Revised Patent Examination Guidelines in China welcome more patents on business models

business-model-innovation

Last October, the State Intellectual Property Office of China (SIPO) released draft revisions to its Guidelines for Patent Examination for public consultation (see my earlier post). This month, SIPO published the final text of the revised Guidelines, which will enter into force on 1 April 2017. In comparison to the draft, the final version remains substantially unchanged. This may be a sign of support from the stakeholders. In fact, the proposed revisions received a quite good press immediately after their release, even when it comes to the part of revisions regarding patents on business models, which have been and probably are still one of the most controversial aspects of the IP system in many other countries such as the U.S.

As the SIPO explicitly stated, the planned revisions are aimed to strengthen the IP protection for innovation in emerging fields such as Internet, e-commerce, big data and to improve the IP protection system for business models. This emphasis reflects the state of innovation in China, where indigenous businesses have been so far quite successful in developing innovative services and products in these emerging fields. While it can be debated whether an expansion of patent protection into the arena of business models would indeed do more good than harm to the innovation, the objective of the Chinese policymakers is clear: to promote business model innovation through more IP protection.

While it remains to be seen in long term whether the above policy objective can be achieved, it is for individual inventors and businesses more interesting what immediate changes in practice will come out of the planned revisions. So, let’s first take a look at the revision itself. Continue reading “Revised Patent Examination Guidelines in China welcome more patents on business models”

IP issues in the telecom industry – An interview with Matteo Sabattini

iot

The telecommunication industry has experienced a rapid and constant growth over the years. Now the 5G technology and the “Internet of Things” are behind the corner, but a number of legal and regulatory issues are being discussed. We talk about this and much more with Matteo Sabattini, expert in IP-related matters (for his complete bio, scroll down).

Good morning Dr. Sabattini. What’s the weather like today in Washington DC?

Earlier today, it was snowing. Light flurries. Quite unexpected considering that yesterday we had temperatures close to 20 degrees Celsius and spring weather conditions!

Today you are a patent and technology policy expert. What led you into this field? As a student, did you expect to work in this field?

In college, I was passionate about technology and engineering. I had initially envisioned myself as a researcher, an academic or an R&D engineer. And, in fact, that is what I did after I graduated and what pushed me to get a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering. I got into IP with an internship at a consulting firm in Boston. While I was growing frustrated with the pace and the often-challenging industrial applicability of academic research, I enjoyed the diversity that working on patents gave me. I was learning quickly and eagerly about a new field, where I could still use my technical skills in a much more applied fashion. Through the years, as I was learning more about IP, I gradually moved from pure technical support to business and commercial aspects of the business. Continue reading “IP issues in the telecom industry – An interview with Matteo Sabattini”

Restriction of competition by object after Cartes Bancaires: further developments

How to assess whether an agreement between competitors has an anticompetitive object? In general, an agreement is known to be anticompetitive by object (or “per se”) when competitors agree on prices and quantities. However, when an agreement contains pro and anti-competitive features, a balance should be struck and the analysis is more complicated.

This assessment has an enormous impact on the burden of proof lying on competition authorities in antitrust investigations. Indeed, when competition authorities conclude that an agreement is restrictive by object, they do not have to prove the existence of an anticompetitive effect.

For decades, the antitrust community tried to to make a clear distinction between those agreements, which are restrictive by object and the ones whose effects have to be analysed in more depth. Finally, in the last years courts around Europe have handed down a number of judgments on this issue, trying to limit the frequent recourse by competition authorities to the “object shortcut”.

Continue reading “Restriction of competition by object after Cartes Bancaires: further developments”

TVCatchup II – Retransmission by cable not “exempted” in the InfoSoc Directive

cable

Last November, I reported on the GS Media case (C-160/15), which certainly gave rise to some debate. It appears that the CJEU is quite actively handing down judgments in the area of copyright. This is perhaps not too surprising, since the member states still have quite different national legislations and the harmonization from the EU is by no means exhaustive. Additionally, and more importantly, especially national copyright laws lag behind the rapid technical development, which is why many questions of interpretation may arise in national courts.

Only a few days ago, on 1 March, the CJEU handed down its judgment (C-275/15) in the case TVCatchup II. The national law in the UK included a provision, which roughly provided that copyright is not infringed in the case of immediate retransmission by cable. The relevant question from the UK court was “whether Article 9 of Directive 2001/29, and specifically the concept of ‘access to cable of broadcasting services’, must be interpreted as covering and permitting national legislation which provides that copyright is not infringed in the case of the immediate retransmission by cable, including, where relevant, via the internet, in the area of initial broadcast, of works broadcast on television channels subject to public service obligations.”

Continue reading “TVCatchup II – Retransmission by cable not “exempted” in the InfoSoc Directive”