Tag Archives: patent infringement

Diagnostic Method Claim in the US

Posted on by

(By George Wu) Another important case concerning biotechnology was decided last year at the US Supreme Court: Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012)

Prometheus Laboratories (“Prometheus”) had obtained a patent for a method of determining the optimal dosage of the drug thiopurine, which is used to treat auto-immune disorders.  The use of thiopurine in the treatment of disease was not a new discovery, but the use of the drug had been made difficult by the fact that thiopurine is metabolized at different rate in different people.  Accordingly, the same dosage could be too low to be efficacious in one patient, while too high and toxic in another patient.  Prometheus made the discovery that by assaying for the metabolites of thiopurine, the rate of metabolism could be determined and the dosage could be adjusted according to the patient.

READ MORE

Foreign Enterprises’ Criminal Risk Prevention in China

Posted on by
GlaxoSmithKline

(By Ding Jinkun) Recently, Glaxo SmithKline, UCB and many foreign pharmaceutical giants are being investigated for their involvement in economic crimes. The entire pharmaceutical industry is involved into this investigation, stated-owned pharmaceutical firms included. Thus, it can be seen that the Chinese medical market has developed some deformities. Among the resulting crimes, some specific acts include unlawfully raising the price of medicine and unreasonably requiring consumers, particular patients, to pay “perks” for the lawbreakers in the form of small fees.

READ MORE

Whether Patented Products’ Profit Influences the duty to Reward Inventors?

Posted on by

Abstract:

Other local laws and regulations cannot be used in legal judgments. Furthermore, enterprises shall award to the employee proper remuneration regardless of profitability.

(By Luo Yanjie) Patent carries huge value to enterprises; key patents can be especially valuable, because they are often only gained after a great deal of expense. Because of this, according to relevant provisions in the Patent Law, the right to apply for a patent belongs to an entity for any invention-creation, either made by a person in the course of executing tasks of the entity he belongs to, or made by him by primarily utilizing material and technical means belonging to the entity. Inventors having rights over inventions is well accepted, but a difficult position for the inventor to be in; often, we find the laws to be inadequate to properly serve and protect the interests of the inventor-creator. In today’s post, we will introduce to you a case touching upon this legal issue.

READ MORE

China Supreme Court: Which Courts Have Jurisdiction Over Design Patent Disputes?

Posted on by

(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.

Case summary:

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.

READ MORE

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

Posted on by
360截图-117208636_副本

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.

READ MORE

China Supreme Court: Which Courts Have Jurisdiction Over Design Patent Disputes?

Posted on by
43a7d933c895d143c806572873f082025aaf074c_副本

(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.

Case summary:

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

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

Legal Difference between the Invention and the Utility Model in China Patent Law

Recently, we are consulted by foreign clients the difference between utility model and invention by China Patent Law. Today’s post is Bridge IP Law Commentary’s reply on the question. (the image above is the logo of the State Intellectual Property Office of China, the organ administrating in patent issues)

I. The difference in the scope of the protected object

According to the patent law, the “Invention” means any new technical solution relating to a product, a process or an improvement thereof, while the “Utility model” shall refer to any new technical solution relating to a product’s shape, structure, or a combination thereof, which is fit for practical use. Despite both being the technical solution, the utility model only involves the aspect of shape, structure and other tangible solution, while the inner process or intangible solution, like molecular structure or pharmacy, is included in the invention. Therefore, the utility model shall be included in the invention, thus any invention could also be applied as the utility model.

READ MORE

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.

READ MORE

Patent Issues for Attention on the Exhibition in China

The international exhibitions give enterprises great opportunity to release new technology or new product, which can help enterprises draw much public attentions. While such exhibitions are also annoyed by the patent dispute with damages the enterprises expectations on the exhibition. Today, Bridge IP Law Commentary today will give our analysis on the issues related to the exhibition patent.

I. Showing in an exhibition won’t cause a patent product lossing novelty

The priority of the trademark on the exhibition has been analyzed in our past post, while as to the patent right, the exhibition attendance could not necessarily bring the priority. According to Article 24 of Paten Law in China:

“An invention-creation for which a patent is applied for does not lose its novelty where, within six months before the date of filing, one of the following events occurred: (1) where it was first exhibited at an international exhibition sponsored or recognized by the Chinese Government”.

READ MORE