IP exploitation strategy in South-East Asia

Quote

Written by Marta Bettinazzi

In these changing times, we all need to find the time to prepare for the future and draft our strategy for success. This should also mean reevaluating our resources to see if we can make better use of them.

A good shift of perspective is to stop considering your intellectual property (IP) only as a cost (registration, maintenance). IP is an asset and you should learn how to make the best out of it. We will briefly look at the options that exist for exploiting intellectual property rights (IPR), then examine both the risks and the best practices to put into place in South-East Asia (SEA).

The best way to exploit your IPR depends on the kind of IP you own, but it can be summarised in two big categories: licensing and selling.man-sitting-near-fruits-723991

Selling means that you permanently transfer your IP (or better, the economic rights connected to it) to someone else. For example, you sell your patent to a bigger company that can mass-produce the invention you have patented or, more commonly, your IP is purchased as part of a merger-and-acquisition operation. In this case one company would acquire all the IPR that were part of your assets (trade marks, copyrights, patents, etc.). A famous example is the acquisition of WhatsApp by Facebook for the unimaginable price of USD 21 billion (more info here).

Licensing means that you, as an IPR owner (licensor), authorise someone to use your rights (licensee) in exchange for an agreed payment (fee or royalty).

This can allow you to expand your global presence and also ensure a source of revenue. On the other hand, the licensee can manufacture, sell, import, export, distribute and market various goods or services that they may otherwise not have had the rights to.

We can group the license agreements in three categories: Technology License Agreement; Trademark Licensing (and Franchising) Agreement; Copyright License Agreement.

Often these kinds of agreements are combined with and/or included in broader contractual settings, for example distribution contracts.

Therefore, the first step in an effective IP strategy is to review the agreements you already have in place with your partners and distributors to be sure that they include clear rules regarding the use of your IP.

In SEA it’s not uncommon for local distributors to register the IP (usually the trade marks) of their international partners under their own name. This way the local company acquires de facto an exclusive license on the product(s) of the SMEs. In fact, if the local company is the owner of the trade mark, it can prevent others from using it, including other companies authorised by the SME (the original owner of the trade mark). It might be said that you are in a marriage with your partner, and you might need an expensive and lengthy divorce (judiciary decision) to be able to leave it.

Before entering any kind of distribution agreement, give special attention to the difference between the registration of the trade mark (and IP in general) and the registration of the product itself. The latter is an administrative step needed to import a ‘new’ product into a country, but it does not ensure any protection for your IPR.

In other words, if your distributor is offering to do the product registration to allow you to import goods into the country, this does not imply that he/she is also going to help you with the registration of the trade mark or patent (or any other IP).

Keep in mind that a formal licensing agreement is possible only if the IPR you wish to license is also protected in the country or countries of interest to you. Without registering your IP in the country, you are not only unable to properly license it, but you also have no legal right to put any restriction on its use by anyone else.

Despite provisions in international treaties, courts and administrative bodies in SEA seldom extend protection to well know trade marks (see, as a reference, the famous IKEA case in Indonesia). Only Malaysia and Singapore ensure some level of protection for de facto trade marks and take into account the use of a non-registered trade mark.

On a side note, do not forget to consider registering your trade mark in local scripts as well, for example in Thailand, Malaysia, and Myanmar. This ensures complete protection for your trade mark, limiting the possibility of cheaper copycats riding on your reputation by using a transliteration of your trade mark. pink-and-white-weighing-scale-3964619

Also, note that many countries in SEA require license agreements to be registered if they are to be enforced. Some countries, like Thailand, also require the registration of trade mark licenses, others, like Vietnam, only require the registration of technology transfers.

To recap, be sure to register your IP before entering into any agreements with local partners. If this is not possible in the immediate future at least include a clause in your agreements to prevent the local company from registering your IP ‘for you’.

Technology transfer agreements can be very remunerative, but can also put your business at risk — you could be creating your own, stronger competitor. Therefore, it is advisable to either license a technology you have patented in the country where your counterpart will operate or you license something (an idea, a technology, some know-how, a recipe, etc.) that is secret. In this case, you have to be sure that your partner is bound by the same level of secrecy.

Reality is not that simple. Even if something is patented (and therefore publicly disclosed, for example in Europe) local companies might not be advanced enough to copy it, and may be interested in entering an agreement with you to acquire the know-how surrounding the patent.

This might present itself as an unpredicted and very welcome source of revenue for you, but you are running the risk of your new partner becoming your competitor in the future.

A good way to balance this issue is to bind your partner to secrecy regarding the unpatented part of the technologies.

As mentioned, technology transfers are not always encouraged by legislation in SEA and can often be subject to registration requirements. This means that if the agreement is not registered at the public office it cannot be enforced (in cases of breach or liability). Some countries have also limitations regarding the kind of technologies that can be transferred to and from their territory.

balance-balancing-boulder-close-up-133372

In short: the best strategy is always to patent all your cutting-edge technologies in as many countries as possible (including new markets like SEA); combine a good patent strategy with a high level of secrecy and be aware of local legislation.

A final thought: do not forget to prepare all your contractual documents in both English and the local language and be sure to agree and sign the local language version. Most of the courts in SEA can only accept (and understand) documents in the local language. A later translation could be not only expensive but also problematic; your counterpart could propose their own translation of the text, which could lead to endless interpretation problems.

For more information you can have a look at our guides on trade marks, patents and technology transfers, or at our country factsheets.

Do not hesitate to reach out to the Helpdesk if you have any questions on IP in SEA.

Marta Bettinazzi

IP Business Advisor

South-East Asia IPR SME Helpdesk

E: marta.bettinazzi@southeastasia-iprhelpdesk.eu

W: www.southeastasia-iprhelpdesk.eu

 

The Philippines: Application of The Doctrine of Equivalents

patent-without backgroundToday’s blog post on the application of the doctrine of equivalents in the Philippines has been kindly drafted for us by our external expert Ms. Editha Hechanova from Hechanova & Co., Inc. In her article, Ms. Hechanova discusses a patent infringement case in the Philippines to demonstrate the applicability of the doctrine of equivalents in the Philippines IP system, which is essentially meant to help fighting patent fraud. The article first appeared in the Managing Intellectual Property

The doctrine of equivalents is provided under Section 75.2 of the IP Code of the Philippines (Republic Act 8293). However, in deciding actions for patent cancellation and infringement, the Intellectual Property Office (IPOPHL) as well as the Supreme Court rely for the most part on American case law. The recent patent infringement case of Eddie T Dionisio v Visita International Phils, Inc and Lal K Tulsiani (IPV No 10- 2013-00034, July 28 2016) citing a cancellation case also between the parties shows this.

Dionisio was the registered owner of utility model number 2-2011-000646 for a multi-purpose articulated ladder issued by the IPOPHL on June 6 2012. On December 20 2013, Dionisio filed an administrative complaint for patent infringement against Visita claiming that the latter sold ladders with specifications similar to Dionisio’s patented ladders. Visita countered that there was no infringement since it had its own earlier filed utility model registration 2-2009-000166 issued on December 28 2010. Continue reading “The Philippines: Application of The Doctrine of Equivalents” »

Terroir IPR Part 1: Geographical Indications and IP Protection for Your Appellation of Origin

Quote

The wine industry is characterised by a wide variety of producers, often very much linked to specific grapes, blends and terrains. The European Union has put in place a system of Geographical Indications (GIs), that are used to distinguish the origin of goods, often also linked to the quality and reputation of a purple-grapes-vineyard-napa-valley-napa-vineyard-45209specific product. In China, a large market for European wines, these GIs are as important, and once registered they are protected as trademarks. Nonetheless, as with trade marks, it is important to monitor the market for infringement of GIs and act against illegitimate users of your collective mark.
Wine has been classified by region for almost the entirety of its long and varied history, the Ancient Greeks stamped amphorae with the seal of the region they came from, and references to wine, identified by region are found throughout the Bible and other religious texts. Whilst this tradition of geographical identification continued throughout Antiquity and the Middle Ages, it was only in 1716, with the introduction of the Chianti region in Italy, protected by edict of the then Grand Duke of Tuscany.

Today, the concepts of appellation and terroir have spread around the world. France protects over 300 Appellation d’Origine Contrôlée (AOC)[1], and Italy over 400 Denominazione di Origine Controllata e Garantita (DOCG) and Denominazione di Origine Controllata (DOC) wines[2]. With similar systems and numerous varieties are grown and protected throughout Europe and the rest of the world, appellation of origin plays an important role in the classification of wines, as well as consumer decision making. As a result, the protection of the integrity of this classification system is of paramount importance to producers, distributors, retailers, and of course, consumers.

Protection of the appellation of origin of a product falls to the legal principles associated with so called Geographical Indications (GIs). Similar to trade marks, GIs are distinctive signs used to distinguish the origin of goods, thereby enabling consumers to accurately associate a particular quality or reputation with the products in question.

GIs differ from trade marks however in that rather than protecting a single producer’s rights, they protect a whole class, based on their geographical location and the production methods used. GIs therefore ‘belong to all those resident producers who comply with the specific by-laws and regulations set to ensure that the consumer ‘link’ between the quality /reputation of a product and its place of origin is maintained.[3]

Continue reading “Terroir IPR Part 1: Geographical Indications and IP Protection for Your Appellation of Origin” »

China’s New Ecommerce Law: What this will mean for Consumers, Operators and Providers

Quote

shutterstock_167099189Today’s blog post has been kindly drafted for us by our China IPR SME Helpdesk expert Mr. Daniel Albrecht from Starke Beijing. In this article, Mr. Albrecht gives a comprehensive overview on the latest changes in China’s new e-commerce law that will inevitably effect the activities of consumers, operators as well as providers. 

China’s Ecommerce Market 

In accordance to analysis by digital marketing researcher eMarketer, cross-border Ecommerce in China was due to hit USD 85.76 billion in 2016, up from USD 57.13 billion in 2015. Furthermore the China Internet Network Information Center (CNNIC) reported 710 million Internet users in June 2016. Notably, 40 per cent of China’s online consumers are buying foreign goods and eMarketer estimated the amount of money that each of them would have spent an average of USD 473.26 in 2016. 

If the projection that cross-border Ecommerce will have a compound annual growth rate of 18 percent through to the end of the decade — reaching an estimated USD 222.3 billion — will come true, the consequence would be that China’s Ecommerce market will catch up with those of the US, Britain, Japan, Germany and France combined by 2020. 

China’s New Ecommerce Law 

As the Ecommerce market is constantly changing and undoubtedly its major impact on social life and the current economy cannot be denied, it seems to be necessary to provide a legal framework to give answers to upcoming questions within the scope of Ecommerce. 

Hence a new Ecommerce law is in progress and drafts are waiting to be adopted. The new law shall remedy the current situation by promoting the Ecommerce market’s development, putting things straight and satisfying all the parties’ interests. These central ideas are laid out in Article 1 of the recent draft law and shall summarize simultaneously the political objectives pursued by this law. 

Continue reading “China’s New Ecommerce Law: What this will mean for Consumers, Operators and Providers” »

Patent Strategies for Startups

Quote

Today’s Post will focus on Patent Strategies for Startups in South-East Asia and has been kindly drafted for us by Ms. Chan Wai Yeng who is a patent specialist at Taylor Vinters Via LLC. Ms. Chan Wai Yeng will explore three patent strategies and several alternatives to ensure your product is best protected.

shutterstock_166598477

Startups generally worry that acquiring a patent is prohibitively expensive

As discussed in the first patent article, the cost of patenting is high and generally several order of magnitudes higher than the cost of acquiring other IP rights such as trade mark and industrial design rights.

A cohesive patent strategy can yield significant competitive advantage

The high level of financial investment involved in patent filing may deter startups from developing a comprehensive IP strategy that includes patent filings at its initial development stage. However, startups with a cohesive patent strategy that aligns with their business can benefit from gaining a strong competitive advantage in the market. Having a patent filing strategy can also mitigate litigation risks from competitors.

Continue reading “Patent Strategies for Startups” »