Filter

Open

28

AUG

2020

Newsletter: Chinese IP Information

(English and Chinese)

  • IP Statistics in the First Half of 2020
  • Unified Law Enforcement Standards! "Trademark Infringement Judgment Standard" Released
  • Xidian Jietong VS Apple: A Dispute Triggered Several Lawsuits

IP Statistics in the First Half of 2020

In the first half of 2020, China’s main intellectual property indicators were in line with expectations, and the development of intellectual property undertakings remained stable.

(1) In terms of patents, in the first half of the year, totally 683,000 invention patent applications were filed; a total of 217,000 invention patents were granted. Among them, 176,000 domestic invention patents were granted. Among the domestic invention patent authorizations, there are 169,000 service inventions, accounting for 96.0%; and 7,000 non-service inventions, accounting for 4.0%. In the first half of the year, the top 3 domestic (excluding Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan) invention patents were granted by Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. (2772), OPPO Guangdong Mobile Communications Co., Ltd. (1925), and BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. (1432). Pieces).

In the first half of the year, 29,500 PCT international patent applications were accepted, a year-on-year increase of 22.6%. Among them, 26,800 were domestic, an increase of 20.7% year-on-year.

In the first half of the year, 26,200 patent reexamination requests were accepted; 25,700 cases were closed. 2,600 requests for invalidation of patents were accepted; 4,300 cases were closed. The examination period of China's invention patents is 20.3 months, high-value patent examination period is 15.2 months, utility model examination period is 6.4 months, and design examination period is 3.2 months.

(2) In terms of trademarks, in the first half of the year, the number of trademark applications in China was 4.284 million; the number of trademark registrations was 2.629 million. As of the end of June 2020, the number of valid registered trademarks in China was 27.414 million.

A total of 3875 applications for the international registration of Madrid trademarks from Chinese applicants were received, a year-on-year increase of 36.0%. As of the end of June 2020, the number of valid Madrid international trademark registrations for Chinese applicants was 41,000.

In the first half of the year, 166,000 applications for trademark examination and adjudication of various types were received, and 192,000 were closed. The average review period for trademark registration has stabilized within 4.5 months.

(3) In terms of geographical indications, in the first half of the year, CNIPA approved 322 companies using special signs for geographical indication products and 364 registered geographical indication trademarks. As of the end of June 2020, a total of 2,385 geographical indication products have been approved, 8,811 companies using special signs have been approved, and a total of 5,682 geographical indication trademarks have been registered.

(4) In terms of layout design of integrated circuits, in the first half of the year, China's integrated circuit layout design registration applications were 5,176, a year-on-year increase of 78.2%; 5,262 certificates were issued, a year-on-year increase of 111.6%.

(5) In terms of protection and use of intellectual property rights, in the first half of the year, there were a total of 5,320 administrative rulings on patent infringement disputes in various provinces (regions and municipalities) across the country. The domastic patent and trademark pledge deposit amounted to 85.3 billion CNY, a year-on-year increase of 45%, and the number of pledge projects was 4678, a year-on-year increase of 52%.

From CNIPA

2020.7.10

Unified Law Enforcement Standards! "Trademark Infringement Judgment Standard" Released

In accordance with the relevant provisions of the "Trademark Law" and the "Regulations on the Implementation of the Trademark Law", the "Trademark Infringement Judgment Standard" was issued on June 15, 2020.

The "Standard" systematically sorts out and summarizes the beneficial experiences and practices of trademark administrative protection over the years, and incorporates innovative regulations in combination with practice. There are 38 articles in the "Standard", which provide detailed regulations on the use of trademarks, the same kind of goods, similar goods, the same trademark, similar trademarks, easy to be confused, sales exemption, conflict of rights, suspension of application, and identification of right holders. It mainly includes:

The first is about the use of trademarks. It clarifies that the use of trademarks is usually the prerequisite for determining trademark infringement; further refines the definition of trademark use, lists the specific manifestations of trademark use; and clarifies the principles of trademark use determination.

The second is about the same commodity or similar commodities. The "Standard" stipulates the principles for determining the same and similar products, and clarifies the proper role of the "Differentiation Table" in trademark administrative enforcement.

The third is about the same trademark and similar trademarks. On the basis of traditional trademarks, the standards for judging the identity and similarity of new trademarks such as three-dimensional trademarks, color combination trademarks, and sound trademarks are incorporated into the "Standard". At the same time, it further clarifies the effect of the application of the "Trademark Examination and Trial Standards" in trademark administrative enforcement.

The fourth is about being easily confused. The new "Trademark Law" that was implemented in 2014 first proposed the regulations that are easy to be confused. Based on the study of administrative normative documents and judicial interpretations, the "Standard" clarifies two situations that are easy to be confused and the relevant factors about what needs to be considered if they are easy to be confused.

The fifth is about not having the permission of the trademark registrant. Regarding the disputed infringement situations in law enforcement practices that exceed the category, time limit, and quantity of trademark use licenses, the "Standard" clearly stipulates that unlicensed trademark registrants include unlicensed and over-licensed categories, deadlines, and quantities, etc. situation.

The sixth is about specific acts of trademark infringement. The "Standard" combines law enforcement practices, refers to relevant administrative replies, and refers to judicial interpretations, and provides for the legal application of trademark infringements that are prone to occur in practice, including self-change of registered trademarks, combined use of multiple registered trademarks, and the use of colors with the purpose of attachments, the use of infringing goods in the contracting of labor and materials processing, the gift of infringing goods in sales activities, and the assistance in infringement; further clarifies the specific applicable provisions of the trademark law.

The seventh is about sales exemption. The "Standard" specifies the relevant requirements for exemption of liability for sellers, clarifying that they are not unaware of sales and satisfying the relevant conditions of the description provider.

The eighth is the handling of conflicts between trademarks and other intellectual property rights. The "Standard" stipulates the principles for handling conflicts between trademarks and the above-mentioned intellectual property rights, and clarifies that the trademark application date is the benchmark for comparison.

The ninth is about the defense of prior use of trademarks. In order to standardize the use of unregistered trademarks that were previously used, the "Standard" has detailed regulations on trademarks that have a certain impact and the original scope of use.

The tenth is about the application of suspension. The "Standard" specifies the circumstances under which suspension can be applied.

The eleventh is about trademark infringements that have been committed twice or more within five years. The "Standard" provides detailed provisions on the "perpetration of more than two trademark infringements within five years" stipulated in Article 60, Paragraph 2 of the "Trademark Law", which clearly means that the same party has been identified as infringing others by the relevant trademark enforcement agencies, people's courts, etc, from the date when the administrative penalty or judgment of the exclusive right to exclusive use of a registered trademark becomes effective, trademark infringement is committed within five years.

The twelfth is about the identification of right holders. The "Standard" stipulates that trademark owners shall bear legal responsibility for the identification opinions issued by themselves, and clarifies that law enforcement agencies shall examine the legality of the subject of identification opinions, the authenticity and relevance of the identification opinions, and that the situation about the identification opinions that are adopted as evidence.

From CNIPA 2020.6.15

Xidian Jietong VS Apple: A Dispute Triggered Several Lawsuits

In China’s first standard-essential patent protection case in the field of information and communication technology (ICT), Xidian Jietong received a compensation of 9.1 million yuan in the second instance, and was called by the industry as a domestic growth company that "overwhelmed" the international giant with its standard-essential patents Benchmarking case. Since then, another patent dispute caused by the patent involved in the case (patent number: 02139508.X) has also attracted attention.

In April 2016, Xidian Jietong Company sued the three defendants including Apple to the Higher People's Court of Shaanxi Province on the grounds of patent infringement, requesting the court to order the three defendants to immediately stop the patent infringement.

In response, in May 2016, Apple filed an invalidation request with the original Patent Reexamination Board for the patent involved. After the original Patent Reexamination Board made an examination decision to maintain the validity of the patent rights involved, Apple filed an administrative lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court. On June 8, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court made a first-instance judgment, dismissing Apple's litigation request, and upholding the original Patent Reexamination Board's No. 31501 invalidation request review decision.

In addition to the invalidation procedures, Apple also sued Xidian Jietong to the Beijing Intellectual Property Court for abusing its monopoly market position and requesting the court to confirm the license rate for standard essential patents. Currently, the above-mentioned cases are under further trial.

The first instance remains valid

The patent in question was a Chinese invention patent application filed by Xidian Jietong Company in November 2002 and was authorized in March 2005. Since then, Xidian Jietong has filed patent applications for the technology in more than a dozen countries and regions including the United States, Japan, South Korea and Europe, and has been authorized successively.

In the case of Apple v. CNIPA and a third party, Xidian Jietong, in the administrative dispute over the invalidation of the patent for invention, Apple claimed that the sued review decision erroneously excluded its submission before the end of the oral debate for improvement, a notarized document supporting the authenticity of the document and the date of publication.

In this regard, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court held that in accordance with Article 66 of the Implementing Regulations of the Patent Law of the 2002 Edition and Section 4.3.1 of Chapter 3 of Part Four of the Patent Examination Guidelines, the petitioner made the request for invalidation. If the evidence is supplemented one month later, the Patent Reexamination Board will generally not consider it, except in the following circumstances: …… (ii) Submit technical dictionaries, technical manuals, textbooks, and other common-sense evidence in the technical field before the end of the oral debate Or it is used to improve the legal form of evidence, such as notarial certificates, originals, and other evidence, and combine the evidence to specify the relevant invalidation reasons within the time limit. According to the facts ascertained, Apple submitted multiple notarized documents (Annex 49-52, 55, 57-74) after one month from the date of the invalidation request and before the end of the oral debate to prove that it was submitted within one month of the authenticity and publication date of the webpage evidence, but some of these notarized documents have not been submitted within one month from the request date, such as the content that proves the publication date of the citations, the content that proves the authority of the website published in the citation, etc. The content of these overdue submissions does not belong to the common-sense evidence or the evidence used to improve the legal form of the evidence referred to in the above-mentioned "Patent Examination Guidelines". Therefore, the defendant decided not to accept the content of the overdue submission in the above appendix.

It is determined in the first-instance judgment about the admissibility standard for the overdue evidence submitted by the requester in the invalidation procedure, that is, if the requester submitted a notarial certificate submitted after one month from the date of the invalidation request to prove that the content of the internal evidence having the publication date of the citations submitted within one month exceed the time limit, the internal evidence does not belong to supplementary evidence in the legal form of perfect evidence and should not be accepted.

In addition, the first-instance judgment supported the evidence standard of the original Patent Reexamination Board, that is, if the network information is used to prove the facts to be proved, if the "notarial" evidence that has exceeded the period of proof proves that the network information source is different from the network source of the evidence content within the period, then the notarization is not an exception to the legal form of perfect evidence.

Based on this, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court held that the defendant’s decision was conclusive, the application of the law was correct, and it complied with legal procedures. The plaintiff Apple’s lawsuit lacked factual and legal basis, and the court refused to support it and rejected Apple’s lawsuit. As of press time, the case is still in the appeal period.

The above-mentioned determination of the court of first instance further affirmed the standard of CNIPA for the determination of evidence. It is worth mentioning that the invalidation examination decision No. 31501 involved in this case was rated as one of the top ten cases of invalidation of patent reexamination in 2017. Its typical meaning is to clarify the notarization and identification standards for web evidence, and it has the guiding significance to the same type of cases.

Apple intensively "strikes back"

The above-mentioned administrative dispute over the invalidation of the invention patent is only one of Apple's "counter-attack" cases. Apple also filed more than 10 lawsuits against Xidian Jietong, including abuse of its monopoly market position and disputes over the license rate of standard essential patents.

In October 2016, Apple sued Xidian Jietong Company to the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, requesting the court to confirm the standard essential patent licensing rate. In December 2016, Apple sued the Beijing Intellectual Property Court that Xidian Jietong Company was suspected of abusing the dominant position of the seller’s monopoly market. Currently, the two cases mentioned above are in the process of further trial.

In March 2018, Apple filed an arbitration with the Hong Kong International Arbitration Center with Xidian Jietong Company as the respondent, requesting the arbitration tribunal to make a ruling on the licensing fee of the Wireless LAN Security Protocol (WAPI) standard essential patent. In December 2019, the arbitration tribunal of the Hong Kong International Arbitration Center made a decision that the arbitration tribunal has jurisdiction over the case. Regarding this result, Xidian Jietong Company believes that in the process of making this ruling, the arbitration tribunal has illegal circumstances such as illegally excluding the appointment of arbitrators by Xidian Jietong Company.

In addition to the above disputes, Xidian Jietong and Apple are also involved in a trade secret infringement dispute. In January 2018, Xidian Jietong filed a lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, claiming that in the previous case, Apple used US court procedures to voluntarily provide Sony with the confidentiality obligations of Xidian Jietong and Apple. The act is suspected of constituting a trade secret infringement. Currently, the case is under further trial.

A patent litigation dispute has triggered several intellectual property lawsuits. We are still watching when the series of intellectual property disputes between the parties will end.

From PEOPLE.CN

2020.6.29

  • 2020年上半年主要工作统计数据
  • 统一执法标准!《商标侵权判断标准》出台
  • 西电捷通VS苹果:一起纠纷引发数起诉讼

2020 年上半年主要工作统计数据

2020年上半年,我国主要知识产权指标符合预期,知识产权事业发展保持平稳。

(一)在专利方面。上半年,我国发明专利申请68.3万件;共授权发明专利21.7万件。其中,国内发明专利授权17.6万件。在国内发明专利授权中,职务发明为16.9万件,占96.0%;非职务发明0.7万件,占4.0%。上半年,国内(不含港澳台)发明专利授权量排名前3的企业依次为:华为技术有限公司(2772件)、OPPO广东移动通信有限公司(1925件)、京东方科技集团股份有限公司(1432件)。

上半年,共受理PCT国际专利申请2.95万件,同比增长22.6%。其中,国内2.68万件,同比增长20.7%

上半年,共受理专利复审请求2.62万件;结案2.57万件。受理专利无效宣告请求0.26万件;结案0.43万件。我国发明专利审查周期20.3个月,高价值专利审查周期15.2个月,实用新型审查周期6.4个月,外观设计审查周期3.2个月。

(二)在商标方面。上半年,我国商标申请量为428.4万件;商标注册量为262.9万件。截至20206月底,我国有效注册商标量为2741.4万件。

共收到中国申请人马德里商标国际注册申请3875件,同比增长36.0%。截至20206月底,我国申请人马德里商标国际注册有效量为4.1万件。

上半年,共收到各类商标评审案件申请16.6万件,结案19.2万件。商标注册平均审查周期稳定在4.5个月以内。

三)在地理标志方面。上半年,我局核准使用地理标志产品专用标志企业322家,核准注册地理标志商标364件。截至20206月底,累计批准地理标志产品2385个,核准专用标志使用企业8811家,累计注册地理标志商标5682件。

(四)在集成电路布图设计方面。上半年,我国集成电路布图设计登记申请5176件,同比增长78.2%;发证5262件,同比增长111.6%

(五)在知识产权保护和运用方面。上半年,全国各省(区、市)专利侵权纠纷行政裁决案件总量5320件。全国专利商标质押金额853亿元,同比增长45%,质押项目数4678项,同比增长52%

摘自CNIPA

2020710

统一执法标准!《商标侵权判断标准》出台

根据《商标法》、《商标法实施条例》的有关规定,制定《商标侵权判断标准》。于2020615日予印发。

《标准》对多年来商标行政保护的有益经验与做法进行了系统梳理和提炼总结,并结合实践增加了创新性规定。《标准》共三十八条,对商标的使用、同一种商品、类似商品、相同商标、近似商标、容易混淆、销售免责、权利冲突、中止适用、权利人辨认等内容进行了细化规定。主要包括:

一是关于商标的使用。明确了商标的使用通常情况下是判定商标侵权行为的前提要件;进一步细化了商标的使用定义,并列举了商标的使用具体表现形式;明确了商标的使用判定原则。

二是关于同一种商品、类似商品。《标准》规定了同一种、类似商品的判定原则,并明确了《区分表》在商标行政执法中的应有作用。

三是关于相同商标、近似商标。《标准》在传统商标的基础上,增加了立体商标、颜色组合商标、声音商标等新型商标相同、近似的判断标准,同时,进一步明晰了《商标审查及审理标准》在商标行政执法中的应有作用。

四是关于容易混淆。2014年实施的新《商标法》中首次提出了容易混淆的规定,在研究行政规范性文件及司法解释的基础上,《标准》明确了容易混淆包含的两种情形以及判定容易混淆需考虑的相关因素。

五是关于未经商标注册人许可。针对执法实践中存在的超出商标使用许可的类别、期限、数量而导致的有争议的侵权情形,《标准》明确规定未经商标注册人许可包括未获得许可和超出许可的类别、期限、数量等情形。

六是关于商标侵权具体行为。《标准》结合执法实践,参照相关行政答复,参考司法解释,针对实践中多发易发的商标侵权行为的法律适用问题进行了规定,包括自行改变注册商标、多件注册商标组合使用、以攀附为目的附着颜色使用、在包工包料加工承揽中使用侵权商品、销售活动中附赠侵权商品、帮助侵权等情形,进一步明确了商标法的具体适用条款。

七是关于销售免责。《标准》对销售商免除责任的相关要件进行了细化规定,明确了不属于销售不知道的情形以及满足说明提供者的相关条件。

八是关于商标与其他知识产权冲突的处理。《标准》规定了处理商标与上述知识产权冲突的原则,明确了以商标申请日为比较基准。

九是关于在先使用商标抗辩。为规范在先使用的未注册商标使用,《标准》对有一定影响的商标、原使用范围等进行了细化规定。

十是关于中止的适用。《标准》对可以适用中止的情形进行了细化规定。

十一是关于五年内实施两次以上商标侵权行为。《标准》对《商标法》第六十条第二款规定的“五年内实施两次以上商标侵权行为”进行了细化规定,明确为同一当事人被商标执法相关部门、人民法院等认定侵犯他人注册商标专用权的行政处罚或者判决生效之日起,五年内又实施商标侵权行为。

十二是关于权利人辨认。《标准》规定了商标权利人应当对其出具的辨认意见承担法律责任,并明确了执法机关应审查出具辨认意见主体的合法性、辨认意见的真实性、关联性以及辨认意见被采纳为证据的前提条件。

摘自CNIPA

2020615

西电捷通VS苹果:一起纠纷引发数起诉讼

在我国信息与通信技术(ICT)领域首起标准必要专利维权案中,西电捷通公司二审获赔910万元,被业界称为国内成长型企业凭借标准必要专利“扳倒”国际巨头的标杆性案例。此后,该案涉案专利(专利号:02139508.X)引发的另一起专利纠纷同样备受关注。

20164月,西电捷通公司以专利侵权为由,将苹果公司等三被告起诉至陕西省高级人民法院,请求法院判令三被告立即停止专利侵权等行为。

作为回应,20165月,苹果公司针对涉案专利向原专利复审委员会提起无效宣告请求。原专利复审委员会作出维持涉案专利权有效的审查决定后,苹果公司向北京知识产权法院提起行政诉讼。68日,北京知识产权法院作出一审判决,驳回苹果公司的诉讼请求,维持原专利复审委员会作出的第31501号无效宣告请求审查决定。

除无效程序外,苹果公司还先后以滥用垄断市场地位、请求法院确认标准必要专利许可使用费率等为由,将西电捷通公司起诉至北京知识产权法院。目前,上述案件均在进一步审理中。

一审维持有效

涉案专利系西电捷通公司于200211月提交的一件中国发明专利申请,20053月获得授权。此后,西电捷通公司针对该技术在美国、日本、韩国和欧洲等十几个国家和地区提交了专利申请,并先后获得授权。

在苹果公司诉国家知识产权局和第三人西电捷通公司发明专利权无效行政纠纷案中,苹果公司称,被诉审查决定错误排除了其在口审辩论终结前提交的用于完善、佐证对比文件真实性和公开日期的公证文书。

对此,北京知识产权法院认为,根据2002年版专利法实施细则第六十六条和《专利审查指南》第四部分第三章第4.3.1节的规定,请求人在提出无效宣告请求之日起一个月后补充证据的,专利复审委员会一般不予考虑,但下列情形除外:……(ii)在口头审理辩论终结前提交技术词典、技术手册和教科书等所属技术领域中的公知常识性证据或者用于完善证据法定形式的公证书、原件等证据,并在期限内结合该证据具体说明相关无效理由的。根据查明事实,苹果公司在无效请求之日起一个月之后、口审辩论终结前提交多份公证文书(附件49-525557-74),用于证明其在一个月之内提交的网页证据的真实性和公开日期,但这些公证文书均有部分内容未在请求日起一个月内提交,例如证明对比文件公开日期的内容、证明对比文件所刊载的网站权威性的内容等,这些超期提交的内容并不属于上述《专利审查指南》中所指的公知常识性证据或用于完善证据法定形式的证据,因此被诉决定对上述附件中属于超期提交的部分内容不予接受并无不当。

一审判决确定了请求人在无效程序中提交的超期证据的采信标准,即请求人在无效请求之日起一个月之后提交的用于证明一个月内提交的对比文件公开日期的公证书如果超出期限内证据的证明内容,则不属于完善证据法定形式的补充证据,应不予接受。

此外,一审判决支持了原专利复审委员会证据标准,即以网络信息证明待证事实的,如果超过举证期限的“公证书”证据所证明的网络信息来源不同于期限内证据内容的网络来源,则该公证书不属于完善证据法定形式例外。

据此,北京知识产权法院认为,被诉决定证据确凿,适用法律正确,符合法定程序。原告苹果公司的诉讼请求缺乏事实与法律依据,法院不予支持,驳回苹果公司的诉讼请求。截至发稿时,该案仍在上诉期内。

一审法院的上述认定进一步肯定了国家知识产权局对证据的认定标准。值得一提的是,该案涉及的第31501号无效宣告审查决定书被评为2017年专利复审无效十大案件,其典型意义即明确了对网页证据的公证和认定标准,对同类型案件具有指导意义。

苹果密集“反击”

上述发明专利无效行政纠纷案只是苹果公司“反击”的其中一案。苹果公司还针对西电捷通公司提起了包括滥用垄断市场地位、标准必要专利许可使用费率纠纷等10余起诉讼。

201610月,苹果公司将西电捷通公司起诉至北京知识产权法院,请求法院确认标准必要专利许可使用费率。201612月,苹果公司向北京知识产权法院起诉称,西电捷通公司涉嫌滥用卖方垄断市场支配地位。目前,上述两起案件均在进一步审理过程中。

20183月,苹果公司以西电捷通公司为被申请人,向香港国际仲裁中心提出仲裁,请求仲裁庭就无线局域网安全协议(WAPI)标准必要专利的许可费率作出裁决。201912月,香港国际仲裁中心仲裁庭作出决定认为,仲裁庭对该案有管辖权。对于该结果,西电捷通公司认为,仲裁庭在作出这一裁定的过程中存在如非法排除西电捷通公司指定仲裁员等多种程序不合法的情况,拒绝参与后续仲裁。

除上述纠纷外,西电捷通公司与苹果公司还涉及一起商业秘密侵权纠纷。20181月,西电捷通公司向北京知识产权法院起诉称,在此前的案件中,苹果公司利用美国法院程序,主动向索尼公司提供西电捷通公司与苹果公司有保密义务约定合同的行为,涉嫌构成商业秘密侵权。目前,该案正在进一步审理中。

一起专利诉纠纷引发数起知识产权诉讼,双方的系列知识产权纠纷何时收尾,我们仍在持续关注中。

摘自人民网

2020629

About the Firm

Ge Cheng & Co Ltd.
Address Level 19, Tower E3, The Towers, Oriental Plaza, No 1 East Chang An Avenue, Beijing 100073, China.
Tel 86-10-8518 8598
Fax 86-10-8518 3600
Email davidcheng@gechengip.com , info@gechengip.com
Link www.gechengip.com

Related Newsletters

28
AUG
2020
28
AUG
2020
2020年上半期の知財に関する主要統計データー 執法基準統合!『商標権...

Read More

25
JUL
2020
25
JUL
2020
Newsletter: Chinese IP Information (English and Chinese) Trademark Examination: Adhere to Stab...

Read More

25
JUL
2020
25
JUL
2020
商標審査:安定を踏まえ進展を図り、品質・効率の向上を実現する We...

Read More

22
JUN
2020
22
JUN
2020
Newsletter: Chinese IP Information China's PCT International Patent Applications Rank Fir...

Read More

12
MAY
2020
12
MAY
2020
Newsletter: Chinese IP Information Annual Report of Patent Examinati...

Read More

  • 1
  • 2