澳大利亚拥有大量知识产权法律,能够保护与大多数数商业活动相关的品牌和创意。在澳大利亚,受保护知识产权的主要形式包括商标、版权、专利和设计。这一体系由澳大利亚联邦政府下属机构知识产权局负责规管。 Continue Reading 在澳大利亚经商 | 品牌保护

by Ni Zhenhua(Ben)  King & Wood Mallesons

On 1 January 2019, the Supreme People’s Court (“SPC”) officially established an appellate-level intellectual property tribunal (“SPC IP Tribunal”), which is somewhat similar to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in terms of its function and role, in accordance with the Decision of the Standing Committee of National People’s Congress on Several Issues Concerning Litigation Procedures of Patent and other IP Cases dated 26 October 2018.  This SPC IP Tribunal will be subject to a pilot period of 3 years and centralize jurisdiction over appeals involving patent infringement/invalidation and other high-tech or antitrust IP disputes.  On 27 December 2018, the SPC issued the Provisions on Several Issues of the IP Tribunal to further elaborate on its jurisdiction, functions and working modes.  This article aims to provide a brief introduction to this SPC IP Tribunal in these aspects. Continue Reading China Established a Centralized IP Appellate Tribunal

作者:楼仙英 傅广锐 李琳虹 金杜律师事务所

在对前景知识产权完全归属一方的安排不能达成一致的情况下,很多合作方选择简单约定由双方共有,或一些跨境的技术交易会约定根据前景知识产权的产生地法律规定来决定。这看似是一条解决问题的捷径,但从法律角度来讲,这只是在一定程度上把问题拖延到下一阶段来商议解决,而且考虑到不同类型的知识产权在不同管辖区域的法律法规的差异性,这样安排反而可能造成更大的不确定性。 Continue Reading 技术交易前景知识产权 | 遇见前景知识产权——技术合同的常见分歧点

By He Fang Wang Bo King & Wood Mallesons

When sending red packets on WeChat or making purchases on Taobao for the first few times, one might have this question in mind or for their friends: is it reliable, sending or receiving money with just a tap on the smartphone or a click of the mouse? They are no magic, just increasingly popular applications of electronic signature, or e-signature, in our daily life in an era of Internet and digital technology. In addition to the e-commerce scenarios above, it is already a common practice to transmit and retain files in electronic formats for business activities. However, legal instruments which are customarily regarded as more rigorous than e-commerce transactions are still generally forbidden or unnoticed for the application of electronic signature. In practice, when it is required to execute legal instruments officially, people would still print them out and affix their seals or signatures physically as they traditionally do. This would inevitably incur significant time costs for the execution process. Moreover, given the persistent issue of “fake stamps”, this time-consuming traditional approach may not necessarily render a higher reliability. Continue Reading A Comprehensive Guide to Electronic Signature, from a Legal Perspective



工程委托代建是指项目业主自身不组织实施建设工作,而将建设项目委托给代建单位,由代建单位对项目进行相应管理,并组织实施建设的行为。工程代建制度在实务中广泛存在,尤其在政府投资的基础设施领域较为常见。在我国,关于工程代建的法律法规并不完善,实践中对于工程委托代建合同的法律性质,特别是与一般委托合同、工程总承包合同的区分,尚未形成统一的认识,由此也导致委托代建合同中委托人、代建单位需对施工主体承担的法律责任存在争议。 Continue Reading 房地产工程纠纷 | 如何认定工程委托代建合同项下委托人对第三人需承担的法律责任?

By Song Xinyue and Ge Min, IP Litigation, Beijing

Allocation of burden of proof is an area of great concern in a process patent infringement dispute.  In practice, the accused infringing process is usually strictly controlled by the accused infringer and hard to approach, which poses great challenges for a patentee of a process patent to produce evidence and enforce its legitimate right.  Fortunately, a patentee of a process patent for manufacturing a new product doesn’t have to bother with producing evidence showing the defendant’s infringement, as the Patent Law and the Rules of Evidences in Civil Procedures both set forth that the accused infringer shall furnish proof to show that the process used in the manufacturing of its products is different from the patented process as long as the patentee can prove that the process patent directs to a new product and that the accused infringer have made identical products.  However, a patentee holding a process patent for manufacturing a known (not new) product will not be so lucky.  Continue Reading Invocation of Presumptions and Burden of Proof in Patent Disputes over Manufacturing Processes

作者:瞿淼 张平 王波 金杜律师事务所争议解决部

随着技术的进一步“虚拟化”,通过软件而非硬件的方式实现技术功能变得越来越普遍。软件在中国是否能得到专利保护?如何进行保护?在专利的执行和维权过程中有什么特殊的问题?此外,我国知识产权局今年2月颁布的最新《专利审查指南》也特别针对涉及计算机程序的发明内容进行了修订,这些修订对企业会产生什么影响?我们将在本文中试图阐释这些内容。 Continue Reading 计算机软件在中国的专利保护之路

作者:金杜律师事务所 King & Wood Mallesons

2016年10月28日,华润医药集团有限公司(简称“华润医药”, 股票代码:3320) 在金杜律师事务所协助下正式在香港联交所主板上市。华润医药本次全球共发行15.43亿股,每股发行价为9.10港元,总募资金净额约为136.71亿港元,成为2016年港股市场最大非金融类IPO。如后续全额执行超额配售选择权,将成为有史以来最大中资医药IPO、全球排名第六位的医药类IPO。

On 28 October 2016, China Resources Pharmaceutical Group Ltd. (“CR Pharmaceutical”, stock code: 3320) had its H shares listed on the main board of the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, with King & Wood Mallesons (KWM) advising its underwriters. CR Pharmaceutical issued a total of 1.543 billion shares globally on an offer price of HK$9.10 per share, and raised a net amount of approximately HK$13.671 billion, making it the largest IPO conducted by non-financial enterprises in Hong Kong’s capital market in 2016. If over-allotment option is fully exercised, this transaction will be the largest-ever IPO by pharmaceutical enterprises in China and the sixth in pharmaceutical industry globally.

Read The Full Article Please Click Here

By Yang Xiaoli  Zhang Jiaqi  and Kang Lifang King &Wood Mallesons Beijing,China

杨晓莉I. Case facts

On January 18, 2012, the government of the Republic of Fiji (the “Fijian Government”) applied to register three certification marks “FIJI PURE MAHOGANY” (No. 10437014), “FIJI PURE” (No. 10437015) and “FPM” (No. 10437016) at the Trademark Office of China, all for “plantation grown mahogany timber” in Class 19.

After examination, the Trademark Office refused registration of the three marks on the grounds that (1) the first two applied-for marks were devoid of distinctiveness; (2) the third mark was similar to the cited markFIJI证明商标三案评述 (No. 6119374); and (3) the applicant, the Fijian Government, did not submit effective Rules for the Use of Certification Marks for all of the three applications. Dissatisfied with the decisions, the Fijian Government filed a  review with the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (“TRAB”).

Read the Full article please click here

作者:杨晓莉 张家绮 康立芳 金杜律师事务所知识产权部


2012年1月18日,斐济共和国政府(下称“斐济政府”)向我国商标局申请将“FIJI PURE MAHOGANY”(第10437014号)、“FIJI PURE” (第10437015号)和“FPM” (第10437016号)注册为证明商标,指定使用的商品为第19类“人工种植的红木木材”。商标局经审查,以前两件申请商标缺乏显著特征,后一件申请商标与引证商标(第6119374号)近似,且斐济政府在三件商标申请均未提交有效的《证明商标使用管理规则》为由,驳回了以上三件商标注册申请。斐济政府不服,向商标评审委员会提出复审申请。