By He Wei and Wang Yaxi  King & Wood Mallesons’ IP Litigation Group

Introduction

As China’s cross-border technology trade develops, the number of disputes arising from international Intellectual Property contracts gradually increases. Many parties involved in international business prefer arbitration as their dispute resolution mechanism, because arbitration is confidential and its decisions can be enforced in different jurisdictions. Loads of international technology license agreements contain arbitration provisions whereby the parties agree on how to settle IP related disputes. IP disputes that will be arbitrated usually include: whether the licensee’s use exceeds the licensed scope; issues concerning the licensee’s disclosure of the licensor’s technology; and the licensee’s unauthorized sub-license of the licensor’s technology. The value of an IP right, as an intangible property right, lies in a right owner’s exclusive right to use the technology or business resources which constitute the subject matter of the right. Therefore it is essential for a right owner to maintain his IP right by prohibiting unauthorized use by others. Accordingly the use of injunctions plays a vital role in IP cases. China’s IP legislation now provides pre-action and interlocutory injunctions to give right owners provisional remedies, in the form of injunctions before and during the trial. In this way an owner can stop damage from occurring or escalating. Continue Reading Applications for Injunctive Orders in IP Arbitration

By Meg Utterback   Monique Carroll and Emily Rich   King & Wood Mallesons’ Dispute Resolution Group

Bribery and corruption is increasingly an issue of concern for multinational companies, especially when seeking to invest in “high risk” jurisdictions. Historically, the primary concern in this area has been exposure to civil and criminal penalties for contravention of anti-bribery and corruption legislation. However, recent years have seen a growing trend towards governmental expropriation of investments alleged to have been obtained by bribery and corruption. This poses a significant additional risk to foreign investors. Investors who are found to have engaged in corrupt practices will have difficulty defending against expropriation or seeking compensation for expropriation that might otherwise have been obtainable under either domestic or public international law. Unfortunately, in some cases, foreign officials may take retaliatory action against an investor for failing to pay a bribe. Organisations doing business abroad must remain vigilant about anti-bribery and corruption compliance. They must also consider what protections may be available under investment treaties for unfair or arbitrary state conduct that equates to an expropriation or another breach of applicable international standards. Continue Reading Bribery and Corruption in Foreign Investments: Investors Beware

作者：胡梅（Meg Utterback） Monique Carroll  Emily Rich 金杜律师事务所争议解决组

近年来贿赂和腐败成为跨国企业面临的一个日益严重的问题，对于在贿赂问题风险偏高的国家寻找投资机会的投资者来说更是如此。过去这方面主要问题表现在违反反贪腐法律相关规定导致的民事和刑事处罚。近年来的一大趋势是政府强制征用被认定为涉嫌腐败行为的投资资产，这给外商投资带来更大的风险。被发现参与腐败行为的投资者将很难避免资产被没收或是只能在被没收后寻求国内法或国际法下的赔偿。但不幸的是，行贿在一些情况下已成为惯例，对于未行贿的投资者可能会遭到当地官员的报复。在境外进行商业活动的投资者应谨慎对待反贪腐的合规工作，其必须考虑双边投资条约项下有什么可行的保护措施来应对此类独断不公的政府征用行为和违背国际标准的政府行为。 Continue Reading 投资者须知：境外投资中的贿赂与腐败

作者：林青松 李炜 金杜律师事务所证券部

我们曾参与某上市电力公司向控股股东某国有企业发行股份购买控股股东持有的部分电力企业股权的重大资产重组项目。该重组项目最终取得了监管部门的核准。本文以该重组项目中所遇到的主要法律问题为主线，同时结合正在参与的其他电力企业上市项目，针对电力行业的特点，从国有股权转让、项目审批及建设、经营资质、环境保护、同业竞争、关联交易和行政处罚几个方面，介绍在电力企业法律尽职调查中应当关注的主要法律问题。

国有股权协议转让问题

电力企业多为国有企业，且一般设立时间较早。在尽职调查过程中，企业设立时的股东出资、存续过程中的股权转让、国有企业改制、国有资产处置等事项是否符合当时有关国有资产管理的规定、是否履行了国有资产管理程序等，是需要核查和解决的重点问题。其中，国有股权协议转让是否合法合规（包括国有单位之间的转让，以及国有单位向非国有单位转让），是监管机构重点关注的问题之一。 Continue Reading 电力企业法律尽职调查应关注的主要问题

作者：金杜律师事务所 矿产资源诉讼仲裁团队

矿业权纠纷包括矿业权的出让、转让、合作、承包、租赁、抵押及侵权纠纷等多个类型。结合前沿理论、司法惯例及立法动态，我们将陆续推出“矿业权纠纷的应对与处理”系列文章。

第一步，国土资源主管部门委托矿业权交易机构。国土资源主管部门拟出让矿业后，需由先向矿业权交易机构下达矿业权交易委托书，委托矿业权交易机构以招标、拍卖、挂牌方式出让矿业权。相关出让工作由矿业权交易机构按委托书的内容组织实施。国土资源主管部门应与矿业权交易机构签订委托合同，且委托合同应包括下列内容：（一）转让人和矿业权交易机构的名称、场所；（二）委托服务事项及要求；（三）服务费用；（四）违约责任；（五）纠纷解决方式；（六）需要约定的其他事项。 Continue Reading 以招拍挂方式取得矿业权的八大步骤

“Made in Africa”, a publication that looks at the latest legal developments, market analysis and hot topics, with our partners in Africa, that are focusing the minds of investors into, and businesses operating in, Africa.

As the focus on Africa intensifies we are seeing new players enter the market and strategic players increase investment in economically developing markets. In this issue we have centred around certain interesting developing themes. We focus on the financial services sector, from the ground breaking Rockwood spin-out in South Africa and whether this could be a catalyst for others, crowdfunding and the lessons to be learnt from Europe and comment on the latest trends and deals in Africa.

Click herehttp://www.sjberwin.com/insights/made-in-africafor the full text.

 

By Richard W. Wigley  King & Wood Mallesons’ IP Litigation Group

wigley_richardThe framework for variants of class action-type litigation in the People’s Republic of China has been in place since the initial promulgation of the Civil Procedure Law of the P.R.C. (“CPL”) in 1991. The amended CPL provides requirements for filing a “joint litigation” for suits where “the object of the action is of the same category and a party consists of numerous persons” and where the parties may choose to elect a representative.[1] Further as to whether standing is afforded the plaintiff and the filing requirements for such litigation, the CPL provides that “[t]he plaintiff must be a citizen, legal person, or an organization having a direct interest with the case … there must be a specific defendant … [and] there must be a specific claim and a specific factual basis and grounds ….”[2] In short, the CPL provides a framework which allows for what is a variation of what is commonly referred to as a “class action lawsuit”. Continue Reading Class Action-type Litigation in China

作者：韦理察 （Richard W. Wigley） 金杜律师事务所知识产权部

在中国，类似于集团诉讼的框架性规定最早出现于1991年的《民事诉讼法》（“《民诉法》”）。此后，修改后的《民诉法》规定，共同诉讼（joint litigation）适用于“诉讼标的是同一种类或者当事人一方人数众多”的案件，在当事人一方人数众多的共同诉讼中，可以由当事人推选代表人进行诉讼。[1]《民诉法》第19条对于原告提起民事诉讼的资格和条件的规定同样适用于共同诉讼，即：“（一）原告是与本案有直接利害关系的公民、法人和其他组织；（二）有明确的被告；（三）有具体的诉讼请求和事实、理由；……”[2]总的来看，现行《民诉法》对于共同诉讼的框架性规定类似于其他国家有关集团诉讼的规定（class action lawsuit）。

必须指出的是，在中国，目前对于共同诉讼的法律规定并没有系统且全面地涵盖集团诉讼的所有指导性原则，如美国联邦法律中所规定的详细的“选择退出”规则。但是，在中国，对于存在着大量潜在原告的共同诉讼，法律规定“同一种类、当事人一方人数众多在起诉时人数尚未确定的，人民法院可以发出公告，说明案件情况和诉讼请求，通知权利人在一定期间向人民法院登记。”[3]人民法院作出的判决、裁定，不仅对参加登记的全体权利人发生效力，对于那些“未参加登记的权利人在诉讼时效期间提起诉讼的”也适用。简单地说，中国的共同诉讼不同于其他国家（如美国联邦法）的集团诉讼，但是，二者存在共同的特征。 Continue Reading “类似集团诉讼”制度在中国

作者：牟蓬 王乐陶 金杜律师事务所证券部

继协助开元产业投资信托基金（以下简称“开元REITs”，股票代码01275.HK）于2013年7月在香港联交所主板上市后，金杜再次助力开元REITs于2014年7月31日完成对位于中国境内的上海松江开元名都大酒店的收购，成功实践了中国内地民营房地产企业通过在香港证券市场发行房地产投资信托基金（“REITs”）连续实现上市融资、收购及再融资的创新案例。

开元REITs是全球第一支专注于投资中国酒店业的产业信托基金，为以单位信托基金形式组成的集体投资计划，通过对信托资产组合中酒店物业的运营向基金单位持有人提供稳定的定期分派。开元REITs由中国内地最大的民营高星级酒店管理集团开元集团和全球知名投资机构美国凯雷投资集团共同发起，2013年7月于香港上市时的信托资产组合中包括杭州开元名都大酒店、宁波开元名都大酒店、杭州千岛湖开元度假村、长春开元名都大酒店以及浙江开元萧山宾馆等五家优质酒店物业。在本次收购中，开元REITs通过收购设立于香港的惠富实业有限公司间接持有了拥有上海松江开元名都大酒店物业产权的上海松江辉维资产管理有限公司，从而将上海松江开元名都大酒店纳入开元REITs的信托资产组合，使其成为开元REITs的第六家酒店物业资产。 Continue Reading 金杜助力开元REITs收购中国境内酒店资产

作者：瞿淼 王明红 金杜律师事务所知识产权部

中国电子商务研究中心监测数据显示，截止到 2012年底，中国电子商务市场交易规模达 7.85 万亿，2013年达10.5亿，2014年预计达到13.4亿。在目前电子商务网站所处的行业分布来看，排在前十名的依次为：服装鞋帽、纺织化纤、农林畜牧、数码家电、机械设备、化工塑料、食品糖酒、建筑建材、五金工具、医疗医药。与之伴随，知识产权在网络世界中也面临一系列全新的问题。本文将集中讨论商标权在互联网电子商务环境下所面临的问题。

电子商务与传统经济的关键差别 Continue Reading 电子商务环境下常见商标侵权问题及维权实践