作者:韦理察 金杜律师事务所知识产权

wigley_richard中华人民共和国的“集体诉讼”类型的诉讼之框架,早在1991年首次公布《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》(以下简称“《民事诉讼法》”)之时便已经存在。最近修订的《民事诉讼法》规定了提起共同诉讼的要求,即:“诉讼标的是同一种类,当事人一方人数众多”,并且当事人可以推选代表人进行诉讼。[1]此外,关于原告是否适格以及提起此类诉讼的条件的问题,《民事诉讼法》规定:“原告是与本案有直接利害关系的公民、法人和其他组织……有明确的被告……(并且)有具体的诉讼请求和事实、理由……”[2]代表人诉讼尽管与我们通常所指的“集体诉讼”仍然有一些不同,但是《民事诉讼法》为共同诉讼提供了一个框架,与“集体诉讼”存在共同之处。 Continue Reading 中国式“集体诉讼”类型的公益诉讼之趋势

By Mia Qu and Sally Wang     King & Wood Mallesons’ IP Litigation Group

qu_miaoAccording to the data of Chinese e-Commerce Research Center, by the end of 2012, the trading volumes of e-commerce market in China had reached 7.85 trillion. In 2013, it was 10.5 trillion and is expected to reach 13.4 trillion in 2014. From the industry distribution of e-commerce websites, the top ten industries are: apparel, textile, agriculture and farming, digital household appliances, machinery and equipment, chemicals and plastics, food and wine, construction materials, hardware and tools, medical treatment and medicine. Along with this phenomenon, the protection of intellectual property rights in the online sphere is also facing a whole new series of challenges. This article will focus on the discussion of issues of trademark infringement in e-commerce. Continue Reading Common Issues of Trademark Infringement in e-Commerce and Enforcement

作者:李中圣 金杜律师事务所知识产权

创新是当代中国律师发展的主题,中国律师事业经过三十年的快速发展,长期积累的问题使得持续发展难以为继,因此创新攸关生存。创新虽然是律师事业发展不竭的动力,但任何创新问题的提出,都有时代背景和个体含义。律所创新是自身持续发展的必要条件,但律所怎样领跑律师服务创新,以下两点至关重要。

提升律师学养和服务质量,重点放在内涵式发展

经济学上外延式发展,主要是通过增加生产要素投入,实现经营规模扩大和收入增长,内涵式发展则主要是通过技术进步和科学管理来提高生产要素的质量和使用效益,实现规模扩大和效益提高。过去三十年里,中国律师事业快速发展,在律所的发展初期,追求规模有利于实现战略布局,但主要发展特征仍是粗放型的特征,而未来发展,应向集约型发展转变。集约型发展的几个关键点需要抓住。 Continue Reading 创新型律所是什么

By Alex Zhang and Xuelin Ma   King & Wood Mallesons’ IP Group

I. INTRODUCTION

By 2015, the Chinese government plans to double the number of patent applications filed with the State Intellectual Property Office (“SIPO”), such that applications will increase from 1 million in 2010 to 2 million per year.[i]  According to SIPO’s “National Patent Development Strategy (2011-2020)” (the “Patent Strategy”), “China will rank among the top two in the world in terms of the annual number of patents for inventions.”[ii]  The Chinese government also expects that “the number of overseas patent applications filed by Chinese entities and individuals will double.”[iii]  However, this ambitious plan cannot relieve concerns about the quality of Chinese innovation.  The basis for these concerns is that “the vast majority of these applications are for utility model patents that merely undergo a preliminary examination for formalities rather than substance—a concept that does not exist in the US.”[iv]  According to a Shanghai-based patent attorney quoted by the Economist: “Patents are easy to file but gems are hard to find in a mountain of junk.”[v] Continue Reading Recent Proposed Amendments to China’s Patent Law: Will it help to improve the enforceability of patents in China?

作者:瞿淼 金杜律师事务所知识产权诉讼

2014年10月9日,最高人民法院通过新闻发布会公布《最高人民法院关于审理利用信息网络侵害人身权益民事纠纷案件适用法律若干问题的规定》(“《规定》”》,且《规定》自发布次日即行生效。最高院并同时公布与此相关的八大典型案例,引起广大网友和媒体的广泛关注和热烈讨论。本文从如何运用该规定维护自身合法权益的角度对《规定》解读如下:

一、法人、其它组织及自然人皆有维权依据

《规定》第一条明确规定,该规定适用范围为利用信息网络侵害人身权益的民事纠纷,该等人身权益包含姓名权、名称权、名誉权、荣誉权、肖像权、隐私权。从以上规定可以看出,法人及自然人皆可根据此进行维权。对于企业法人,其依据《民法通则》等法律保护的人身权益包括名称权、名誉权、荣誉权等。 Continue Reading 网络世界人身权益维权有新规

By Richard  Wigley  King&WoodMallesons’ Intellectual Property Group

Though there are relatively few publicized instances where foreign companies (or their P.R.C. subsidiaries or joint ventures) or foreign individuals in China have formally been found to have run afoul of the Law of the P.R.C. on Guarding State Secrets (“State Secrets Law”)[1], the consequences of doing so are significant. Specifically, the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law for Trial of Cases of Stealing, Buying, or Unlawfully Supplying State Secrets or Intelligence for Entities outside of the Territory of China (“Interpretation”) notes that “[w]hoever steals, spies into, buys or unlawfully supplies state secrets or intelligence for entities outside of the Territory of China” can, under certain circumstances, be given a lengthy prison term or, potentially, in especially serious cases even the death sentence.[2] As such, foreign companies and individuals that may be dealing with state secrets in China should be very concerned regarding their duties and potential liabilities under the State Secrets Law. Continue Reading China’s State Secrets Law and Compliance Issues for Foreign Companies

作者:史玉生 矫鸿彬 金杜律师事务所知识产权

2014年8月31日,《关于在北京、上海、广州设立知识产权法院的决定》(“《决定》”)获得全国人大常委会的表决通过,被视为中国知识产权保护的又一实质性进步。在拍手叫好之时,我们需要对这一决定的具体涵义进行解读。

首先,从审理案件的范围来看,并非所有的知识产权案件均由知识产权法院审理。知识产权法院只审理特定种类的一审案件,包括专利、植物新品种、集成电路布图设计、技术秘密等专业性较强的知识产权民事和行政案件,该规定其实与目前的实际情况吻合,这些案件目前主要就是由直辖市或省会市的中级法院管辖,只不过将来是由单设的知识产权法院管辖。而对此类由知识产权法院进行裁判的一审案件,如果当事人提起上诉,由知识产权法院所在地的高级法院进行二审,这一安排与现状相同。

其他第一审著作权、商标等知识产权民事和行政案件,仍然由目前具有相关知识产权案件管辖权的基层人民法院审理,而对这些案件的上诉即二审案件,则由知识产权法院审理。 Continue Reading 中国知识产权法院大门即将开启

作者:何薇 陈军 金杜律师事务所知识产权

作为争议解决方式之一的仲裁,由于仲裁机构/仲裁庭的中立性、仲裁当事人的自主性和仲裁裁决依据《纽约公约》[1]几乎可全球执行等优势,正越来越广泛地为当事人所接受和选用。但是,当发生合同争议,特别是出现违约与侵权[2]相竞合的情形时,出于各种目的考虑,有的当事人又希望能突破仲裁协议的约束,通过提起侵权之诉寻求法院的救济。司法实践中,当事人的这种趋利做法引发了一个新的法律问题,仲裁协议能在多大程度上约束当事人,当事人选择侵权案由是否可以突破仲裁协议的约束。这个法律问题又具体衍生为:存在有效仲裁协议的前提下,(1)因合同产生的侵权纠纷是否可以通过仲裁解决;(2)如可以,侵权纠纷是否必须通过仲裁解决;以及(3)仲裁协议对共同侵权纠纷有无约束力。我们通过本文将分析探究这些衍生问题。

侵权纠纷可否通过仲裁解决

如果侵权纠纷只能通过诉讼解决,则问题的答案就变得非常简单,当事人提起侵权之诉不受仲裁协议的约束。但是,侵权纠纷是否只能通过诉讼解决呢?我国仲裁法在规定仲裁的适用范围时,把当事人之间发生的合同和其他财产权益纠纷都纳入了可仲裁的范围,但明确排除了婚姻、收养、监护、扶养、继承纠纷、以及依法应当由行政机关处理的行政争议。可见,违约或侵权,并不是判断纠纷可否仲裁的标准,我国仲裁法也没有限制通过仲裁解决侵权纠纷。 Continue Reading 侵权纠纷可否突破仲裁协议的约束

作者:瞿淼 金杜律师事务所IP诉讼部

2014年4月8日,上海国际仲裁中心正式发布《中国(上海)自由贸易试验区仲裁规则》(以下简称“自贸区规则”)。该规则在现行的法律框架和仲裁实践基础上进行了多处大胆尝试和革新,是一部具有重要创新意义的仲裁规则。该规则将于5月1日生效。本文着重探讨该规则对知识产权类争议的影响。

自贸区规则的创新点包括:(一)临时措施制度的规定;(二)仲裁员开放名册的规定;(三)案件合并审理的规定;(四)案外人加入仲裁的规定(包括仲裁协议其它方或甚至非仲裁协议方);(五)关于证据制度的规定;(六)关于调解既可由仲裁庭主持也可由独立的调解员主持的规定;(七)对友好仲裁制度的引入;(八)小额争议程序的引入。与知识产权争议最为相关的创新制度设计体现在上述第(一)、(五)及(八)。详述如下: Continue Reading 自贸区仲裁:知识产权争议的新选择——评上海自贸区仲裁规则对知识产权类争议解决的应用

By Mia Qu King&Wood Mallesons’ IP Litigation Group

On April 8th, 2014, the Shanghai International Arbitration Center officially issued the China (Shanghai) Pilot Free Trade Zone Arbitration Rules (the “FTZ Rules”). The FTZ Rules, which brings a lot of bold attempts and innovation based on the present legal frame and arbitration practice, is of important innovative significance. The FTZ Rules will enter into force on 1st May. This article will focus on the influence that the FTZ Rules will impose on IP disputes.

The innovative aspects of the FTZ Rules include: (1) the provisions regarding the interim measures; (2) the provision about the open panel of arbitrators; (3) the provision of combined trial of certain cases; (4) the provision of third party’s participation in the arbitration (including other parties of the arbitration agreement or even non-parties of the arbitration agreement); (5) the provision of evidence rules; (6) the provision that mediation may be conducted both by an arbitral tribunal or by an independent mediator; (7) introducing a friendly arbitration system; and (8) introducing procedures for disputes with small claims. The innovative arrangements which are most relevant to IP disputes are reflected in the above (1)、(5) and (8), which will be illustrated in detail as follows: Continue Reading Arbitration in the Pilot Free Trade Zone: The New Alternative for IP Disputes——Comments on the Application of the Pilot Free Trade Zone Arbitration Rules in IP Dispute Resolution