Intellectual Property

Subscribe to Intellectual Property via RSS

By Susan Ning, Huang Jing and Angie Ng, King & Wood’s Competition Group

On 14 October 2010, the PRC National Copyright Administration (NCAC) published two pieces of regulations (the regulations) which govern the collection of copyright royalties for movies provided on the Internet, on flights and on public transport.(1)   Recently there have been concerns from internet cafes that these royalties are unreasonably high.(2)   There has also been some discussion in the press that these alleged “high” royalties could constitute an abuse of intellectual property rights, in breach of Article 55 of the Anti-Monopoly Law (AML).(3)Continue Reading Domestic Movie Royalties – Too High?

 By Kenneth Choy, Partner, King & Wood Hong Kong

Rhombus Hotel and Resorts is a Vancouver based group that owns and operates three boutique hotels in Hong Kong. They are planning to open a fourth one next year to be named “Hotel MO by Rhombus” that they described in their website as “a Modern and Outstanding boutique hotel” in the heart of the Western District in Hong Kong.  As part of the preparation for the hotel opening, they formed two Hong Kong companies, HOTEL MO LIMITED and HOTEL MO MANAGEMENT LIMITED. As they gear up for the opening, they encountered opposition from a major hotel group.Continue Reading Hotel Trademark Dispute in Hong Kong

 By Fu Haiying, Partner, King & Wood’s IP Department

On April 24, 2009, the Changsha Intermediate People’s Court (the "Court") made a judgment in Michelin Group vs. Tan Guoqiang and Ou Can. In this first instance, the Court ruled that the Defendants, tire dealers Tan Guoqiang and Ou Can, infringed upon the Plaintiff’s exclusive right to use the registered trademark, "MICHELIN & Device," by selling imported Japanese-made tires (targeting the Brazilian market) without consent from the trademark owner and without obtaining a Chinese Compulsory Product Certification ("3C Certification").Continue Reading Trademark Infringement in Parallel Importation

By Susan Ning, Huang Jing and Angie Ng, King & Wood’s Competition Practice

We understand that the SAIC is currently working on draft guidelines (the guidelines) which will shed light on how Article 55 of the Anti-Monopoly Law (AML) will be enforced. It has been reported in the press that the SAIC has published a 4th draft of these guidelines and are currently consulting with the relevant stakeholders (we understand that these drafts are not publicly available). Continue Reading IP rights and Antitrust – Awaiting Guidelines (and the Tsum-Sony Case)

By Wang Rui, Qiu Shaolin, and Duncan Hwang, King & Wood’s IP Practice

With the rapid growth of China’s online video gaming market, China has become a particularly appealing target market for both Chinese and foreign online game developers, particularly those developing Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games (MMORPG). In 2009, 35 imported online games obtained approval for release in China, and imported games have accounted for 38.8% of China’s CNY 25.8 billion online gaming industry.Continue Reading Issues Foreign Video Game Developers Face in Introducing Online Games to the Chinese Market

自去年年底以来，我们陆续收到一些外国企业有关中国”自主创新”政策的咨询，他们对该政策存有不少顾虑，担心这项政策会强迫其将知识产权转移到中国，或者会限制外国企业与中国本土企业的竞争，影响其在中国市场的经营。
…
Continue Reading 中国自主创新政策及其对外国知识产权所有人的影响

 By Peng Heyue,  King & Wood’s IP Department

Since the end of 2009, King & Wood has received regular requests from a number of foreign enterprises for advice on China’s ‘Indigenous Innovation’ Policy. These firms are concerned that the new policy will either force the transfer of their IP rights to China or will influence their business operations in the Chinese market by limiting their ability to compete with local domestic firms.

Continue Reading China’s Indigenous Innovation Policy and its Effect on Foreign Intellectual Property Rights Holders

By Meng Xianghai, King & Wood’s IP Department

Recently, an increasing number of opinions from the State Intellectual Property Office ("SIPO") indicate that applications for patent protection for some inventions do not fall under the scope provided in Paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the PRC Patent Law, which defines an "’invention’ as any new technical solution relating to a product, a process, or improvement thereof." Thus, to understand what inventions can be patented, numerous terms such as “technical solution” must be properly defined.Continue Reading Inventions Defined under PRC Patent Law

By Shi Yusheng and Xia Fan, King & Wood’s IP Litigation Department

The newly promulgated Tort Law of the People’s Republic of China came into force on July 1, 2010. The Tort Law, positions itself as a fundamental doctrine in the protection of one’s civil and property rights in China. Intellectual property rights, such as copyrights, patent rights, trademark rights, are included in the scope of protection under the Tort Law. Accordingly, relevant provisions of the Tort Law will have substantial impact on  IPR infringement. While there are many intersects, one major impact is discussed below.Continue Reading Impact of PRC Tort Law on IPR Infringement

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

The United States Supreme Court finally issued its decision on Bilski v. Kappos just before it shut down for the summer. As widely expected, the justices unanimously agreed that the Bilski claims are abstract ideas which are nonpatentable and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit properly rejected the claims. However, the court’s decision, authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, left many dissatisfied as it declined to clarify limitations on the patentability of business method claims. The high court simply rejected the Federal Circuit’s view that the machine-or-transformation test was the exclusive test for patentable process claims and instead, looked back to the last century, to its cases of Gottschalk v. Benson, (1972), Parker v. Flook, (1978) and Diamond v. Diehr, (1981) to find the “guideposts” and §100(b) the Patent Act for the definition of “process”.Continue Reading Bringing the U.S. patent regime closer to China’s? Bilski v. Kappos