Earlier this month, China published a memorandum of cooperation for joint efforts to strengthen punishment for dishonesty in patent arena, signed by a total of 38 government bodies including the supreme court, central bank, ministry of finance, patent office etc. According to this memorandum, dozens of punishment measures will soon be targeted at “severely dishonest behavior” such as repeated patent infringements, refusal to comply with administrative decisions, obstruction of local IP offices in conducting investigations and collecting evidence etc.Continue reading “China announced sweeping punishment measures for dishonesty in patent arena”
A Chinese judicial statistics service platform, IPHOUSE has recently published a statistical analysis report on the status and trend of patent litigations in China from 2013 to 2017. Some interesting information is gathered below for an overview. Please note that the term “patent” in the report, if not further specified, is used to encompass several patent-related rights, namely invention patent, utility model patent and design patent. Continue reading “Latest status and trend of patent litigations in China”
It is that time of the year again in India when the patentee must file an annual statement of working of their every granted patent. The statement has to be filed by the 31st of March each year.
Unique to India, this annual ritual mandated under Art. 146 (2) of the Indian Patent Act requires the patentee (and licensees) to furnish a statement to the extent to which the patented invention has been worked on a commercial scale in India.
This requirement stems from the Ayyangar Report (PDF), a policy document drafted in 1959 that forms the basis of the Indian Patent Regime.
While some countries chose to have no working requirement of patents, the Ayyangar Report reasoned that the quid pro quo the society receives in return for the grant of the monopoly could only be ensured if the patent is used for the purpose for which it is granted. Therefore, the report concluded that for a then under-developed country like India, certain safeguards against patents of foreigners was necessary. This resulted in the principles relating to the working of the patent and the consequences in case of failure being codified in the Indian Patent Act.
In April, 2017, Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) in Japan revealed a report on a new design of an IP system taking the 4th industry revolution into consideration. The report discloses the possibility of introduction of a compulsory license on SEPs (Standard Essential Patents) in upcoming several years.
Earlier this year, the Beijing IP Court issued a landmark decision in the Iwncomm v. Sony case, which clarified a number of interesting issues relating to standard essential patents (SEP). The court ruled that Sony had infringed an SEP held by the Chinese company Iwncomm and granted, besides damages for past infringement, the first injunction based on an SEP in China. In the same decision, the court addressed another important question concerning the applicability of the exhaustion doctrine. Under the doctrine, once an authorized sale of a patented product or a product obtained by using a patented manufacturing method occurs, the patent holder’s exclusive rights to control the use and sale of that product are said to be “exhausted,” and the purchaser is free to use or resell that product without further restraint from the relevant product patent or method-of-manufacture patent. It was nevertheless unclear from the existing case law, whether the exhaustion doctrine shall also be applied to a method patent that protects a method of using an existing product(s) (method-of-use patent), until the Sony decision now answered this question clearly in negative. This decision may thus provide an important guidance for future cases. However, when compared with more balanced approaches in other jurisdictions, which I will briefly discuss in this post, this guidance does not appear unquestionable. Continue reading “No exhaustion doctrine for “method-of-use” patents – Iwncomm v. Sony decision in China”
In my previous post, I wrote about an IP High Court judgment (the Maxacalcitol case) regarding doctrine of equivalents in patent infringements in Japan. The defendants appealed against the IP High Court judgment and the Supreme Court handed down the final judgment on 24th March, 2017. Continue reading “Recent development in Japanese patent case law; the doctrine of equivalents and the Supreme Court judgment in the Maxacalcitol case”
Car navigation systems, DVD players, liquid crystal displays, solar panels, DRAM memory and lithium ion batteries are products that have been invented and developed mainly by Japanese companies. The companies created new markets and got high market shares with many patents to exclude rival companies. Then the world’s markets expanded several times larger in scale. They kept investing high amounts in R&D for higher functionalities. Their world’s market shares recorded once more than 80% in all above-mentioned products except for DRAM memory (more than 40%). However, even though the market expanded, their shares have been drastically decreasing although they had developed cutting edge technologies with many patents related thereto. There is one report (Masahiro Samejima et al., Encouragement of IP Strategy, February, 2016), which analyzed the reason of their defeat in business and introduced a new interesting point of view. I would like to briefly discuss it here.
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”
A patent term may be extended if there is a period during which a patented invention is unable to be worked until a marketing authorization has been granted (For further information, see here). However, there was, until recently, no case law in Japan on the interpretation of the scope of patent with an extended term, and high uncertainty as to patent infringement by generic drugs was a big issue in the pharmaceutical industry. On 20th January, 2017, the IP High Court’s judgment (grand panel) was handed down, answering this issue by establishing three concrete standards. This judgment attracts great attention of generic companies and will boost their marketing of generic drugs because these standards contributed to clear away the uncertainty of patent infringement.
Drugs are not allowed to be marketed without a marketing authorization. Taking into account the investment on R&D for a new drug and the necessity to recoup such investment, the patent term may be extended by a period not exceeding 5 years if there is a period during which the patented invention cannot be worked. Later in this post, I will discuss the judgment of the Japanese Supreme Court in 2015, which caused the guidelines on patent term extension to be significantly amended.