Filter

Open

25

SEP

2020

业界新闻:

中华人民共和国著作权法修正案草案提交二审

Second Draft of The Copyright Law Amendment under Review at Standing Committee of the NPC

88日,《中华人民共和国著作权法修正案(草案)》提请全国人大常委会会议第二次审议。

On August 8, the "Amendment to the Copyright Law of P.R. China (Draft)" was submitted to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress for the second review.

草案二审稿进一步完善作品的定义和类型,将其修改为本法所称的作品,是指文学、艺术和科学等领域内具有独创性并能以一定形式表现的智力成果

The second review of the draft further improved the definition and types of works, revising them to "the works referred to in this law are the intellectual achievements that are original and can be expressed in a certain form in the fields of literature, art and science."

在完善视听作品保护方面,草案二审稿在一审稿基础上对视听作品的著作权归属进行了区分。比如,草案二审稿在电影作品、电视剧作品的基础上另增加规定,其他视听作品构成合作作品或者职务作品的,著作权的归属依照本法有关规定确定;不构成合作作品或者职务作品的,著作权的归属由制作者和作者约定,没有约定或者约定不明确的,由制作者享有,但作者享有署名权和获得报酬的权利。制作者使用本款规定的视听作品超出合同约定的范围或者行业惯例的,应当取得作者许可。

In terms of improving the protection of audio-visual works, the second-review draft of the draft distinguishes the copyright ownership of audio-visual works on the basis of the first review. For example, the second review of the draft adds provisions on the basis of "movie works or TV drama works". If other audio-visual works "constitute cooperative works or service works, the copyright ownership shall be determined in accordance with the relevant provisions of this law; they do not constitute cooperative works or service works. The ownership of the copyright is agreed between the producer and the author. If there is no agreement or the agreement is not clear, the producer enjoys it, but the author has the right to sign and receive remuneration. If the producer’s use of the audio-visual works specified in this paragraph exceeds the scope of the contract or industry practices, the author's permission should be obtained."

此外,针对滥用著作权的问题,草案二审稿注重与民法典、反垄断法等法律的衔接,删去了草案一审稿中不得滥用权利影响作品的正常传播这一表述以及相关法律责任的规定。同时,为更好地平衡保护著作权与公共利益,草案二审稿拟适度扩大法定的不经著作权人许可且不向其支付报酬而合理使用有关作品的范围。(来源:中国国家知识产权战略网)

In addition, in response to the problem of copyright abuse, the second-review draft focused on the compliance with the Civil Code, Anti-Trust Law and other laws, and deleted the expression "not to abuse rights to affect the normal dissemination of the work" in the first-review draft and the provisions concerning the related legal responsibilities. Meanwhile, in order to better balance the protection of copyright and public interest, the second-review draft intends to appropriately expand the scope of the legal use of related works without the permission of the copyright owner and without payment to him or her. (Source:

wwww.cnipa.gov.cn)

商标国际注册审查提质增效

CNIPA: Trademark International Registration Speeding Up

中国国家知识产权局商标局持续推进商标国际注册业务便利化改革,全面提升马德里商标审查质量和效率,压缩审限齐头并进,有效保护中外申请人合法权益。

The Trademark Office of the China National IP Administration continues to promote the reform to facilitate international trademark registration and improve the quality and efficiency of Madrid trademark review, reduce the examination timeline, and protect the legitimate rights and interests of both domestic and foreign applicants.

上半年,商标局共收到中国国内申请人提交的马德里国际注册申请3875件,同比增长36%,网上申请比例达93.5%;商标局完成去国际注册业务审查4009件,审查周期2个月;完成马德里领土延伸申请实质审查27447类,完成马德里国际后续业务审查28568类。

In the first half of the year, the Trademark Office received a total of 3,875 Madrid international registration applications submitted by Chinese domestic applicants, up 36% year-over-year, with online applications accounted for 93.5% of the total; the Trademark Office completed 4,009 international registration reviews within 2 months, 27,447 substantive examinations of Madrid territorial extension applications and 28,568 Madrid international follow-up reviews.

(来源:国家知识产权局网站)

(Source: CNIPA website)

中华人民共和国商务部:允许具有资格的外国人,参加专利代理师资格考试

New Policy Permitting Qualified Foreigners Practice of Patent Agency in China and Foreign Patent Agency Entry

近日,中华人民共和国商务部印发关于全面深化服务贸易创新发展试点总体方案的通知。其中,《通知》中有关知识产权的内容摘选如下:

Recently, the Ministry of Commerce of the P.R. China issued a notice on the overall plan for expanding the innovation development of service trades, among which, the following articles concerns IP industry:

35、在知识产权服务业集聚区等具备条件的试点地区试点,允许取得中国政府颁发的外国人永久居留证、且具有其他国家专利代理资格的外国人,参加专利代理师资格考试,成绩合格者,发给《专利代理师资格证》。取得《专利代理师资格证》的前述人员可以在试点地区已经设立的专利代理机构中执业,符合规定条件的可以加入成为在试点地区已经批准设立的专利代理机构的合伙人或股东。

Article 35. “In the IP service-clustered pilot regions meeting the qualifications requirements, foreigners who have obtained permanent residence permits for foreigners issued by the Chinese government and have patent agency qualifications in other countries are allowed to participate in the patent agent qualification exam and those who have passed the test can be issued the "Patent Agent Qualification Certificate." The aforementioned persons who have obtained the "Patent Agent Qualification Certificate" can practice in the patent agencies established in the pilot regions, and those who meet the prescribed conditions can join as partners or shareholders of the patent agencies established in the pilot regions.”

48、加强国际合作,推动研究制订外国专利代理机构驻华代表机构管理的有关规定,选择有条件的试点地区开展外国专利代理机构在华设立常驻代表机构试点,引入国际高水平知识产权服务资源。及时总结经验,为制订有关管理办法提供实践支撑,进一步推进知识产权服务业领域扩大对外开放,提升服务水平。

Article 48. “Strengthen international cooperation, promote the study and formulation of relevant regulations on the management of representative offices of foreign patent agencies in China, select qualified pilot areas to carry out trials for foreign patent agencies to establish permanent representative offices in China, and introduce international high-level intellectual property service resources . With timely review of past experience, provide practical support for the formulation of relevant measures for management, further promote the expansion of the intellectual property service industry to the outside world, and improve service quality”.

(来源:IPRdaily

经典案例:

集佳助力全球最大油田技术服务公司维持两项重要专利权有效

Unitalen Client Schlumberger Maintained Two Basic Patents Successfully

案件事实:

Background

专利权人M-I有限公司隶属于全球最大的跨国油田技术服务集团斯伦贝谢。斯伦贝谢及其下属各子公司和关联公司在油田技术各个领域拥有大量基础专利。

The patentee M-I Co., Ltd. belongs to Schlumberger, the world's largest multinational oilfield technology service group. Schlumberger and its subsidiaries and affiliates have a large number of basic patents in various fields of oilfield technology.

M-I有限公司于2019年下半年对河北某机械制造有限公司在美国国际贸易委员会启动了337调查,并在中国北京知识产权法院提起了多起专利侵权诉讼。

In the second half of 2019, M-I Co., Ltd. initiated a 337 investigation against a Hebei machinery manufacturer. through the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) and filed multiple patent infringement lawsuits in the Beijing Intellectual Property Court of China.

针对上述专利侵权诉讼涉及的M-I有限公司所拥有的关于框架和筛网的中国发明专利及其同族发明专利,河北某机械制造有限公司作为请求人于2019年底和2020年初分别向国家知识产权局递交了无效宣告请求。在两无效请求中,请求人罗列了大量证据,以技术特征组合的方式欲证明涉案专利不具有创造性。

Against the Chinese invention patents on frames and screen meshes owned by MI Co., Ltd. involved in the above-mentioned patent infringement litigation and its family invention patents, the Hebei machinery manufacturer (hereinafter referred to as “the requester”), submitted to the Patent Office of China IP Administration (CNIPA) at the end of 2019 and early 2020, respectively the invalidation requests. In the two requests, the requester listed a large amount of evidence in attempt to prove that the patents in question are not inventive by means of a combination of technical features.

法院判决:

集佳团队对涉案专利的技术方案以及相关现有技术进行了详细说明,并根据审查指南的三步法的评价标准进行了深入说理和细致分析,国家知识产权局决定维持两专利的专利权全部有效。

CNIPA Ruling

The legal team of Unitalen, entrusted by the patentee M-I Co., Ltd., explained in details the technical solutions of the patents involved and prior arts concerned to the CNIPA, with in-depth reasoning and analyses presented following the three-step evaluation criteria of the examination, and successfully had the CNIPA rule to maintain effective all the rights of the two patents involved.

案件评析:

Opinions

两案的争议焦点是:如何认定区别技术特征所要解决的技术问题,以及在此基础上如何认定现有技术是否给出启示。

The focus of the above-mentioned two invalidations is how to determine the technical problem solved by the distinguishing technical features, and on top this, how to determine whether the prior art has inspired the invention.

例如,在涉诉专利的无效请求中,请求人和专利权人都认可,涉案专利权利要求1与证据1、证据2或证据6的区别至少在于:模制塑料框架的边缘区域通过在它们的四个角部处连接的并且限定了周边加固件的金属箱形截面部件从内部进行加固,所述金属丝的端部被固定到所述金属箱形截面部件上。对于该区别技术特征,请求人认为,其作用就是加强整个筛框强度,而证据3~7均公开了采用金属箱形截面方管型材作为四周边缘区域可以加强整个筛框强度的技术方案,既然作用相同,自然也给出了技术启示,进而权利要求1相对于他们的组合不具有创造性。但事实上,结合涉案专利的背景技术可知,发明人在做出本发明时面对的技术问题是筛网过度抖动以及流体绕过、密封损坏、过度飞溅等问题,经过发明人的创造性劳动,才发现了提高筛网框架的强度可以避免该过度抖动以及其它问题。因此,基于上述区别技术特征,涉案专利实际解决的技术问题应该是提高筛网框架的强度和避免使用中过度抖动。而对于该技术问题的解决,其它现有技术未给出任何启示,甚至技术构思都完全不同。合议组据此维持了专利权有效。

For example, in the invalidation request involved, both the requester and the patentee agree that there is at least one difference between Claim 1 of the patent involved and Evidence 1, Evidence 2 or Evidence 6 exits, i.e. the edge areas of the molded plastic frame are reinforced from the inside by metal box-shaped cross-section members connected at their four corners and defining peripheral reinforcements, and the ends of the metal wires are fixed to the metal box Sectional parts. Regarding this distinguishing technical feature, the requester believes that its role is to consolidate the strength of the entire screen frame, and Evidence 3 to 7 all disclose the use of metal box-shaped cross-section square tube profiles as the peripheral area to serve this. Therefore, inevitably, they provide technical enlightenment, so that Claim 1 is not inventive subject to the combination. But in fact, taking into account of the underlying technology of the patent involved, it’s found that the technical problems that the inventor faced during invention were excessive vibration of the screen, fluid bypass, seal damage, and excessive splashing. Through inventive work, the inventor discovered that increasing the strength of the screen frame can avoid the excessive shaking and other problems. Therefore, with the above-mentioned distinguishing technical features, the technical problem actually solved by the patent involved should be to improve the strength of the screen frame and avoid excessive shaking during use. As for the solution of this technical problem, other prior arts have not given any enlightenment, and even the technical idea is completely different. Thereby the collegiate panel maintained the validity of the patent right in question.

另一专利也存在类似情况,请求人因对区别技术特征所要解决的技术问题的理解错误,其请求的理由均不能成立。合议组也同样维持该专利权有效。

Similar for the other patent, the collegiate panel ruled to maintain the validity of the patent right because the requester has misunderstood the technical problem solved by the distinguishing technical features, none of the reasons for the request could be established.

那么,要如何认定区别技术特征所要解决的技术问题就成为本案的核心问题。

Further on how to identify the technical problems solved by distinguishing technical features, which is the core of this case.

在国家知识产权局公告第三二八号对《专利审查指南》的修改中,已经在创造性判断三步法的第二步明确规定了需要根据区别特征在要求保护的发明中所能达到的技术效果来确定发明实际解决的技术问题。正如本案中的请求人所错误理解的,只要将现有技术的特征简单组合起来就能够轻易获得本发明。在以目标发明为标杆、灯塔的情况下,从现有技术中寻找技术特征进行堆砌,自然是简单而容易的;但问题就在于,在没有目标发明的情况下,如何确定标杆、灯塔?在实际的发明过程中,本领域技术人员面对海量的现有技术,如果没有明确的技术启示,作为一个没有创造力的,他不会知道如何用现有技术去解决发明实际解决的技术问题,即使该解决手段本身也许并不困难、复杂。所以,那些表面上看似显而易见的发明事实上也可能具有创造性。

In the amendment to the "Patent Examination Guidelines" issued in the CNIPA No. 328 Announcement, the second step of the three-step method of determining inventiveness has clearly stipulated that "the technical problem actually solved by the invention needs to be determined according to the technical effect that the distinguishing feature can achieve in the claimed invention ". The requester in this case mistook that the invention involved can be obtained "easily" combining the features of prior art. With the target invention as the benchmark and beacon, it is simple and easy to find technical features from prior art to compare to; but, how to determine the benchmark and beacon in absence of the target invention? During invention, a technical person is faced with a huge amount of prior art. If there is no clear technical enlightenment, as an uncreative "person", he will not know how to use the prior art to solve the actual problem, even though the solution itself may not be difficult and complicated. Therefore, inventions that seem obvious on the surface may actually be inventive.

小薯条大市场——集佳代表全球最大冷冻薯条生产商成功宣告某跨国食品公司两项外观设计专利权全部无效

Unitalen Client McCann Foods Won Design Patent Invalidation Request against Another Multinational Food Company in China

 

基本案情

Case Summary

麦肯食品公司总部位于加拿大布鲁士维克省,是世界最大的冷冻薯条生产商,全球有三分之一的薯条来自于麦肯。

Headquartered in Brookswick, Canada, McCann Foods is the world’s largest producer of frozen fries contributing to one-third of the world’s frozen fries supply.

麦肯食品公司委托集佳针对某跨国食品公司在中国拥有的两项名称为扭曲形薯条的外观设计专利权向国家知识产权局提起无效宣告请求。

  Unitalen was entrusted by McCann Foods to file the invalidation request for two design patents titled as "Twisted French Fries" owned by another multinational food company (hereinafter referred to as “the patentee”) in China.

接受客户委托后,集佳无效团队立即启动全方位现有设计检索,并同时认真分析客户提供的相关域外公开证据。针对You-tube网站公开视频等域外网络证据在内地无法访问的问题,集佳邀请香港律师以《下载网络数据声明书》的形式对此类证据予以保全,以佐证其真实性。

Unitalen team conducted full range of prior art searches and analyzed the relevant public evidences provided by the client from outside of China. Due to the inaccessibility to the outside networks such as YouTube website where the relevant evidences were collected, Unitalen had their Hong Kong lawyers preserve such evidence in the form of "Download Network Data Statement" to prove its authenticity.

基于在先外观设计专利,互联网在先公开图片、照片以及视频等各类证据,集佳代表客户向国家知识产权局提起了无效宣告请求。

Based on the prior design patents and the prior publication of pictures, photos and videos on the Internet and other evidence, Unitalen filed the invalidation request.

经过审理,国家知识产权局于近日作出了无效宣告请求审查决定书,宣告两项涉案外观设计专利权全部无效。

After examination, the CNIPA recently issued a written decision on request for invalidation, declaring that the two design patents involved were all invalid.

国知局观点

CNIPA Opinions

  国家知识产权局认为:首先,如果网络证据来源于可信度比较高的网站,其上公开的内容详尽丰富并有众多浏览记录,其具有公证认证手续予以保全,在没有证据表明该网站或视频发布者与案件当事人存在利害关系,且无相反证据证明该视频内容及上传时间更改随意的情况下,该网络视频证据的真实性可以确认;其次,根据整体观察、综合判断的原则,涉案专利与对比设计均为螺旋形薯条,使二者呈现出整体造型接近的视觉效果,而其区别点并不足以对产品的整体视觉效果产生显著影响,涉案专利与对比设计相比不具有明显区别,不符合专利法第23条第2款的规定。

The CNIPA held that: First of all, if the online evidence comes from a website with a relatively high credibility, the content disclosed on it is detailed, comprehensive with proven browsing records, and it’s preserved through legal notarization and authentication procedure, if there is no evidence that the website or the video publisher has a stake of interest with the parties involved and there is no evidence to the contrary to prove that the content of the video and the upload time are changed at will, the authenticity of the online video as evidence can be confirmed; Secondly, the patent involved and the compared design are both spiral French fries, they present a similar visual effect in the overall appearance, and the difference doesn’t suffice to have a significant impact on the overall visual effect of the product. Therefore, it’s determined there is no obvious difference between the involved patent and the compared design, and it violates the provisions in Article 23, paragraph 2 of the Patent Law.

About the Firm

Unitalen Attorneys at Law
Address 7th Floor, Scitech Place, No. 22 Jian Guo Men Wai Ave., Beijing, 100004 P. R. China
Tel 86-10-5920 8888
Fax 86-10-5920 8588
Email mail@unitalen.com
Link www.unitalen.com

Related Newsletters

25
SEP
2020
25
SEP
2020
業界ニュース: 中華人民共和国著作権法修正案草案が第2回審議に提出 8...

Read More

17
AUG
2020
17
AUG
2020
业界新闻: SPC: Similar Case Search Regulations and System in Trial Effective from July 31 ...

Read More

17
AUG
2020
17
AUG
2020
業界ニュース: 中国最高人民法院: 「同案同判」、類似事件は必ず検索を...

Read More

17
JUL
2020
17
JUL
2020
业界新闻: 中国国家知识产权局与欧洲专利局关于共同应对新型冠状病毒...

Read More

14
JUL
2020
14
JUL
2020
業界ニュース: 中国国家知識産権局と欧州特許庁による新型コロナウ...

Read More

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3