作者：刘凌云 争议解决部 王文君 艾德雨 张心瑜 金杜律师事务所
近日，某上市公司因连续20个交易日股票收盘价均低于1元而面临终止上市。我们团队受该公司的委托，协助其准备参加交易所举行的听证。由此，我们注意到，“面值退市”已成为近期上市公司退市的主要原因。在“新冠疫情”的困扰之下，企业面临的内忧外困以及退市后的巨大影响，促使我们在动容之余，也对这项制度作出审视与思考。 Continue Reading 跌破1元，关灯吃面？——对“面值退市”的几点思考
秦川物联科创板上市
金杜律师事务所
7月1日，成都秦川物联网科技股份有限公司（简称“秦川物联”，证券代码688528）首次公开发行A股股票并在上海证券交易所科创板上市交易。秦川物联本次公开发行新股4,200万股，发行价格每股11.33元 ，募集资金总额为47,586万元。 Continue Reading 秦川物联科创板上市
首都在线于深交所创业板上市
金杜律师事务所
2020年7月1日，北京首都在线科技股份有限公司（简称“首都在线”）在深圳证券交易所创业板成功发行A股并上市。首都在线本次发行的股份总数为5,000万股，发行价格为每股人民币3.37元，募集资金总额为16,850万元。 Continue Reading 首都在线于深交所创业板上市
重磅发布：《金杜知识产权经典案例集》
金杜律师事务所和金杜法律研究院联合发布《金杜知识产权经典案例集》。本案例集收录了2013年至2019年金杜律师事务所知识产权诉讼团队经办的大量经典案例及其分析，其中包含了众多被最高人民法院选为“年度中国法院十大知识产权案件和50件知识产权典型案例”，或被各地方法院评选为“年度典型知识产权案件”和“年度知识产权创新性案件”的案件。全国各地法院对这些案件做出的判决展示了中国近年来在版权、商标、专利、商业秘密、集成电路布图设计、垄断与竞争领域的司法审判理念和实施标准，有些判决对中国知识产权法律实践和知识产权保护具有里程碑的意义。 Continue Reading 重磅发布：《金杜知识产权经典案例集》
“Jiang Xiao Bai” Trademark Invalidation Case Selected as Typical Case in SPC’s Annual Report of 2019 on Intellectual Property Cases
By Jiao Hongbin
At the end of the year 2019, the Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China (“SPC”) made a retrial judgment on administrative dispute over the invalidation request against the renowned liquor brand “Jiang Xiao Bai”. With the help of KWM, Chongqing Jiangxiaobai Liquor Co., Ltd. (“Jiangxiaobai”) successfully reversed the disadvantageous situation of the second instance trial and finally won the retrial. The retrial judgment of this case put an end to a 7-year dispute over the validity of the trademark between Jiangxiaobai and Jiangjin Winery (Group) Co., Ltd. (“Jiangjin Winery”). It safeguards and reinforces the innovative achievements and market reputation of “Jiang Xiao Bai” brand, and to a great extent guarantees its future operation and development. On April 23, 2020, this case was selected as one of the 60 typical cases in the Annual Report of 2019 on Intellectual Property Cases of SPC. Continue Reading “Jiang Xiao Bai” Trademark Invalidation Case Selected as Typical Case in SPC’s Annual Report of 2019 on Intellectual Property Cases
“数”往知来——封禁APP背后的数据博弈
引言
2020年6月29日，印度新闻信息部发布消息称，印度信息电子与技术部援引《信息技术法案》（the Information Technology Act）第69A部分第2009条，禁止用户在印度境内访问（Blocking）59款中国移动应用，理由在于以上移动应用以非法方式窃取用户数据传输至境外服务器，可能损害印度的主权以及国家安全与公共秩序。[1] 全球范围内，基于安全目的对于数据跨境的限制和审查早已不是新闻，更重要的是“数据主权”思想渐渐融入到各国的立法和执法活动中。印度此举再次引发各方关注，跨国企业应当提高警惕，对于潜在数据安全及合规风险提前应对，建立符合国际立法趋势和竞争形势的全球数据跨境顶层设计，并将数据资产的思路贯彻到企业日常经营管理中。 Continue Reading “数”往知来——封禁APP背后的数据博弈
面对海南自贸港的机遇与风险，海关监管执法的“变与不变
引言
海南，因改革开放而生，因改革开放而兴。在自贸区、自贸港建设进程中，海南蹄疾步稳、谋定后动，持续创新与风险防控两手抓，既要放得开，也要管得住。本文将从海关政策红利与法律风险的双视角出发，以近期受到中外企业高度关注的《海南自由贸易港建设总体方案》和《海关对洋浦保税港区监管办法》解读入手，进一步阐述和提示海南这样的海关特殊监管区域常见的进出口合规风险。 Continue Reading 面对海南自贸港的机遇与风险，海关监管执法的“变与不变
英国最高法院对限制性条款进行严格的“蓝铅笔测试
作者：Barri Mendelsohn Jenny Willcock、Cassandra Ditzel、Daniel Jones 金杜律师事务所
Tillman诉Egon Zehnder Ltd [2019] UKSC 32
2019年7月，英国最高法院审理了劳动合同中限制性条款（本案中为竞业禁止条款）的可执行性。限制性条款是通常包含在劳动合同中的具有约束力的条件，目的是为了保护雇主的业务不受雇员行为的影响。鉴于香港法院最近采用了Beckett测试（详见下文），其在未来也极有可能援引本案。 Continue Reading 英国最高法院对限制性条款进行严格的“蓝铅笔测试
The Supreme court sharpens the “Blue Pencil Test” for restrictive covenants
Written by Barri Mendelsohn Jenny Willcock、Cassandra Ditzel、Daniel Jones
Tillman v Egon Zehnder Ltd [2019] UKSC 32
In July 2019, the UK Supreme Court considered the enforceability of a restrictive covenant (in this case, a non-compete clause) in an employment contract. Restrictive covenants are binding conditions typically contained in employment contracts which aim to protect the employer’s business from acts of the employee. As the Hong Kong Courts recently adopted the Beckett Test (see below for further information) this case is highly likely to also be adopted by the Hong Kong Courts in the future. Continue Reading The Supreme court sharpens the “Blue Pencil Test” for restrictive covenants
You may have Third Party Rights even if you don’t know a contract exists
written by Barri Mendelsohn Jenny Wilcock, Cassandra Ditzel and Daniel Jones
Last year the UK Courts were not afraid to imply rights of third parties into contracts, such as letters of instruction. Chudley v Clydesdale Bank Plc showed possibility of third parties succeeding in making a claim under contracts to which they are not a party and highlights the importance of understanding (i) in which circumstances the Courts will do so; and (ii) which elements of drafting would help or hinder third party claims. Continue Reading You may have Third Party Rights even if you don’t know a contract exists