China’s official People’s Court News (人民法院报) announced the top 10 Chinese People’s Court cases for 2021 on January 6, 2022, which included one intellectual property law case – a trade secret case in which China’s Supreme People’s Court awarded 159 million RMB (~$24.9 million USD) to the trade secret holder. This is the largest ever trade secret misappropriation award reported in China. Other non-IP cases of note that made the list include the Lai Xiaomin case (who collected bribes totaling …
China Issues 115 Point Outline for Building a Powerful Intellectual Property Country
On January 4, 2022, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) published the 2021-2022 Outline for Building a Powerful Intellectual Property Country and the Annual Promotion Plan for the Implementation of the 14th Five- Year Plan (知识产权强国建设纲要和“十四五”规划实施年度推进计划) comprising 115 points in 7 categories. The categories include improving the intellectual property system (i.e., amending the Anti-Monopoly Law); strengthening the protection of intellectual property rights (i.e., formulate interpretations re punitive damages in civil IP cases); improving the operating mechanism of the intellectual property market …
CNIPA’s draft Patent Examination Guidelines – what is coming down the pipeline?
This article originally appeared in IAM here. By Aaron Wininger, Austin Chang and Carol Wininger On 3 August 2021 the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) released its Draft Revised Patent Examination Guidelines. These update CNIPA’s current guidelines based on the newly amended Patent Law, which came into effect on 1 June 2021. The guidelines, which are somewhat analogous to the USPTO Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, detail important changes to Chinese patent law. They suggest that in the near future, CNIPA may …
China Revokes Patent Firm Licenses for Filing Irregular Patent Applications
On December 22, 2021, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) released 9 decisions suspending or revoking the licenses of 9 patent firms for filing irregular (abnormal) patent applications. The CNIPA stated, “acting as an agent for irregular patent applications that are not for the purpose of protecting innovation violates the legislative purpose of the Patent Law, wastes public resources, and seriously interferes with the normal conduct of patent examination.” In the worst case of the 9, one firm was …