General Office of Communist Party of China and State Council issued Opinion regarding Reform and Innovation for Trial of Intellectual Property Cases

RegisteredToday’s blog post has been kindly shared with us by our China IPR SME Helpdesk external expert Mr. Charles Feng from East & Concord Partners. In this article, Mr. Feng interprets and explains the recent “Opinion regarding Improvement of Reform and Innovation for Intellectual Property related Trials” jointly issued by the General Office of Chinese Communist Party and the State Council.

On February 6, 2018, General Office of Chinese Communist Party and State Council jointly issued the official document namely “Opinion regarding Improvement of Reform and Innovation for Intellectual Property related Trials” (the “Opinion”). Vice President of Supreme People’s Court (“SPC”), Judge Tao, made interpretation to the IP Opinion during the press conference and was interviewed following the issuance on February 27.

The IP Opinion consisting of four parts includes the General Requirement, Perfection of IP Trial System, Enhancement of IP Court System, and Improvement of Arrangement and Coordination, which were specified as follows.

I General Requirement

The Opinion positioned the IP protection issue as the basic measure for encouragement and guarantee to innovation and creation that builds the foundation to the National Strategy to establish a Nation that is strong in IP as well as science and technology.

Comments by Charles Feng

The Opinion was the first strategic document issued by CPC and State Council, the top administrative body of China, which declared the IP protection as the major approach to protect innovation and development.  Continue reading “General Office of Communist Party of China and State Council issued Opinion regarding Reform and Innovation for Trial of Intellectual Property Cases” »

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” »

Validation of European Patent in Cambodia

shutterstock_166598477Good news for the European SMEs wishing to do business in Cambodia, it’s now possible to validate European patents in Cambodia. Today’s blog post on validation of European patent in Cambodia has been kindly drafted for us by our external IPR expert Dr. Phin Sovath from Bun & Associates. In this blog post, Dr. Phin further explains the Agreement on Validation of European Patent between the Royal Government of Cambodia and the European Patent Office.

Summary

On 1st March 2018, the Agreement on Validation of European Patent (the “Validation Agreement”) enters into force in Cambodia. Henceforth, it is possible to request for validation of the European patent in Cambodia and thus obtain the same protection as national patent granted by the Ministry of Industry and Handicraft (the “MIH”).

In January 2017, the Royal Government of Cambodia and the EPO entered into Agreement on Validation of European Patent. In November 2017, the law on ratification of the Validation Agreement was promulgated. And from 1st March 2018 onward, the European patent holder may request for its validation in Cambodia through a simplified and accelerated procedure set forth in the Prakas No. 282 MIH/2017 dated 08 December 2017 of the Ministry of Industry and Handicraft (the “Prakas No.282 MIH/2017”).

In accordance with Prakas No. 282 MIH/2017, the validation procedure is applicable to both European patent and European patent application which refers to either the patent application filed with the EPO under the framework of the European Patent Convention (the “EPC”) or the international application for patent registration filed under the framework of the Patent Cooperation Treaty (the “PCT”) having designation of both the EPO and Cambodia. Moreover, the eligible European patent and European patent application will have a filing date on or after the date of entry into force of the Validation Agreement in Cambodia, i.e. 1st March 2018. Continue reading “Validation of European Patent in Cambodia” »

China’s trademark law: Evicting the squatters

Today’s blog post has been kindly drafted for us by Ms. Marie Ferey and Mr. Fabio Giacopello from HFG Law & Intellectual Property. Ms. Ferey and Mr. Giacopello use several high-profile case studies to discuss how companies can fight against trade mark squatters in China. 

Several high-profile cases show that trademark owners in China can succeed in removing squatters. Marie Ferey and Fabio Giacopello of HFG report.

When it was introduced the new Chinese Trademark Law (TML) didn’t seem tough enough against trademark squatting, but after three years of implementation we have found that the TML has many resources and provisions that can be used to stop malicious trademarks.

‘Face book’

On January 24, 2011, an individual called Hongqun Liu filed an application for registering ‘face book’ as a trademark before the Chinese Trademark Office (CTMO). It designated “vegetable canned food, potato chips” in class 29, “coffee beverage, tea beverage and candy” in class 30, and “fruit juice (beverage), iced (beverage), vegetable juice (beverage)” in class 32. The trademarks were preliminarily approved by the CTMO.

Social media platform Facebook later undertook legal action in order to invalidate the trademarks and succeeded at the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate Court. According to article 44 of China’s TML, the court stated: “If improper means are found in the examination stage of a trademark application, it is detrimental to restrain such means by cancellation of a registered trademark instead of rejecting the registration at the approval stage.”

In this case, Facebook succeeded in proving that Liu had filed multiple applications for ‘face book’ trademarks in many different classes. Besides, Liu has also registered reproductions and imitations of others trademarks with high reputation. Continue reading “China’s trademark law: Evicting the squatters” »

The CPTPP – What to Expect?

denver-business-law-firm-intellectual-propertyToday’s blog post has been kindly drafted for us by the South-East Asia IPR SME Helpdesk external expert Mr. Manh Hung Tran from BMVN International LLC, a member firm of Baker & McKenzie International. In his article, Mr. Manh Hung Tran discusses what signing the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership means to its signatories in terms of IPR protection. 

At the November 2017 Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Summit in Da Nang, Vietnam, the 11 countries remaining in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) took a significant step forward to finalize a new agreement now referred to as the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP).

In the absence of a key player – the United States – this new cross-border deal, the CPTPP is reported to have largely incorporated the TPP on the one hand but “suspended” certain intellectual property provisions on the other hand, in hopes of reviving them when the United States re-joins the agreement at some point in the future. Thus, although the final text has not been published, it is highly likely that the CPTPP has ceased the effect of many IP-related and/or drug-specific articles that the United States rigorously promoted when the TPP was being negotiated.

In light of the above, we think that the following important issues in Chapter 18 of the TPP, which concerns intellectual property, may have been included in the list of suspended provisions of the CPTPP. Continue reading “The CPTPP – What to Expect?” »