(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:
You may click here for the simplified version of this post, if you feel the current one is too long to read.
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.
(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.
According to news reports, Microsoft along with Autodesk, filed a lawsuit in the Foshan Intermediate Court (note: the link is in Chinese) against a renowned company admitted in Foshan City, claiming computer software copyright infringement. The plaintiffs stated that the accused company had been using their software without any licenses or approvals. Based on this, the plaintiffs demanded compensation of RMB 8 million yuan, elimination of influence, cessation of infringement, and an apology. This case is not black and white and the court certainly has its own opinions, but today I would like to take this chance to discuss how to determine the legitimacy of evidence collection in cases of computer software infringement.
(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.
By Albert Chen
In an essay posted several days ago, we discussed how infringing another’s trade secret is a kind of unfair competition. Although the Anti Unfair Competition Law contains a definition of trade secret in principle, this definition is not very detailed, and there might still be a fair number of differences between understanding and actual practice. Today’s essay will share the author’s research and analysis on whether Chinese law contains any further regulations on the term “trade secret.”
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.