By Li Zhongsheng and Song Xinyue King & Wood Mallesons’ IP group.
In January 2017, Beijing Sihuan Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (“Sihuan Pharm”), represented by a King & Wood Mallesons’ IP litigation team, succeeded in a patent infringement trial. The Inner Mongolia Hohhot Intermediate People’s Court (the “Court”) found that Qilu Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (“Qilu Pharmaceutical”)
By Li Zhongsheng Lei Peng King&Wood Mallesons’ Intellectual Property Group
The nature and products of some industries, like wireless telecommunications, necessitate the incorporation of all essential patents related to the products into standards created by standardization setting organizations (“SSOs”). If they are to find buyers, manufacturers whether licensed or not must make products in accordance
By Chen Changhui King&Wood Mallesons’ Intellectual Property Group
Civil enforcement is the last step of civil litigation (incl. intellectual property (IP) litigation), which plays a key role to realise civil rights. Whether or not it operates smoothly tends to be a weighted indicator to a nation’s legal development.
Enforcement constitutes the last yet crucial step of the protection of IP right holders’ interests. However, similar to other civil disputes, arduous enforcement has always perplexed IP right holders, which may cause that they cannot get the full extent of compensation (or even no compensation at all). Given that, how to avoid such a problem has become an intractable issue for both IP right holders and their attorneys.
Continue Reading Enforcement: the last mile of intellectual property litigation
By Yang Hua Ding Xianjie and He Tongjun King&Wood Mallesons’ Intellectual Property Group
What should we concern: when determining the level of similarity between trademarks, it should be limited to comparing the part that the citation mark has acquired the right to exclusive use with the mark in application. The part that is disclaimed of the exclusive right to use in an early registration even if has distinctiveness should not constitute a valid part for comparison and impede registration of a later filed trademark.
“Disclaiming the right to exclusive use” in trademark application refers to the situation in which the proprietor makes a disclaimer to give up any right to exclusive use for a part of the trademark, in order to avoid rejection of the whole application due to registrability issue of the disclaimed part. Signs prohibited from registration due to lack of distinctiveness are the part that is more commonly disclaimed of the right to exclusive use. In practice, some proprietors also disclaim the right to exclusive use for a part that has distinctiveness (the Disclaimed Part), which gives rise to the issue referred above, whether the Disclaimed Part will function to impede the registration by others of a later filed application.
Continue Reading Trademark comparing: disclaimed part no longer valid even with distinctiveness
By Yang Hua Wang Fang King&Wood Mallesons’ Intellectual Property Group
What should we concern: registered trademark, filed in the name of others without others’ authorisation should be deemed as “obtained through means of fraud” and should be announced invalid.
DELTASOFA’S S.R.L. (“DELTASOFA”) was established on September 19, 1985 by Vincenzo Liborio Calia, a skilled master carpenter in Europe who in 1965 started to design and produce sofas in south Italy and created the famous sofa brand “caliaitalia”. Nowadays the “caliaitalia” sofa products are sold in countries in North America, the Middle East and the Far East.
On August 1 2008, a Guangdong company filed a trademark application for the mark “caliaitalia” under No. 6875537 (hereinafter as “mark in dispute”) in the name of “Calia Italia S.p.A” (the former name of DELTASOFA”). In 2011, this Guandong company, again in the name of “Calia Italia S.p.A.”, signed the trademark assignment documents regarding the mark in dispute and had the mark assigned to its affiliated company.
Continue Reading Trademark invalid: registering in others’ name with no authorisation
By Ding Xianjie King & Wood Mallesons’ Trademark Group
Whether OEM constitutes trademark infringement has been an area of controversy in the field of intellectual property for many years. The ongoing debate has arisen recently, mainly focusing on the following three points: a) whether export-related OEM constitutes trademark infringement regulated by the Trademark Law of the PRC; b) whether OEM satisfies the requirement of “prior use” with an ability to prevent others from registering the trademark on the same or identical goods by illegitimate means; c) whether OEM can defend others’ cancellation requests on the grounds that the trademark has not been used for three years consecutively.
With regards to the abovementioned issues, the focus of the argument lies in whether the “brand-post” in OEM is a use of trademark in the sense of Trademark Law. If a) above is not satisfied, b) and c) will be problematic. This article summarizes existing case law and the prevalent literature, and concludes that the current controversy over the use of trademarks shall be weakened, but over the substance of trademark right protection.
Continue Reading Analysis of the use of trademarks in OEM based on the legislative intent of trademark protection
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?
By King & Wood Mallesons’ Healthcare Group
In April 2013, the Supreme People’s Court (“SPC”) issued the“Supreme People’s Court’s Annual Report of Intellectual Property Cases”, in which the SPC included 34 typical intellectual property and competition cases from 2012 and summed up 37 issues of application of law with universal significance. In this regard, we made a summary of the patent cases related to the pharmaceutical industry in the report, for the purpose of assisting pharmaceutical enterprises in drafting patent applications.
Continue Reading Insights on Drafting Pharmaceutical Patents from the “Supreme People’s Court’s Annual Report of Intellectual Property Cases”
By Zeng Xianwu King & Wood’s Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) Group
Since the reform and opening-up policy was introduced in 1978, especially in the past ten (10) years, the People’s Republic of China (the "PRC" or "China") has undergone significant changes. China is a growth engine for the worldwide economy, fueling global expansion via higher output and trading relationships with other nations as well as greater contributions from domestic consumption. Over last nine (9) months of 2011, China has already attracted contractual inbound foreign direct investment of USD177.8 billion. Notwithstanding China’s status as one of the world’s largest economies, and the massive amounts of foreign money invested in China, the basic laws and rules in China governing foreign investment seems mysterious for those who want to invest in China or are accustomed to laws of their countries.
By Xu Jing King & Wood’s IP Litigation Group
Overview
On April 20, 2011, the Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China (the “SPC”) promulgated the Annual Report on Intellectual Property Cases (2010) (the “Annual Report”), which comprises the SPC’s 43 pieces of brief comments on 36 IP cases adjudicated by the same court in 2010. Based upon the nature of the disputes, the Annual Report is categorized into seven main categories, including: (1) Patent Cases, (2) Copyright Cases, (3) Trademark Cases, (4) Unfair Competition Cases, (5) IP Related Contract Cases, (6) IP Infringement Liability, and (7) IP Litigation Evidence and Procedures.
