At the press conference of China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) in the first quarter of 2019, the 2018 statistics on patent, trademark, GI and IC layout design were published.

In 2018, 1.542 million patent applications on invention were received; 432,000 invention patents were granted, including 346,000 domestic invention patents, among which, there were 323,000 employment inventions, accounted for 93.3% of the total, and 23,000 non-employment inventions for 6.7% of the total.

As for trademarks, 7.371 million trademark applications were received; 5.007 million trademarks were registered, among which, there were 4.797 million domestic trademarks. As of the end of 2018, the valid domestic trademark registrations (excluding the international trademark registrations in China and Madrid trademark registrations) amounted to 18.049 million, with an average of 1,724 registered trademarks per 10,000 market entities.

As for IP protection, in 2018, there were 77,276 patent administrative cases handled, up 15.9%, among which, there were 34,579 patent disputes (including 33,976 patent infringement cases), up 22.8%; and 42,679 patent counterfeit cases, up 10.9%. In addition, there were 31,000 trademark violation cases, valued at a total of 550 million RMB. And the first IC layout design infringement case was successfully handled.

In 2018, China’s total trade in IP royalty valued at over US $35 billion. The total amount of patent and trademark pledge financing has surpassed 122.4 billion RMB, up 12.3%, among which, patent right pledge financing amounted to 88.5 billion RMB, up 23%, with 5,408 pledge financing projects, up 29%.

(Source: CNIPA website).

At the request of WIPO, the 11th edition of Nice Classification had come into use since January 1, 2019. China Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) has made corresponding adjustments to the acceptable goods and services announced in 2018 and announced to the public. Applicant can enquire about the goods and products through CNIPA trademark search system (http://sbj.saic.gov.cn/sbcx/ ).

(Source: CNIPA website)

The IP Court of the Supreme People's Court of China (hereinafter referred to as “the IP Court”) came alive in Beijing on January 1. Ever since, the IP Court had taken on its statutory duties to accept the relevant cases as follows. 　　

The “Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues concerning the Intellectual Property Tribunal”, which was issued earlier, stipulates that the IP Court has a jurisdiction on the appeals of first-instance judgements made by the Higher People's Court, the Intellectual Property Court, and the Intermediate People's Court on IP cases involving high level of technicality, such as patents, subject to the following seven major categories - invention patents, utility model patents, new plant varieties, IC layout designs, technical secrets, computer software and anti-trust.

(Source: Beijing Business Daily)

Recently, witnessed by Chinese President Xi Jinping and Finnish President Ninisto, the Supplementary Agreement between the China National Intellectual Property Administration and the Finnish Patent and Registration Office was formally signed in Beijing. The signing of the agreement marks a new leap in the cooperation between China and Finland in the field of IP.

(Source: CNIPA website)

With the 12th edition of Locarno Classification entering into force on January 1, 2019, China Intellectual Property Administration has also used the Classification simultaneously in the examinations of Chinese industrial designs ever since.

(Source: China Intellectual Property News)

Case Summary:

“TheWorld Browser” was developed by its operator Beijing World Xinghui Technology Co., Ltd.(hereinafter referred to as “World Xinghui”). It is featured with the “advertisements blocking” function, with which checked, the browser users can navigate the video website of Tencent with all ads that are to be played at the beginning and/or the middle of the videos blocked. Entrusted by Tencent, Unitalen Attorneys at Law appealed to Beijing IP Court of the second instance and won the case, as the court held clearly that – the navigator blocking the ads of the videos has not only violated the recognized business ethics, but also would cause noticeable damage to the overall social interest if it prevails for long, which is prohibited in Article 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law.

Highlights of the Second-Instance Judgement :

1. The alleged behavior has violated the recognized business ethics

The court pointed out that, in accordance with the provisions in Article 16 of the "Interim Measures for the Administration of Internet Advertising" that “(cannot) provide or use applications, hardware, etc. to restrict, filter, cover, fast forward and put other restrictions on the legitimate advertisements provided by others”, it’s clear that the authority has identified the act of intercepting legitimate advertisements as a violation of recognized business ethics.

2. The alleged act will cause harm to social interest in long term

The first-instance judgement and the appellee had paid attention to the consumer interest limited to “the current stage” only. In respect of long-term interests, the alleged act could cause damage in the following 2 main areas:

First, as for now, the video websites might adjust their business model and it could affect the consumers;

Second, looking forward, the video websites might not survive, which will eventually affect the interests of the consumers.

Typical Significance :

The legitimacy of navigators blocking ads of videos has long been at discussion among the academic circle in recent years. A prevailing point is that competition behavior is naturally damaging, users have the right to choose whether to use the ad block function, and the development of ad filtering can promote technology advancement and benefit consumer interest, it’s argued that the evaluation of legitimacy of an act shall not be made without a dynamic view of competition and so on. The judgment made by the court of the second instance in this case has provided a definite and comprehensive judicial ruling on the analysis and evaluation of the legitimacy of ads filtering under the framework of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. The determination of recognized business ethics, the verification made through quantitative analysis of the balance of interest in Economics, and the analysis of the competition results in line with the dynamic market environment will provide important guidance for the future similar cases. 　　

Recently, the Intermediate People's Court of Linyi City of Shandong Province made the first-instance judgment over the case of Schneider Electric (China) Co. Ltd., represented by Unitalen, v. Shandong Schneider Transformer Co., Ltd. (now renamed as “Shandong Baoxiang Transformer Co., Ltd.”) and a related individual over the disputes of trademark right infringement and unfair competition. Unitalen helped Schneider Electric (China) won the first trial.

Case Summary :

Schneider Electric (China) is a subsidiary of Schneider Electric, a Fortune 500 company. The defendant company Shandong Schneider was established on July 22, 2013, which do a similar business to Schneider Electric (China). In the bidding quotation submitted by the defendant to Linyi No. 3 Middle School on December 18, 2015, the information of Schneider Electric of France was used in brand introduction; And the registered trademarks of Schneider China, the relevant official documents and seals were submitted among the supplementary materials of the quotation to prove "industry qualifications" and "honor certification".

During the trial of the case, the defendant company submitted an application for change of its company name to “Shandong Baoxiang Transformer Co., Ltd.” on April 2, 2018 and was approved by the Administration of Industry and Commerce Department.

The Court’s Ruling:

The Linyi Intermediate People's Court held that the defendant company has violated the exclusive rights of Schneider China's registered "Schneider" series trademarks in advertising, product sales and other business activities, and at the same time constituted false propaganda and unauthorized use of other company’s name that is with certain influence. It’s ordered to stop the aforementioned trademark infringement and unfair competition behaviors and compensate Schneider China for 300,000 yuan in economic losses and reasonable expenses.

Typical Significance :

The following highlights of the case are worth noting:

First, with the clues found during the advancement of the civil case, the legal representative of the defendant company was investigated by the police department and eventually sentenced with criminal charges.

Second, the defendant was forced to change its business name at the litigation stage, so as to avoid the large amount of time and cost that might incur during the execution of the judgment;

Third, in property preservation, we had exercised for the very first time the means of having “an insurance company to provide security for property preservation in the form of a letter of guarantee” in accordance with the “ Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues concerning the Handling of Property Preservation Cases by the People's Courts”, which came into force on December 1, 2016, thus accumulating valuable practical experience for the firm to handle similar matters in the future.

The fourth is a successful attempt to uncover the veil of the defendant company and to determine the specific liabilities of the legal representative and the company. 　　

On January 12th, the “9th China International IP New Year Forum and 2019 China IP Managers Annual Meeting” was held in Beijing. The theme of the event is focused on the new paths for Chinese companies to follow for innovation and IP development under the new era of change. Around 800 international and domestic experts, scholars and business managers attended the meeting. At the event, Unitalen litigation team was awarded “2018 China Outstanding IP Service Team” for its excellent service, excellent business capability and outstanding ability to handle difficult cases.

Since its inception in 2011, the forum has been recognized and praised by professionals in the industry and has become one of the most influential forum activities in China IP field.

On January 10th, “the Forum of the Background and Contents of the 4th Revision of the Patent Law” was jointly held by Shanghai International IP College of Tongji University and IP Research Center of Fudan University. Unitalen Attorneys at Law Shanghai Branch, along with Shanghai Law Society IP Law Research Association and Siemens (China), co-sponsored the event.

At the meeting, the expert attendees exchanged ideas on the main topics of the revision, with amendment proposals made from different perspectives for improvement of patent quality, strengthened law enforcement, stronger patent protection, promotion of patent marketing and so on. Mr. Li Wenhong, the director of Unitalen Shanghai Branch, and Mr. Wang Junhe, Unitalen senior counsel, also made speeches on the punitive compensation and statutory compensation systems for patent infringement, the good faith principles, industrial design patent right, employment invention incentives, patent information platforms, and patent licenses.

The meeting organizer collected all the suggestions and proposals made by the expert attendees and submitted to the government departments concerned in written.