Hauda Ip Rin China


Published on

Published in: Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Hauda Ip Rin China

  1. 1. Overview of IPR in China: USPTO Perspective Karen M. Hauda Attorney-Advisor Office of International Relations United States Patent and Trademark Office
  2. 2. IP R WTO Dispute <ul><li>USTR formally requested WTO dispute settlement consultations with China on April 10, 2007 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Deficiencies in China’s legal regime for protecting and enforcing copyrights and trademarks for a wide range of products </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Barriers China has placed on trade in books, music, video’s and movies </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Formal request for consultation is first step in pursuing WTO dispute settlement </li></ul>
  3. 3. China’s Legal IPR Deficiencies <ul><li>Excessively high thresholds for criminal liability </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Recently reduced from 1000 to 500 infringing works – amount of piracy or counterfeiting must be “serious,” “extremely serious,” “relatively large,” or “huge.” </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Disposal of Infringing Goods </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Permit seized goods to enter the channels of commerce </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Denial of Copyright Protection to Works Awaiting Censorship Review </li></ul><ul><ul><li>During review period unauthorized copies are placed into the market without threat of liability </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Scope of Criminal Law on Piracy </li></ul><ul><ul><li>China’s law appears to provide for prosecution of certain unauthorized reproduction only when accompanied by unauthorized distribution </li></ul></ul>
  4. 4. Market Access Restrictions <ul><li>China maintains import and distribution limitations on certain copyright material </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Books, newspapers, periodicals, and audio and visual products </li></ul></ul><ul><li>These market access restrictions encourage rampant IPR infringement </li></ul>
  5. 5. Key U.S. – China Dialogues <ul><li>Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade (JCCT) – Intellectual Property Rights Working Group (IPRWG) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>USPTO and USTR co-chair the IPRWG </li></ul></ul><ul><li>U.S. - China Strategic Economic Dialogue (SED) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Established in September 2006 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Provides a broader strategic framework for issues related to innovation and IPR </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Limited progress in copyright and trademark IPR areas for which U.S. has requested WTO Consultations </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Consultations held first week of June 2007 </li></ul></ul>
  6. 6. Potential Areas for Progress <ul><li>Patent Law Reform </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Several drafts developed by SIPO throughout 2006 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Latest proposed amendment in December 2006 </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Provides for 6-month grace period </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Disclosure of source of origin (potentially retroactive effect) and leaves open other disclosure requirements and revocation of patent or no eligibility for a patent for inventions that “depend on genetic resources” and where the “acquisition and exploitation” of the genetic resource “are contrary to relevant laws and regulations of the State.” </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>
  7. 7. WTO TRIPS Council <ul><li>China has joined the Brazil/India et al. proposal in the TRIPS Council to amend the TRIPS Agreement requiring disclosure in patent applications of: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Source and country of origin of inventions related to genetic resources and/or traditional knowledge </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Prior informed consent for use of the genetic resource or traditional knowledge </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Proof of benefit sharing agreement </li></ul></ul>
  8. 8. TRIPS Council Proposed Amendment <ul><li>Consequences of incomplete/inaccurate/absence of disclosure is to not issue the patent or revoke the patent if it was issued </li></ul><ul><li>Proposal is gaining momentum from developing countries </li></ul><ul><li>Many developing countries have amended or are considering amendments to their patent laws in a similar fashion </li></ul>
  9. 9. New Patent Disclosure Requirements <ul><li>Will impact agriculture industry </li></ul><ul><li>U.S. Concerns/Position on new disclosure proposal </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Doesn’t discourage/prevent misappropriation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Doesn’t ensure PIC or equitable benefit sharing </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>May upset ABS contractual agreements between parties if patent is revoked or not issued </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Creates uncertainty in patent system </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Hinders collaborative R&D/ joint ventures </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Role of patent system should not be a regulatory/enforcement regime </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>New disclosure requirements will not improve the quality of patents </li></ul></ul>
  10. 10. New Patent Disclosure Requirements <ul><li>U.S., Japan, Korea – Strongly opposed </li></ul><ul><li>Australia, Canada – Not convinced appropriate way forward </li></ul><ul><li>Switzerland – Voluntary national implementation of mandatory disclosure of source or origin, if known, OK </li></ul><ul><li>EU – Mandatory disclosure requirement OK, but sanctions outside patent system </li></ul><ul><li>Norway – Mandatory disclosure of source and country of origin, if known, and sanctions in patent system </li></ul><ul><li>Brazil, India & large developing country contingency – Mandatory disclosure of source & country of origin, PIC, and proof of ABS agreement and heavy sanctions </li></ul>
  11. 11. USPTO IPR Efforts in China <ul><li>IPR attach é in Beijing; 2 nd attach é in progress </li></ul><ul><li>WTO request for dispute consultations put a chill on USG IPR dialog overall, but: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>USPTO & SIPO dialog still strong </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Collaborative efforts among the 5-largest patent offices </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>USPTO, EPO, JPO, KIPO & SIPO </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Agreement to further enhance </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Worksharing efforts </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Information exchange </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Priority document exchange </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>IT system harmonization/cooperation </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>
  12. 12. PVP in China <ul><li>Strong emphasis on enhancing PVP IPR regime for domestic protection/enhancement </li></ul><ul><li>Strong belief that many plant varieties indigenous to China have been exploited unfairly – TK/GR support is likely an attempt to clawback/recover benefits </li></ul><ul><li>SED innovation dialog has emphasized desire to protect indigenous innovation </li></ul><ul><li>Transparency of system remains problematic </li></ul><ul><li>Recent evidence of recognition for stronger judicial protection – Highest People’s Court issued/passed </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Notification of the Highest People’s Court concerning trial proceeding in courts for disputes in new plant variety rights </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Rules for certain applicable legalissues concerning trial proceedings at the Highest People’s Court for disputes in new plant variety rights – effective February 1, 2007 </li></ul></ul>
  13. 13. PVP Protection in China <ul><li>Recent publication (April 2007) in Xun-Ning Yi (editor Wei-wei Wang) discusses 10-year anniversary of PVP protection in China; Expresses that - </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ Establishing intellectual property rights in the agriculture field is vital to insuring the wellbeing of China’s agriculture and crop safety.” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ Protection is the core.” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ Further opening up and strengthening international cooperation and exchange on new plant variety issues, actively participating in establishment of UPOV international regulations, and enhancing China’s influence and position at UPOV” </li></ul></ul>
  14. 14. Thank you. For further information, please contact: USPTO Office of International Relations (571) 272-9300 [email_address] Karen M. Hauda Attorney-Advisor, Office of International Relations United States Patent and Trademark Office