IP

Subscribe to IP via RSS

作者：楼仙英 姚迪 金杜律师事务所知识产权组

新修订的《中华人民共和国专利法》（1）（“专利法”）和《中华人民共和国专利法实施细则》（2）（“实施细则”）中对职务发明中发明人奖励与报酬进行了修改，在鼓励技术创新实现产业化的大背景下，这种改进充分发挥了制度在鼓励科技开发与技术创新以促进社会生产力发展方面的积极作用，但同时，特别是在日本蓝光案以7千万人民币和解结案的情况下，它也无疑给用人单位在技术创新方面的奖励和报酬管理制度上带来了一定的影响与挑战。

例如，根据《实施细则》第七十六条的规定，被授予专利权的单位可以与发明人约定或者在其依法制定的规章制度中规定奖励、报酬的方式和数额。因此，很多公司便纷纷在劳动合同中约定或在公司规章制度中规定，“双方确认并同意雇员的奖励和报酬包括在工资中”或“双方确定并同意雇员不要求任何奖励和报酬”等。其认为，只要合同基于双方意思自治，就不会存在风险。但在对各国职务发明制度进行比较研究后，我们认为这样的安排有很大风险，现分析如下：

为方便讨论上述问题，先简化问题如下：若雇主基于雇员的职务发明获得的巨大商业利润与雇员所获得的奖励与报酬完全不符时，雇员是否有权请求法院或仲裁机构变更或撤销合同，并请求额外的奖励和报酬？Continue Reading 防止职工职务发明诉讼

作者：瞿淼 金杜律师事务所知识产权组  

本文分两部分刊登， 2011年8月8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《投资并购交易中需要警惕的知识产权问题》进行解读。

五、并购行为对被收购方知识产权相关协议的影响

 在投资并购的尽职调查过程中，还需要特别注意投资及并购行为对一些知识产权权利可能产生的影响，尤其是对许可协议可能产生的影响。常见的情形有，收购导致触发控制权变更条款，从而可能影响协议的效力；或者协议原有的一些条款可能造成收购主体未来业务经营的妨碍。

案例五：某跨国公司拟整体收购另一跨国公司在中国境内的移动通讯业务部门。在尽职调查的过程中，我们发现被收购方曾与一国有企业签订一份许可协议，将该业务部门的核心技术许可该国有企业在中国进行排他性地使用，且承诺将不会将此技术在许可地域内转让或许可给任何第三方。知识产权律师应与收购方管理团队进行及时沟通，了解该公司的业务架构，明确收购方拟将收购获得的技术转让给收购方在中国的其它主体进行实施和管理。因此，应建议收购方在签署交易合同之前，由被收购方与被许可的国有企业协商修改许可协议，以保证交易后业务能够按计划运作。Continue Reading 投资并购交易中需要警惕的知识产权问题（二）

By Richard  Wigley of King & Wood’s Intellectual Property Group

Hollywood and Hong Kong film studios have long struggled to monetize their content in China. Though revenues from traditional movie theaters are growing rapidly, the real action may be found in the online market, where Chinese youth prefer to obtain their entertainment (i.e. film and television programming). How then can a content owner best take advantage of this rapid movement to online viewing in today’s China?Continue Reading China’s Online Video Providers struck by PRC Copyright Enforcement and a shifting Market are forced to transform.

By Ariel Ye, James Rowland and Richard  Wigley  of King & Wood ‘s Dispute Resolution Group and Intectual Property Group

Introduction

By asserting rights which Motorola and Nokia Siemens Networks undoubtedly consider legitimate, and relevant to the protection of their interests in the wireless infrastructure market, Huawei has taken a meaningful step towards the successful resolution of its differences with Motorola over the sale of its wireless network assets to one of Huawei’s competitors. If Huawei had not taken this step before the US Federal District Court, then Huawei and Motorola may have spent years in private commercial arbitration of this issue, achieving no meaningful outcome.Continue Reading Assertion of Huawei’s IP Rights: A lesson for China-outbound Investors

作者：叶渌、罗必成及韦理察    金杜争议解决组和知识产权组

简介

虽然在摩托罗拉和诺基亚西门子网络有限公司（下称“NSN”）看来，华为所主张的权利应是他们的合法权利，并且事关两者对基础无线网络领域利益的保护，但是华为采取的这种方式，是解决其与摩托罗拉之间关于向NSN（华为的竞争对手）转让无线网络资产的分歧的有效步骤。倘若华为不向美国联邦地区法院提起申请的话，华为和摩托罗拉可能要为此在保密的商业仲裁程序上耗费几年时间，并且毫无结果。Continue Reading 华为在美国联邦州法院主张其知识产权：为中国境外投资企业上了一课

Traditionally civil, administrative and criminal IPR cases have been heard by the Intellectual Property, Administrative and Criminal Divisions of the courts, respectively. For instance, both the IPR Tribunals and the Administrative Tribunals of the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People’s courts were entitled to exercise jurisdiction over IPR administrative cases involving patent and trademark rights grants and determinations. The issue is that different divisions may apply different criteria to the same case.

Xu Jing & Zhang Hairuo, IP Litigation, King & Wood

Continue Reading Unification of Jurisdiction in IPR-Related Civil, Criminal and Administrative Cases in China

Interviewed by Serwat Perwaiz, Editor of King & Wood’s Publication Group

As China’s economic and social presence on electronic forms of communication continues to develop and expand, the country’s regulatory bodies are stepping up to the challenge to keep pace with the new developments. We are lucky to have Dr. Martin Cave, Professor and Director of the Centre for Management under Regulation, Warwick Business School, to provide us his comments on the hot topics of Technology and the Internet.

When asked about his key areas of interest, he commented that he was particularly interested in “reform and liberalisation of the radio spectrum, which can support the amazing growth of voice and broadband wireless technologies we have seen in the past decade.” He went on to discuss how the standard model in Europe and the United States, which “relies on maximising competition and reducing regulation to the minimum, with a relatively small role for government policy and government subsidy” differs significantly from models in Asian countries where “government policy is a much stronger driver.”

Continue Reading Expert Look at Communications Technology: Comments by Dr. Martin Cave