by Alex Zhang King & Wood Intellectual Property Group

As the second largest economy in the world, China is emerging to the center of the world’s economic stage. This emergence has been accompanied by constant changes in its legal and economic sectors. The intellectual property sector also has witnessed numerous recent changes. There have been significant new advances in China’s national innovation policies. New trends in Chinese patent filings have emerged. A growing number of Chinese companies are creating their own IP and increasingly filing infringement suits against foreign companies and their local competitors in China. China’s third patent law amendment has materially changed patent practice and procedures in that country.

These changes and trends will have profound impacts on foreign companies doing business in China, especially in intellectual property areas. What are the best ways to deal with these important changes? The following several considerations should be evaluated in determining a company’s patent strategies in China.

Continue Reading Key Considerations for Patent Strategies in China

by Susan Ning and Liwei Wang

On September 11, 2011, the name of the previous Guangdong Provincial Price Bureau was officially changed to the PriceSupervision and Inspection and Antitrust Bureau of Guangdong Province (广东省价格监督检查及反垄断局, Guangdong PAB).  In connection with the expanded scope of its administrative authority, the agency will recruit additional officials for the purpose of supporting its price inspection and antitrust functions.  In addition, the administrative hierarchy of the post-reform Guangdong PAB is elevated, indicating heightened administrative authority.

Continue Reading Guangdong Provincial Price Bureau Renamed, Reflecting Strengthened Antitrust Enforcement Authority

By Susan Ning, Liu Jia and Yin Ranran

On 31 October 2011, the Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) publicly announced the eighth conditional merger clearance since the enactment of the Anti-monopoly Law (AML) in 2008. According to its announcement 1 ,  MOFCOM cleared the proposed acquisition by Alpha Private Equity Fund V (Alpha V) of Savio group (an Italia based textile machinery producer, Savio) with four conditions. This is also the second conditional merger clearance this year 2 .

Set out below are the salient issues in relation to this conditional clearance decision.

Continue Reading MOFCOM’s 8th Conditional Clearance – Alpha V/Savio Deal

By Susan Ning and Liu Jia

On 31 October 2011, the Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) publicly announced the eighth conditional merger clearance since the enactment of the Anti-monopoly Law (AML) in 2008.  According to its announcement1 , the review process lasted for 3.5 months starting from 14 July 2011 when the notification was submitted to MOFCOM. 

Set forth below is a chart outlining the review process.

Continue Reading Alpha V/Savio Deal – A Procedural Overview of MOFCOM’s Decision-making Process

金杜律师事务所证券组

前言

2011年10月28日，香港联交所公布了《有关检讨企业管治守则及相关上市规则的咨询总结》，并通过全面修订《上市规则》的规定，对发行人的企业管治水平制定了更高标准。发行人独立非执行董事的占比不得低于董事会人数三分之一的规定正式出台。

大部分修订将在2012年初陆续生效。发行人必须在首份涵盖2012年4月1日之后期间的中期报告或年报中，分别表明发行人在报告期内有否遵守旧《企业管治常规守则》和新《企业管治守则》。发行人也可以选择在2012年4月1日前执行新的规定。

其中，《企业管治守则》的部分“建议最佳常规”提升为“守则条文”，即上市公司选择不遵守的，需要在年报披露原因，不遵守不视同违反《上市规则》。同时，《企业管治守则》内的部分“守则条文”提升为《上市规则》的强制性条文，即上市公司必须遵守，不遵守视同违反《上市规则》。大小修订合计近30项，从董事会和下属委员会、股东大会，以及公司秘书相关的规定，都有修订。发行人应当注意新规定对自身的影响，并尽快开展相关的提升企业管治水平的工作。

为方便发行人参考，我们摘录了若干我们认为对发行人实务操作影响较为显著的条文，列表说明如下。其他修订则在列表后简要说明。由于各发行人情况不一，如有需要，请尽快与公司香港律师商讨。 

Continue Reading 联交所上市规则对企业管治的新规定

作者：胡梅 瞿淼 郁斯敏 金杜律师事务所争议解决组

2011年7月22日，美国华盛顿州通过了修改其《反不正当竞争法》的议案，新增一章名为《产品销售-窃取或盗用信息技术》的新法（以下简称“新法”）。根据该法律规定，在生产、经营中使用假冒盗版信息技术产品（包括假冒硬件产品和软件产品）并拒不改正的产品制造商，无论其违法行为发生在何处，只要其产品在华盛顿州销售或者许诺销售，都将可能构成不正当竞争，从而导致其在美国华盛顿州被政府或其竞争者起诉，并可能因此导致货物在美国被扣押、被禁止销售、以及被判令支付赔偿金，甚至惩罚性赔偿。该法案的颁布和实施虽然远在美国华盛顿州，但却对于全球所有向美国出口的制造业企业均有影响。中国被视为“世界工厂”而美国又是“中国制造”产品的最大出口市场，众多的中国制造企业均应注意该法案可能对其生产经营活动所产生的实质性影响，避免由于在生产经营过程中使用假冒盗版IT产品导致向美国出口受阻并引发其他法律风险。

Continue Reading 使用盗版软件将可能导致在美国被诉 – 评美国华盛顿州新修订之《反不正当竞争法》

By King & Wood’s Intellectual Property Group

Whether service trademarks used by shopping malls and supermarkets can be registered in International Class 35 and receive protection as a registered trademark is rigorously debated both academically and in judicial practice in China.

Opponents argue that the China Trademark Office (CTMO) has clearly stated that wholesale and retail services are not included in Class 35, and thus the services of shopping malls and supermarkets cannot be classified as such (the CTMO published this in their official written reply to Sichuan Provincial Administration for Industry and Commerce, "Reply to the Issue of Whether Shopping Mall and Supermarket Services are Included in Class 35" on August 13, 2004). Furthermore, it stated that the contents of "sale promotion (for others)" refer to providing advice, planning, promotion and consulting for others to sell goods or services. As a result of the Reply, even if a trademark is registered under "sales promotion (for others)", such marks of wholesale and retail enterprises, such as department stores, supermarkets, wholesale markets, can hardly be effectively protected by China’s Trademark Law.

Continue Reading Do Shopping Malls and Supermarkets Qualify for Class 35 Trademarks?

金杜律师事务所知识产权组

在中国大陆的理论和司法实践中对用于商场、超市的服务商标可否获得注册保护以及是否应在国际分类第35类注册存在较大分歧和争议。

反对者认为，商标局曾于2004年8月13日在致四川省工商行政管理局《关于国际分类第35类是否包括商场、超市服务问题的批复》（“《批复》”）中已明确澄清第35类不包括商品的批发、零售，商场、超市服务不属于该类别。‘推销（替他人)’服务的内容是指为他人销售商品(服务)提供建议、策划、宣传、咨询等。显而易见，按照此《批复》，百货商场、超市、批发市场等批发、零售企业即使在“推销(替他人)”服务项目上注册其商标，也不能得到中国《商标法》的有效保护。

Continue Reading 第 35 类是否包括商场、超市等服务

By He Wei and Zeng Ying King & Wood’s Dispute Resolution Group

This article continues to discuss Extra-judicial Mediation System and Practice. The first part of this article was published on Chinalawinsight on October 2011.

II. A review of extra-judicial mediation

Compared with mediation during arbitration or litigation, extra-judicial mediation can offer a more amicable way for the solving of disputes and avoid many of the disadvantages of "judicial mediation".

In judicial mediation judges and arbitrators primarily rely on rigid laws and regulations to guide the mediation process whereas the regulations applicable to extra-judicial mediation are more flexible. Article 17 of the Several Provisions provides that "in the mediation of cases, relevant organizations may, without violating the mandatory provisions of laws and administrative regulations, guide the parties to reach settlement agreements by referring to industrial practices, village regulations, community conventions, local good customs and other codes of conduct."

Continue Reading Extra-judicial Mediation System and Practice （Part II of II）

作者：何薇、曾颖 金杜律师事务所争议解决组

本文分两部分刊登， 2011年10月31日金杜法律博客(Chinalawinsight)刊登的了本文的第一部分。文章第二部分将继续对《非司法体系下的调解制度及实践》进行解读。

二、非司法体系下的调解制度评析

非司法体系下的调解相对于诉讼和仲裁中的调解更有利于帮助当事人握手言和、消除纷争，同时也可以克服法院调解和仲裁调解的弊端，体现出自身独特的优势。

首先，在适用法律的问题上，仲裁和法院的调解中，法官和仲裁员作为法律专业人士，仍然多以刚性的法律法规为依据，引导当事人解决纠纷。而在非司法体系下的调解中，适用的规则就更加灵活。最高人民法院《若干意见》第17条规定：“有关组织调解案件时，在不违反法律、行政法规强制性规定的前提下，可以参考行业惯例、村规民约、社区公约和当地善良风俗等行为规范，引导当事人达成调解协议。”

Continue Reading 非司法体系下的调解制度及实践（二）