China Law Insight : China Law Insight: China Commercial and Intellectual Property Lawyers and Attorneys, Full Service Law Firm: King & Wood

1 Foreign Investment More Welcomed in Certain Sectors

According to China's economic development needs and planning goals, foreign investment in high-end manufacturing, high-tech, modern services, new energy, energy efficiency, outsourcing, and environmental protection industries will be welcomed while polluting or energy-gorging projects and industries running at overcapacity will not be as welcome. Based on the above guidelines, the Foreign Investment Industrial Guidelines Catalogue issued in 2007 will be revised.

In addition, foreign-funded projects in the “encouraged” category of China's foreign investment catalogue will benefit from lower land prices which will be discounted 30%. These policies are intended to facilitate China's continued economic growth by targeting foreign investment in industries higher up in the economic value chain and permit environmentally sustainability.

2 New Policies With Geographic Focus

Foreign enterprises are encouraged to increase investment in China's central and western regions with a particular focus on environmentally sound and labor-intensive businesses. This will be accomplished through tax incentives, policy support and in the development of streamlined procedures for foreign companies that relocate operations from the coastal regions to the center. Incentives will include potential matching funds, technical support, improved administration and other favorable policies. Based on revisions to the Foreign Investment Industrial Guidelines Catalogue, the Foreign Investment Dominant Industrial Catalogue in Central and Western Regions will be further revised.

3 More Open Domestic Capital Markets

Foreign investors are encouraged to participate and acquire domestic enterprises through restructuring or M&A. In particular foreign strategic investors are invited to participate in domestically listed companies, which used to be restricted for foreign investors. Foreign companies will also enjoy standardized and streamlined rules for investment in domestic securities and in corporate M&A moves. M&A transactions between foreign parties should become more streamlined, but a national security examination mechanism will also be established to review foreign M&A operations in China. Qualified foreign invested companies will also soon be allowed to list and issue corporate bonds or medium term notes in China.

4 Improved and Streamlined Operational Incentives

Multi-national companies will be encouraged to establish regional headquarters, R&D centers, financial management centers, and other critical management and operational centers in China. Imports for scientific and technological development from qualified R&D centers will be exempt from tariffs, import VAT and goods and services tax by the end of 2010 under the guidelines.

The approval procedures for foreign investment will be streamlined and the scope of approval and authorization will be reduced. Examination and approval competency for foreign investment will also continue to devolve to lower governmental levels whereby encouraged investment below $300 million for encouraged and permitted projects will be examined by local authorities rather than national ones. The devolution of approval competency for most projects will simplify and speed up the approval process for foreign investors.

In addition, the procedures on settlement of foreign exchange capital funds for foreign investment companies will be simplified. With respect to foreign investment companies operating legally but unable to meet their capital contributions requirements as a result of a tight budget, their deadlines for capital contributions may be extended.

Through these new guidelines, China reiterates its support for foreign investment and could be a response to some complaints that China was reversing its foreign investment policies in the wake of several high-profile matters involving Google and Rio Tinto. These guidelines widen market access to foreign investors and better direct the inflow of foreign capital while also improving China's global competitiveness and promoting more efficient foreign investment into economically vital areas. Naturally detailed rules to implement these initiatives are still to come out.
 

Please note that this entry is provided for general information only and may not be used as a substitute for legal consultation.
 

These included the establishment of the following:

• Hong Kong Science & Technology Parks
• Hong Kong Applied Science and Technology Research Institute
• Various funding schemes managed by the Innovation and Technology Commission

The main location of the Hong Kong Science Parks located at Pak Shek Kok - now comprising around a dozen state-of-the-art multi-story buildings under its first two phases of construction - stands as a visible testimony to Hong Kong's attempt to put itself on the yellow brick road of innovation and technology. In addition to established tech companies and R&D facilities, its current occupants include some 100 startup companies under its incubation program. Since the program's inception, more than 200 incubatees have graduated.

The Hong Kong Applied Science and Technology Research Institute (“ASTRI”), modeled after the successful Industrial Technology Research Institute (“ITRI”) of Taiwan, was established in 2000 and is engaged in mid-stream R&D in IC designs, communications technologies, enterprise & consumer electronics, and material & packaging technologies. At the end of 2008, ASTRI employed more than 340 researchers.

The Innovation and Technology Commission is an executive government body under the Communications and Technology Branch of the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau. It manages various government innovation and technology funds focused on helping local businesses in the relevant sectors. Among various funding schemes pertinent to startup financing, is the Small Entrepreneur Research Assistance Program (“SERAP”), which provides pre-VC stage financing to startups.

In addition to the above initiatives, the government has had a long-standing policy to invest substantially in higher education. Despite its relatively small size, Hong Kong has eight universities, some of which have won academic acclaim worldwide and are highly ranked in selected fields. Universities in Hong Kong have regularly achieved breakthroughs and successes in their research efforts. Many made significant efforts to commercialize their research results.

In April 2009, based on the recommendation of a government appointed economic advisory committee, Chief Executive Donald Tsang announced that Hong Kong should focus on and encourage businesses in six major industrial areas where Hong Kong is believed to have competitive advantages. These areas include innovation and technology, the cultural and creative industry and the environmental industry.

Some critics charge that much more could have been done by the government to help innovation and technology based entrepreneurial pursuits. None would dispute that the policies now in place, however, are vast improvements compared with the virtual absence of government support under the so-called “Positive Non-interventionist” policies of the pre-1997 British administrations.
 

B. IPRs and abuse of dominance

Article 55 also subjects the exercise of IPRs to the abuse of dominance conduct rule (Article 17 of the AML). This is similar to the approaches of the competition laws of the US, Singapore, EU and Australia.

The key phrase is “abusing… intellectual property rights”. However, this phrase has not been defined in the AML.

This phrase, is, however used in Article 40 of the World Trade Organisation’s (WTO) Agreement on Trade Related aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). Article 40(2) may shed some light in relation to the AML phrase “abuse of intellectual property rights”:
“…nothing in this Agreement shall prevent Members from specifying in their legislation licensing practices or conditions that may in particular cases constitute an abuse of intellectual property rights having an adverse effect on competition in the relevant market …a Member may [however] adopt, consistently with the other provisions of this Agreement, appropriate measures to prevent or control such practices, which may include for example exclusive grantback conditions, conditions preventing challenges to validity and coercive package licensing, in the light of the relevant laws and regulations of that Member.”

China acceded to the WTO in 2001 and as such has an obligation to comply with all WTO agreements including TRIPS. In paragraph 286 of the Report of the Working Party on the Accession of China, some members of the Working Party expressed some concern as to the compatibility of China's rules on control of anti-competitive licensing practices or conditions with the corresponding obligations under Article 40 of TRIPS. Notably, the representative of China stated in response that China's legislation would comply with these obligations. The representative of China stated that these rules would apply across the board to all intellectual property rights. The Working Party on the Accession of China took note of this commitment. Hence, there is some suggestion that Article 55 of the AML may not stray too far from Article 40(2) of TRIPS.

On October 11, 2007, the European Communities raised the following question with China during a WTO Council for TRIPS meeting: “…[t]he EC welcomes the recently adopted Chinese Anti-Monopoly Law. This new legislation refers to the concept of ‘abuse of intellectual property rights’ in particular in Article 55. Can China clarify what this concept means in practice? Can China confirm that this concept does not go beyond what the TRIPS Agreement considers as abusive practices under Article 31(k) (compulsory licensing) and Article 40 (competition)?” This question may be indicative of concerns from other WTO members as to whether China will ignore Article 40 of the TRIPS Agreement when defining the term “abuse of intellectual property rights”.

Dominant entities exercising IPRs may still have to be concerned about the following provisions: (a) the prohibition against refusal to deal (without justification) ; (b) the prohibition against exclusive dealing (without justification) ; (c) the prohibition against tying ; and (d) the prohibition against applying differential treatment to parties . In a typical IP licence, it is common to find tying and exclusive dealing provisions. It is also common for IPR owners to refuse to deal with certain entities for various reasons.

Given that no guidelines or regulations have been issued in relation to the AML, there is much uncertainty as to how the dominance provisions (or the rest of the other provisions) of the AML will operate.

In relation to Article 55, the following questions arise: Should dominant entities (exercising IPRs) be subject to the same competition scrutiny as dominant entities selling other goods or services? Or would Chinese competition regulators apply a different standard in relation to IP licences and assignments, in recognition of the fact that IP differs from all other forms of property? Does the Chinese government intend for there to be transitional provisions in relation to the AML? Will the AML apply to IP licences and assignments entered into after 1 August 2008 (the date in which the AML will come into effect) or will it apply retrospectively to IP licences and assignments entered into before 1 August 2008?

C. The Article 15 “improving technology, research and new products” exception

If entities are somehow not able to get their IP related agreements exempt from the AML pursuant to Article 55, then there is a possibility that these agreements may be exempt pursuant to Article 15. Specifically, Article 15 of the AML exempts certain categories of agreements from the “monopoly agreements” conduct rule (located in Article 13 and 14). However, it is important to note that Article 15 does not exempt an agreement from the abuse of dominant position conduct rule (located in Article 17).

The most relevant Article 15 exemption in relation to IP related agreements is the “improving technology, research and new products” exception located in Article 15(1). Specifically, Article 15(1) exempts agreements made “for the purpose of improving technology, researching and developing new products” from the monopoly agreements conduct rule.

The EU has a similar exemption in the form of a block exemption entitled “categories of research and development agreements”. However, in order for an agreement to fall under the EU block exemption, there are several conditions which need to be fulfilled, including the condition that, if the agreement only provides for joint research and development but excludes joint exploitation of the results, then each party conducting the research must be free to exploit the results and any necessary pre-existing know-how independently. In addition, agreements exempt under this block exemption are immune from competition law only for a limited period of time (usually 7 years) and the market share of the participant undertakings must not exceed a particular threshold (for non-competing undertakings, the threshold is 25%).

It is unclear whether the Article 15 exemption will apply in a similar way as the EU’s “categories of research and development agreements” block exemption.

There are still many grey areas to iron out in relation to Article 55 and Article 15 of the AML. Hopefully guidelines or regulations, which are able to shed light on some of the issues and questions above, will be issued before the AML comes into effect.