agreement, and coincidently, the second day after that, namely on March 28, the author visited Monsanto’s legal department in St. Louis to better understand the facts involved in the case. The day after that, the author went to the Federal Court in the Eastern District, in St. Louis, Missouri, and exchanged opinions regarding the case with the judge hearing it. Considering the influence coming from that lawsuit would not be less than that produced by the lawsuit between Samsung and Apple in the tech industry, the author would like to introduce to the readers some of the facts presented to us by the judge. Also, we would like to remind our readers that the title of this essay covers only part of the content of this post; that being said, it shall not be taken as suited for a professional study.


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


(By Luo YanjieThe 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.


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


(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.”


Reconciliation in Patent Dispute between Ericsson and ZTE: While No Release of the Actual Compensation

According to the report (in Chinese) of Donews, a tech website in China, Ericsson (NASDAQ:ERIC) and ZTE (SEHK: 0763, SZSE: 000063) have signed a global cross license agreement and agree to withdraw all the lawsuits against each other, while, on the other hand, no disclosure on the patent fee paid by ZTE to Ericsson.

In April of 2011, Ericsson filed a lawsuit against ZTE in Germany, UK and Italy, claiming the infringement against its patent of GSM and 3G/UMTS wireless technology. After that, there saw a heavy fall of the stock price both in A and H market of ZTE, which was the new lowest price then. And until closing on Wednesday then (19th, January), the price of it in the A stock market was encountered a decline limit and a plunge of 7% in H stock market. According to the stock agent, that mainly resulted from the possible influence of the lawsuit initiated by Ericsson on the achievement in 2011 of ZTE.


China Mobile Devices Alliance against Patent Lawsuit from International Giant

Bridge IP Law Commentary once posted the essay on the patent battle between HTC and Apple, with our advices and opinions attached. And the event also caught the attention of local mobile manufacturers in China. According to Nandu Daily’s latest news, to counter the possible challenge of patent lawsuit in China, ZTE, TCL, Konka and other main phone companies have formed an alliance.

China made phones are known for its high price performance and cool looking, and the android devices occupy most of the products. And just like other phone companies, China manufacturers also face the attack from Microsoft and Apple. The alliance has already participated in the lawsuit filed by Nokia against the alliance members.

What has to be acknowledged is that the total patent owned by the alliance could still not rival with those of the international giants’. While, on the other hand, the incomplete of the domestic legislature may be the safe harbor of the local companies, and the international companies have not finished their layout in China. Furthermore, the rapid technology update could also be the chance to tip the balance.


What If the Patent Infringement Lawsuit Apple vs HTC in China?

Which Chinese authority has the jurisdiction over the patent infringement?

Recently, the International Trade Commission of United State ruled on the patent conflict between Apple and HTC, determining that HTC has infringed the No.647 patent of Apple iPhone and banning the import of HTC’s smart phone with this patent feature from 19th, April, 2012.

For the case, Bridge IP Law Commentary would like to discuss a problem that which authority shall have the jurisdiction over the conflict shall it occurred in China? In fact, there’s no similar administration like ITC in China considering the IPR conflict with foreign products involved, and the administration duty on the infringement combat mainly focuses on the fake patent, namely those products claimed being patented or claiming owning others patent. Although the administration will handle some patent conflicts of unlicensed using, the complicated dispute, like the one between Apple and HTC, is mainly handled by the court.


Matters for Attention in the Patent Preliminary Injunction Application in China(I)

Highlight: introducing the regulations on the patent preliminary injunction in China, as well as the applicant, examination standard. Also the question of whether the injunction could be applied in the lawsuit is also discussed.

As shows in the recent released data by China Supreme Court, the newly filed and judged intellectual property cases in the period from January to October are respectively 52, 708 and 38, 682, which have increased 42.2% and 39.79% year on year. Among which the cases with injunction applied are 126, and 184 for those applied for evidence preservation before the hearing and 18 for property preservation before the hearing.(For more details, pls refer to:


Brief Introduction on the Assessment Report of Utility Models Patents in China

Highlight: Introducing what kind of role does the assessment report play in utility model patent litigation, and also we will analyze the characteristics of it.

As patent lawyers, we’re often consulted by clients that what measures could be taken to against the infringement on their patent? The answer from us is that the novelty retrieval report or patent assessment report is demanded before the utility models suits, depending on the application date. (For those utility models applied before 1st Oct. 2009, the novelty retrieval report shall be applied, while those applied after that, the assessment report shall be applied accompanied, and we will discuss the differences between the reports in other essays on the website).


The First Primary People’s Court with Jurisdiction over Patent Disputes in China

—-Introduction of the Jurisdiction System of Patent Litigation in China

Highlights: Introducing the jurisdiction system of patent litigation in China, including the territory jurisdiction and jurisdiction by forum level of the patent civil and administrative litigation involving inventions, utility models and design.

Recently, the Supreme People’s Court has approved the Beijing Haidian District People’s Court (the “Haidian Court”) as a pilot to hear patent cases, thereafter the Haidian Court becomes the fist primary people’s court with jurisdiction over patent cases in China.