China Law Insight : China Business and Intellectual Property Lawyers & Attorneys : King & Wood Law Firm : IP, Arbitration, Litigation, Securities, Foreign Investment

By Jiang Ling, Partner, King & Wood's Trademark Department

The term "works" used and protected under the Copyright Law refers to original intellectual creations in the literary, artistic and the scientific domain, in so far as they are capable of being reproduced in a certain tangible form. As for literal works, this refers to the works manifested in text form, no matter how long it is or what type or format of literature it uses. As long as it is original, it should be within the scope of protection by the PRC Copyright Law (as well as Trademarks as previously discussed). Therefore, it can be concluded that an advertising slogan is in principle not excluded from copyright protection on the condition that it is original. However, the Copyright Law does not define what "original" is. Judging by judicial practice, the expression of original works may not necessarily be unprecedented, and re-creation based on previous intellectual works of others is not forbidden either. In general, works possess originality as long as it is created by the author independently rather than plagiarizing others' works which bears some personalized characteristics. Thus, it is possible for slogans to be copyrighted.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

By Kenneth Choy, Partner, Corporate, King & Wood–Hong Kong

Hong Kong's Financial Secretary, the Hon. John C Tsang, gave his annual budget speech Wednesday, February 24th. Buried in the 178 paragraph speech on the 2010-2011 Budget Report were two paragraphs relating to intellectual property rights. The issues mentioned by the Financial Secretary may benefit inventors and high-tech start ups.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

By Kenneth Choy, Partner, Corporate, King & Wood–Hong Kong

The World Intellectual Property Organization, also known as WIPO, recently disclosed the number of international patent applications filed under its Patent Cooperation Treaty (“PCT”) for 2009. A copy of the release, entitled International Patent Filings Dip in 2009 Downturn (PR/2010/6), may be downloaded here. While the total number of PCT applications filed for the year was down compared to 2008, filings by applicants from East Asian countries actually grew with Japan, Korea and China ranking among the top five filing countries. Although the number of applications from the United States dropped by more than 11% to 45,700 applications, it still held its place on top of the rankings. Japan (2), Korea (4) and China (5) accounted for 45,839 PCT applications in 2009, about 30% of total filings

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

By Jiang Ling, Partner, King & Wood's Trademark Department

Concise and vivid advertising slogans quickly draw the public's attention and are integral to a company's brand. Over years of use and promotion, some slogans have become well-known to the public, such as Nike's "Just do it",  Adidas' "Impossible is nothing" and DeBeers'  "Diamonds are forever." In many ways, such slogans are often no less important than the company's logo and other marks. As such, companies must figure how to protect and prevent the unlicensed use of their advertising slogans. Accomplishing this in China presents a unique set of considerations.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

By Kenneth Choy, Partner, Corporate, King & Wood – Hong Kong

“Chow Sang Sang” (周生生) is a successful and well recognized name in the jewelry business. The name in Chinese has an auspicious meaning of “continuous growth” or “endless vitality of the Chow family”.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

King & Wood's IP Legal Group in Beijing

The Domain Name Dispute Settlement Center of CIETAC was established in December, 2000, and began operation on July, 2005, as the Internet Disputes Settlement Center. This Center accepts cases including cybersquatting of domain names (disputes on Chinese domain names, e.g. ".cn", and top-level general domain name, e.g.".com"), cybersquatting of general websites, wireless websites, text message websites, etc.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

By Kenneth Choy, Partner, Intellectual Property, King & Wood - Hong Kong

Last month, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the closely followed case of Bilski v. Kappos, 08-964. The case concerns a patent application for hedging risk in commodities trading. Both the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected the claims. In reaching its decision, the Federal Circuit ruled that to be eligible for a patent, a process claim must be tied to a particular machine or it must transform an article into a different state or thing. The court said that this ‘machine or transformation’ test is the only test for determining patent eligibility of process claims.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In patent prosecution, an examiner often mentions the term "common knowledge" when evaluating a step forward in an invention, as one cannot patent common knowledge. Common knowledge in the IP sense is generally a fact known or ought to be known to one skilled in the art and can be applied by such a person to solve specific technical problems. Common knowledge can also be a technical means that is most likely to be considered and applied by one skilled in the relevant technical field when working on solutions to specific technical problems. As China's Guidelines for Patent Examination (the "Guidelines") do not provide a clear definition for "common knowledge", the examiner and the applicant or the applicant's attorney often disagree on what is common knowledge in a particular patent dispute.

By Chen Wei, Partner at King & Wood's Intellectual Property Group

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Malicious litigation is broadly thought to be using a legal right to litigate to protect an interest when no substantive right has been violated. Currently, Chinese law does not provide any specific provisions on how to determine whether a party has abused its right to litigate, nor does the law define the concept of malicious litigation. Moreover, Chinese law does not provide specific remedies for a victim of malicious litigation to repair the damages suffered from a malicious litigation.

By Xu Jing, Partner at King & Wood's Intellectual Property Group

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

China's rapid economic development and its emerging middle class allow franchises to operate in China under the following model:

The franchisor
• owns a well-known brand with a global reputation;
• has a strong desire to expand its brand in China;
• currently lacks sufficient capital and the traditional franchising model is no longer suitable to support such expansion.

The franchisee:
• has a well-developed distribution network;
• already owns second-line brands for the same or similar products which have already established certain market share in China;
• has ready capital and other operational resources.

By Cecilia Lou, Partner at King & Wood's Intellectual Property Group

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Once a friend of mine visited Shanghai and asked me to recommend some quick restaurants. After listing a few options, I realized that he was not interested in them as he just wanted to find a simple restaurant providing real Shanghai cuisine. It dawned on me that, we were surrounded by national and international franchised stores with standardized products and services which often provide little local flavor. Franchising is ubiquitous in China, and not just the fast food chains.

 By Cecilia Lou, Partner at King & Wood's Intellectual Property Group

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

Traditionally civil, administrative and criminal IPR cases have been heard by the Intellectual Property, Administrative and Criminal Divisions of the courts, respectively. For instance, both the IPR Tribunals and the Administrative Tribunals of the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People’s courts were entitled to exercise jurisdiction over IPR administrative cases involving patent and trademark rights grants and determinations. The issue is that different divisions may apply different criteria to the same case.

Xu Jing & Zhang Hairuo, IP Litigation, King & Wood

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Supreme People's Court promulgated the “Interpretation on the Application of the Law Concerning Several Issues Regarding the Trials of Civil Disputes Relating to the Protection of Famous Trademarks” on April 23, 2009. This Interpretation clarifies what constitutes “famous” trademarks in China.

Xu Jing, Partner, IP Litigation

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On April 21, 2009, China’s Supreme People's Court promulgated its “Opinion on Several Issues Concerning Trials of IP Cases to Serve the Public Interest under the Current Economic Environment” In this Opinion, the Supreme People's Court first clarifies that injunctive relief should not necessarily be granted in all intellectual property infringement cases. Under certain circumstances, the Court stated that an award of reasonable or sufficient damages can be an effective substitute for claims of injunctive relief.

Xu Jing, Partner, Intellectual Property

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks

The third amendment of the Patent Law of the People’s Republic of China (“New Patent Law”) was passed on December 27th 2008, and will come into effect on October 1st 2009. The New Patent Law will impact the legal administration of and court rulings on patents as follows:

A、Affirmed the "Plea of Free Prior Art"

The New Patent Law expressly affirms the “plea of prior art” concept that has frequently been raised in patent infringement law suits. Prior to this, the court was very cautious in applying such a principle due to the lack of a fully recognized legal basis. However, the specific conditions and standards for its use, which have been widely debated among professionals, have not yet been clarified. For example, whether this concept is only applicable to literal infringement cases, or does it also apply to equivalent infringement cases. We look forward to having a unified resolution through judicial interpretation in the future. This change enables quick closures to cases which were filed maliciously and lacking solid grounds.
 

Mia Qu/Melody Shi/Nick Wang of King & Wood's Patents Practice

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

The Chinese legislature created a hybrid from the different approaches adopted by civil and common law jurisdictions through the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China (the “Copyright Law") and the Regulations on the Implementation of the Copyright Law of the People’s Republic of China (the“Implementation Regulations"), and produced the twin concepts of “legal entity work” and “occupational work” for assigning rights to works made in the course of an employment relationship. For example, a book written by a group of employees organized by an entertainment company for celebrating the company's anniversary would likely be considered “legal entity work”, but a piece of music composed by a composer employee (not for specific purposes) is “occupational work”, because in the former case, supervision of the company would be involved but the latter case it would not.

Being able to draw a clear line between “legal entity work” and “occupational work” is crucial during a due diligence investigation in terms of copyrighted materials in employment relationships- ascertaining an accurate chain of title from the author turns out to be a thorny issue. Though these two types of works are seemingly similar, the attribution of the copyright ownership between a legal entity employer and an employee is critical. Though the determination of “legal entity work” and “occupational work” can be extremely confusing, neither the legislatures nor judicial organs have ever promulgated any guidance. Thus far, only the National Copyright Administration of the People’s Republic of China (the “NCA") has expressed its viewpoints on this matter in the circular “Reply to the Liaoning Tieling Mediate Court Regarding How to Determine Legal Entity Work and Occupational Work” (the “NCA Circular”), which however does not have judicial binding force.
 

Wang Rui, Partner, International Trade

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

As 2009 begins and the economic crisis has hit most major markets globally, the Supreme People's Court of the People’s Republic of China (“Supreme Court”) is studying how to adjust judicial policy on intellectual property rights (“IPRs”). The new policies will outline developing trends in the legal protection of IPR in China that may occur this year:

1. Increasing Compensation for Infringement on Intellectual Property Rights

Recently, the Supreme Court has stressed on various occasions that the court shall adopt flexible and practical methods to calculate the damages awarded in cases concerning infringement on IPRs in order to adequately compensate rights owners, negate illegal profits collected by the infringement, and truly raise the costs for infringement; the reasonable expenses of the right owners incurred while enforcing their lawful rights shall be reimbursed. When statutory compensation is applied, the compensation for the expenses incurred by the rights owners while enforcing their lawful rights shall be calculated separately, rather than be included in the statutory compensation. The current applicable maximum amount for statutory compensation in China is RMB 500,000（though the maximum amount has already been raised to RMB 1million in the third revised PRC Patent Law promulgated on December 27, 2008 which will come into effect on October 1, 2009）, which includes the allowance for expenses incurred. Due to the difficulty in producing evidence when seeking compensation and that the statutory compensation is non-substantial, the absence of sufficient and adequate compensation is a common problem faced by right owners. This issue could addressed in 2009.
 

Mia Qu, Bessie Ye, Nick Wang of King & Wood's Intellectual Property Group

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Australia has had a range of general and sector-specific privacy laws for 20 years. At the Federal level, the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) initially regulated the way in which Commonwealth agencies dealt with the personal information of Australians. The scope of the Privacy Act was expanded to also cover the handling of individuals' credit information and, more broadly in 2001, to cover all private sector organisations and the way in which they collect, use and disclose personal information. Individual States and Territories of Australia also have specific privacy laws that regulate the way State-based agencies deal with personal information, and laws relating to privacy are also found in a variety of legislative contexts.

The result is that Australia has a myriad of privacy-related laws at different levels of Australian Government covering an often overlapping range of issues. This situation was one of the drivers behind a substantive review by the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) into Australia's privacy laws.
 

By Michelle Rowland, Sarah Alderson of the Communications & Technology Group of Gilbert + Tobin.
 

Kalley Chen, Dai Chen and Xu Zifeng, of King & Wood.

King & Wood established a strategic alliance with Gilbert + Tobin in November 2007.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

According to the fundamental principles of Chinese courts concerning software resale, the resalability of software under different sales models may also be different.

A. Traditional sales model

Under the traditional model, the supplier sells to their clients a CD-Rom or floppy disk containing the software and enters into an agreement with the clients on the scope of license.

This model involves three relationships:

1) The transfer of ownership of the medium carrying the software ;

2) The transfer of the copy of the software; and

3) The licensing of copyright.

 

Among these issues, the transfer of ownership of the hard copy is subject to property law, while the transfer of the copies of the software falls into the category of exercising the distribution right by the right owners under the Copyright Law, and the licensing of the copyrighted software relates to the defined licensing relationship between the copyright owner and the user under the Copyright Law.

As the sale of software sold under the said model is completed by transferring of the ownership of the medium containing the software, the doctrine of exhaustion of rights is applicable to this model. In practice, software can be resold without the consent of the copyright holder.

Xu Jing, Partner and Zhao Ye, Associate, IP Litigation

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In recent years, second hand trading of software has experienced substantial growth and the legal issues involved in such transactions have also caught the eyes of the players in the industry. Generally, the legality of software resale is decided by whether the distribution rights of the copyright owners are exhausted upon the transaction. However, it is difficult to decide when a transaction should be regarded as "licensing" and when the transaction should be deemed as a "sale". As the number of software resale cases brought before the courts increases, the courts' understanding of the nature of software trading develops. Various jurisdictions have formed their own approach on differentiating an act of sale from that of licensing.

Common copyrighted products such as books or CDs can be resold because most countries adapt the "doctrine of exhaustion of distribution rights" in their copyright law, namely once a copyright owner publicly distributes his/her original work or the copies of such work by way of "sale" or "gifting", the distribution right will be deemed exhausted and the owner may not reclaim such right.

Xu Jing, Partner and Zhao Ye, Associate, IP Litigation

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

In recent years, search engine providers, P2P website or other Internet service providers are often challenged in the courts by content owners. While the legal actions brought by international record companies are constant headaches for major Chinese search engine providers, including Baidu, Yahoo and Sogou, international search engine giants like Google and YouTube have also been struggling to resolve various lawsuits internationally.

These cases raise the same issues for legislators and judges in all jurisdictions -- how to evaluate the business models of Internet Service Providers or Online Service Providers ("ISPs" or "OSPs", collectively "ISPs") and the responsibilities and obligations for copyright protection of the ISPs?

In 2007, the US Ninth Circuit Court of the State of California rendered its judgment for Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill LLC. The California Court granted CCBill LLC immunity under the Safe Harbor Principle on the ground that the notice for removal sent by Perfect 10, Inc. failed to provide sufficient information and could not be deemed as effective notice. The intention of the US Congress when adopting the Safe Harbor Principle was to ensure that liabilities are shared fairly between the parties by requiring the copyright owner to bear the burden of proving the existence of infringement.  These safe harbor provisions are designed to shelter service providers from the infringing activities of their customers. The California Court's decision has been interpreted by US legal professionals as another affirmation of the application of "Safe Harbor Principle" to ISPs.
 

He Wei, Partner and Wang Yaxi, Associate, Intellectual Property

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

There has been a great deal of media coverage in China in the past weeks regarding the impact of Microsoft’s making available its Windows Genuine Advantage (hereafter, “WGA”) to users with Chinese language versions of Windows operating systems. For users going to Microsoft for many of its software updates (excluding some security updates), a validation is required where WGA would notify the user if unlicensed Microsoft Windows software was found on the user’s computer. Microsoft contends that WGA has been made available to warn users of the presence of unlicensed software and to give them the opportunity to purchase licensed software which would then allow them to have the benefits associated with said software, such as product support and ongoing software updates.

Shi Yusheng, Partner, IP Litigation

Mr. Shi Yusheng has also discussed this issue recently on CCTV - 9's Dialogue

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

Under the United Nation's Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), “developed country Parties should provide new and additional financial resources to support the transfer of technology and take all practical steps to promote, facilitate and finance the transfer of, or access to, environmentally sound technologies and know how to developing country Parties.” However, a UNFCCC report revealed that a large portion of developing nations do not take advantage of CDM projects to import technology.
 

As long as technology transfer from developed countries is a convenient low-cost means for China to reduce GHG emissions, why doesn't China have more CDM projects that involve technology transfer? [continue reading to see our analysis]
 

Wang Rui, Partner, International Trade

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

At first glance, the goals of intellectual property law and competition law might appear to conflict. IPR owners are granted statutory rights to control access and charge monopoly rents to others for use of their rights. IPR owners may also use terms of IPR licences to regulate downstream activities of their distributors, such as imposing exclusivity, territorial restraints and price restraints. Competition law, on the other hand, is directed at curtailing such market power which may prove harmful to economic welfare.

 However, IP laws and competition laws can also be seen as complementary rather than antagonistic. Both laws share the same fundamental goals of enhancing consumer welfare and promoting innovation. According to the United States (US) Department of Justice (DoJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) :

 “…[competition] laws protect robust competition in the marketplace, while intellectual property laws protect the ability to earn a return on the investments necessary to innovate. Both spur competition among rivals to be the first to enter the marketplace with a desirable technology, product, or service.”

 While an IPR may confer a “legal monopoly” over a product, process or work, it does not necessarily confer an “economic monopoly”. Further, while an IP license may well confer restraints on licensees (such as territorial restraints) with respect to a specific product, process or work, there may be sufficient actual or potential close substitutes that constrain the exercise of market power by the IPR owner.

 Despite the view that the goals of IP and competition laws are complementary, difficult questions can arise when competition law is applied to specific activities involving IPRs.

A. China's AML:  Article 55

 The IPR provision in the AML is set out in Article 55:

“This law shall not apply to the conduct of operators to exercise their intellectual property rights in accordance with the laws and relevant administrative regulations on intellectual property rights; however, this law shall apply to the conduct of operators to eliminate or restrict market competition by abusing their intellectual property rights.”

 Article 55 exempts conduct which amounts to an exercise of IPRs so long as:  those IPRs are exercised in accordance with the provisions of laws and administrative regulations relating to IPRs; and the conduct does not amount to an abuse of IPRs by eliminating or restricting competition.

 The Article 55 approach is very similar to the approaches in Australia and Canada. In both these countries, there has been debate about when the IPR owner is only fairly exercising their inherent rights in the IPR or is trying to achieve something more which has an anti-competitive outcome. Experiences in both countries show that this dividing line can be difficult to draw.

* Angie Ng is a graduate in the Competition and Regulatory Group at Gilbert + Tobin in Sydney, Australia.

** Ding Liang is of counsel for King & Wood's International Trade Practice in Beijing.

*** Peter Waters is a partner in the Competition and Regulatory Group at Gilbert + Tobin in Sydney, Australia.

King & Wood established a strategic alliance with Gilbert + Tobin in November 2007.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On May 26, 2008, the China Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (“TRAB”) of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (SAIC) made a decision in favor of Changyu Winery Group, upholding its exclusive use of the mark “cabernet” in Chinese （“解百纳”） as a registered trademark. The decision further found that Changyu established “解百纳”  as one of its trademarks through its use and did not consider “解百纳” the generic name for these cabernet grape varieties.  This means other wineries such as China Great Wall Winery, Dynasty Fine Wines Group Limited and Yantai Weilong Grape Wine Co. are prohibited from using the mark “解百纳", which may certainly cause damage to these wine makers in marketing their products.

This dispute mainly focuses on the following two issues:

1. Whether “解百纳” directly indicates the main raw materials and the characteristics of the products and accordingly should be considered a generic term for certain wine products;

2. Whether Changyu obtained the characters “解百纳” through its long term use.

Ting Xu, Associate, Trademark Department

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

As China's economic and social presence on electronic forms of communication continues to develop and expand, the country's regulatory bodies are stepping up to the challenge to keep pace with the new developments.  We are lucky to have Dr. Martin Cave, Professor and Director of the Centre for Management under Regulation, Warwick Business School, to provide us his comments on the hot topics of Technology and the Internet.

When asked about his key areas of interest, he commented that he was particularly interested in “reform and liberalisation of the radio spectrum, which can support the amazing growth of voice and broadband wireless technologies we have seen in the past decade.” He went on to discuss how the standard model in Europe and the United States, which “relies on maximising competition and reducing regulation to the minimum, with a relatively small role for government policy and government subsidy” differs significantly from models in Asian countries where “government policy is a much stronger driver.”

Interviewed by Serwat Perwaiz, Editor of King & Wood's Publication Group

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

There are Risks in Participating in the Formation of Standards.

On July 8, 2008, when China's Supreme Court addressed the question raised by the Liao Ning High People's Court arising from a patent infringement dispute, it stated, “If a patentee participates in the formulation of the Standard or agrees to incorporate its patented technology into the National Standard, the Industrial Standard and/or the Local Standard, it shall be deemed as the patentee authorizing other parties to exploit the patent for the purpose of conforming to the standards. The exploitation by the said parties may not constitute patent infringement as specified under Article 11 of the Patent Law.” 
 

How can this impact your patent in China? 

Xu Jing, Partner at King & Wood's IP Litigation Practice

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Successfully handling rejection reviews, based on a prior similar mark, in the past has proven difficult.  Rather than simply giving up registration of an important trademark, recent China Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (TRAB) decisions indicate that an effective alternative for applicants is trying to reach a co-existence agreement with the owner of the cited mark.  If there is a slight difference between the preliminarily rejected trademark and the cited mark, and the marks do not cover identical goods or services, a co-existence agreement could become “a must” for overcoming a preliminary official rejection.

Recently we received a favorable decision for a client from the TRAB on a trademark rejection review. Since the rejected trademark and the cited mark differed only in one of ten letters and the two marks also covered similar goods, we expected the board to reaffirm the previous rejection based on Chinese trademark examination criteria. The obvious deciding factor resulting in a favorable review was the Co-existence Agreement entered into by our client with the owner of the cited mark. The co-existence agreement in essence consented to the registration and use of the trademark by our client in China.

Written by Zhu Fangjin, Associate, Trademark Group

• Email This
• Print

The recent decision by the Beijing Higher People's Court revoking the Patent Reexamination Board (PRB) invalidation Decision of Pfizer's Viagra Patent in China has put an indefinite end to a drawn out battle between domestic drug companies and Pfizer. This case, while not firmly establishing any foundation for patent examinations, has revealed many of the risks associated for all parties in proceeding into a legal dispute regarding patents in China.

At the heart of this dispute was the reexamination of Pfizer's patent for Viagra. The courts revoked the invalidation decision with respect to the Viagra Patent and as a result, the PRB was requested to render a new decision on the validity of Viagra patent. The judgment was final, but I believe that the grounds for the rulings are highly debatable.

The final ruling does not provide new reasoning for why the Viagra Patent application satisfies the requirements set forth in the Patent Law, it simply repeats the Intermediate Court's previous ruling and leaves me unconvinced.  Although the Guidelines on Patent Examination ("Guidelines") provides no specific provisions regarding the necessity of identifying specific compounds used in the pharmacology tests in a patent application, a clear and complete description of an invention is the basic requirement for the patent specifications. At the very least, the specifications should be consistent and self-explanatory. In this case, the applicants only provided one pharmacology test result and failed to specify the specific compound used in performing the test. It is impossible for the technicians in the industry to identify the relevant compounds to be used. If tests cannot be reproduced, then there are serious issues with the patent.

It is reasonable to say that the specification of the subject patent application did not satisfy the requirements of "providing clear and complete description of invention features".
The final judgment reflects more or less a compromise between the Chinese and the US governments. As China is not a country that follows precedent, this has no practical significance for future patent drafting and examinations. I recommend that patent applicants, especially foreign applicants, should not be influenced too much by this court decision. Instead, patent applicants shall always provide clear specifications regarding the compounds applied in the pharmacology test in their patent specifications, as there won't be political compromises between governments for every patent. The viagara decision should be considered a stand alone ruling.

Written Yang Hongjun, Partner

CONTINUE READING... 
CONTINUE READING IN CHINESE...中文 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks