日本の『発明』誌は、9月号において、金杜法律事務所知的財産グループの責任者を務めるパートナー弁護士・弁理士の王茂華にスペシャルインタビューを行った。王は、そのキャリアを踏まえ、中国知財分野の概況、知財強国建設に向けた中国の政策、中国のビジネス環境を改善するための知財関連法令の整備、知財裁判の典型事例・最新動向について詳細に紹介した。今年の上半期は、新型コロナウイルスの流行や中米貿易対立といった不安要素が多い中、中国の知財市場は相変わらず活況を呈している。詳細は以下をご覧いただきたい。
Continue Reading 王茂華氏に聞く―中国知財事情―

As a typical experimental science, the predictability in the field of biotechnology is quite low. In patent examination, there are often some disputes over the predictability of technical effects. For example, the examiner may hold that the technical effects of the invention are unpredictable and the claims cannot be supported by the specification. Or, on the contrary, when there are only theoretical teachings or only general technical demand without specific technical questions, the examiner may believe that the prior art provides a motivation and the technical effect can be reasonably expected. However, this relatively subjective opinion cannot be successfully rebutted without solid evidence. The following are just a few examples to illustrate the above situation.
Continue Reading Strategies and Suggestions for Patent Applications in the Hot Field of Biotechnology

On July 22, 2020, Shanghai Higher People’s Court (“SHC”) issued its final judgment on an inventor remuneration dispute between Chen and Company A (“Company A”), and ordered the defendant to pay inventor remuneration to the plaintiff in an amount of RMB 150,000. This case follows another case decided by SHC in 2015 – Zhang v. Company B (“Company B”), where SHC restated the principle that a mutual contract or a lawful reward and remuneration policy overrides the default legal scheme, and granted a discretionary award for the inventor-employee after review of lawfulness and reasonableness and consideration of all relevant factors. This note is an overview of Company A and the current law and practices ended with our recommendations to employers.
Continue Reading Notes on a Recent Inventor Remuneration Dispute

作为典型的试验学科,生物技术领域可预见性低,在专利审查中常常出现针对技术效果可预期程度的争议,例如,审查员可能主张发明的技术效果是无法预期的从而权利要求得不到说明书的支持,或者相反,在本领域仅存在原理性的教导或不具有具体指向的普遍技术需求的情况下,认为现有技术给出了改进动机,且技术效果能够合理预期。而这种相对主观的审查意见在没有确实的证据的情况下却很难成功反驳。
Continue Reading 热点生物技术领域专利申请策略与建议(2)

2020年7月22日,上海市高级人民法院(“上海高院”)就陈某诉A公司职务发明人、设计人奖励、报酬纠纷一案作出终审判决(以下简称“A公司案”),判令被告向原告支付职务发明报酬人民币15万元。该案是继曾在2015年引起广泛关注的张某等诉B公司职务发明人、设计人奖励、报酬纠纷案(“B公司案”)之后,上海高院再次明确了约定优先原则,在对员工与用人单位关于职务发明报酬约定进行合法性和合理性审查后,综合案件事实确定报酬金额。本文结合相关法律规定及案例,对法院审理职务发明报酬纠纷案件的思路进行回顾,并提出对于用人单位的建议。
Continue Reading 简评陈某诉A公司职务发明报酬纠纷案

今年国家知识产权局公布的2019年度专利复审·无效十大案件中,有3件是化学、医药领域的发明专利无效案。这些案件因其社会影响较大、焦点问题具有典型性而入选十大案,国家知识产权局复审无效部在这些具体案件中的认定对于未来的实体审查和无效审判会有较大影响,在类似案件中也可援引和活用。我们在此对这3件发明专利无效案件及其焦点问题进行介绍。
Continue Reading 2019年度专利复审·无效十大案件介绍

This article provides an overview of some issues related to properly valuing damages in US patent litigation, including identifying on common challenge to the quantification of patent damages based on valuing technology beyond the scope of the patented invention, and how the use of the cost savings approach to patent damages valuation can make a damages expert’s opinion more robust and less susceptible to such a challenge.
Continue Reading Valuing Patented Inventions in Litigation

本文概述了美国专利诉讼中如何正确确定损害赔偿额的相关问题,包括指出根据发明专利范围外的技术估值来量化专利损害赔偿常会遭受的质疑,在确定专利损害赔偿额时如何使用成本节约法使损害赔偿专家的意见更具说服力,不易遭受超范围计算损害赔偿的质疑。
Continue Reading 诉讼中如何确定发明专利的价值

Recently, the Anti-Monopoly Guidelines for the Intellectual Property (“IP Guidelines”) was published in the Collection of Antitrust Regulations and Guidelines in 2019 released by the Anti-Monopoly Bureau of the State Administration for Market Regulation (“SAMR”).  Previously, the National Development & Reform Committee (“NDRC”), Ministry of Commerce (“MOFCOM”), State Administration of Industry and Commerce (“SAIC”) and the State Intellectual Property Office were designated by the Anti-Monopoly Committee of the State Council (“AMC”) to prepare drafts of the anti-monopoly guidelines on the abuse of intellectual property.  In February 2017, the Anti-Monopoly Guidelines on the Abuse of Intellectual Property (Draft for Comments) (“Draft for Comments”) was completed based upon the aforementioned four drafts and was issued for public comment.  On January 4, 2019, with the approval of the AMC, the IP Guidelines was officially promulgated.
Continue Reading China’s IP Antitrust Guidelines Released to the Public