China IP

24/01/2025

Protection of and Models in Russia

Click to read the full article:
http://www.chinaiptoday.com/post.html?id=2201

24/01/2025

Winners announced for 2024 Outstanding IP Service Teams

23 winners from top IP firms, including specialized teams engaged in IP services in China and international specialized teams that provide overseas IP services to Chinese enterprises, earned this recognition.

Click to view the full list:
http://www.chinaiptoday.com/post.html?id=2203

24/01/2025

Winners announced for 2024 Outstanding IP Management Teams

The winners are IP management or legal teams from Chinese enterprises; and intellectual property management or legal teams from international enterprises with operations in China！

Click to view the full list: http://www.chinaiptoday.com/post.html?id=2202

21/01/2025

Winners announced for 2024 Outstanding In-house hashtag Managers

A total of 54 IP managers from various companies have been bestowed with this prestigious recognition. Nine of them have achieved the 2024 Outstanding In-house IP Managers distinction (Outstanding Category), while 45 have been listed among those winning the 2024 Outstanding In-house IP Managers (Excellence Category).

Click to view the full list:
http://www.chinaiptoday.com/post.html?id=2200

21/01/2025

Winners announced for 2024 Outstanding International IP Service Teams

The 2024 Outstanding International IP Service Teams selection highlights IP firms with deep expertise and extensive experience in managing complex IP matters for Chinese clients. The candidates of 2024 Outstanding International IP Service Teams are: international IP service teams or institutions with extensive experience serving Chinese clients or/and IP service teams or institutions based in China with exceptional international service capabilities. The selection criteria are: (1) the team members are law-abiding, honest and trustworthy, with good professional ethics; (2) the team has been established and operating for at least three years; (3)the team has more than 5 members; (4) the leaders and core members of the team have attained a certain level of professionalism in terms of qualifications, years of experience and educational background; (5) the team is representative of the industry in terms of the typical cases it has handled, and the major achievements it has obtained; and (6) the team has made outstanding contributions related to IP international exchange in its industry or community in the past three years.

Nominations are received through self-nomination and recommendation. The results are decided through comprehensive evaluation by experts, and are hereby announced.

· Asia
CCPIT Patent and Trademark Law Office/中国贸促会专利商标事务所 (China)
INVESTIP - VIETNAM IP LAW FIRM (Vietnam)
Kim & Chang/金张律师事务所 (South Korea)
Skrine/思纪龄 (Malaysia)
Tilleke & Gibbins (Thailand)

· Europe
Bandpay & Greuter/欧洲必恩吉专利事务所（France）
GLP Intellectual Property Office (Italy)
IP Law Firm Gorodissky & Partners & Partners (Russia)
HLK Haseltine Lake Kempner LLP/慧智林欧洲知识产权事务所 (UK)
Murgitroyd /迈创智德欧洲知识产权事务所 (UK)

· North America
Fish & Richardson P.C./美国斐锐律师事务所 (United States)
Perkins Coie LLP (United States)

· South America
Dannemann Siemsen (Brazil)
Kasznar Leonardos (Brazil)

The above list is in alphabetical order of the team names.

Click to know more: http://www.chinaiptoday.com/post.html?id=2199

16/01/2025

The 2025 Enterprise IP Strategy Forum & Annual Conference of In-house IP Managers Concludes Successfully!

Click to know more: http://chinaiptoday.com/post.html?id=2198

15/01/2025

Could hashtag Wars Save Chinese Solar Giants?

On 3 January, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Jinko Solar Co., Ltd. ("JinkoSolar"), filed a lawsuit against LONGi Green Energy Technology Co., Ltd. ("LONGi"), requesting the latter to immediately stop infringing the invention patents related to TOPCon technology and to compensate for the economic losses. The lawsuit is scheduled for trial on 13 February...

Click to read the full article: http://www.chinaiptoday.com/post.html?id=2196

10/01/2025

US$ 2 Billion in 3 Days, DLL3 Drugs Going Global

Two recent announcements have put Delta-like ligand 3 (DLL3), a high-potential target, into the spotlight. Both Hengrui Pharma and Innovent's ADC innovative drugs were licensed out for more than US$1 billion.

DLL3
Antibody–drug conjugates or ADCs are a class of biopharmaceutical drugs designed as a targeted therapy for treating cancer. Unlike chemotherapy, ADCs are intended to target and kill tumor cells while sparing healthy cells.
DLL3 has been reported to be expressed in multiple solid tumor types, including in SCLC and Neuroendocrine Tumors at approximately 85% and 20-40%, respectively, based on the Human Protein Atlas database. DLL3 has limited extracellular expression in normal tissues, making it a promising therapeutic target in these tumor types, for which there remains significant unmet medical need.
As far as we know, no DLL3 ADC products have been approved for marketing worldwide...

To view the full article, please click http://www.chinaiptoday.com/post.html?id=2194

09/01/2025

3 Days to go:
Explore the Detailed Agenda for the 2025 Enterprise IP Strategy Forum & Annual Conference of In-house IP Managers！

Click to view the full agenda:
http://www.chinaiptoday.com/post.html?id=2195

03/01/2025

Router Giant TP-Link Struck with Crises in U.S.

On December 18th 2024, The Wall Street Journal reported that the US government is studying the possibility of banning Chinese network router companies from selling TP-Link products in the US for fear that TP-Link might be involved in cyber-attacks by Chinese hackers against U.S.. The news sparked widespread concern and heated debate in the tech and business communities.

As a well-known router brand in China, TP-Link is not only popular domestically, but also occupies a large share of the router market in the U.S. According to relevant data, TP-Link accounts for about 65% of the SOHO router market share in the United States.

Click to read the full article: http://www.chinaiptoday.com/post.html?id=2193

Photo: TP-LINK

30/12/2024

v. : Stage Victory Gained but Still Pending

On December 18, the Unified Patent Court (UPC) in Europe announced the ruling of the case Huawei v. Netgear, which granted Huawei an injunction against Netgear in seven countries in EU, for Netgear was ruled to have infringed Huawei’s Wi-Fi 6 patent in EU.

The involved patent in dispute in the case “a method and apparatus for transmitting wireless local area network information”, is a standard-essential patent (SEP) related to Wi-Fi 6 technology owned by Huawei. Priorly, many companies are already licensed to Huawei’s Wi-Fi 6 standard-essential patents (SEPs), typically without prior litigation Netgear is an outlier in certain ways. According to information disclosed on the internet, it is the UPC’s second SEP injunction over a FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory license terms) defense, and the first one of commercial relevance as the other dispute had practically settled out already. The injunction covers the three largest UPC member states (Germany, France and Italy) as well as Belgium, Denmark, Finland and Sweden.

There are still several pending cases between Huawei and Netgear global-wide. Another patent case between Huawei and Netgear pending in Germany is scheduled a coming decision for January 9, 2025, and based on earlier discussion in open court, this SEP in dispute by Huawei is likely to be deemed valid and infringed.

And earlier in February this year, Netgear started a geopolitically-charged U.S. litigation in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, which Huawei has asked the court to throw out in part, and in anticipation of a loss in the UPC and other injunctions, Netgear has asked the U.S. court for an anti-suit injunction and, as a fallback, an interim license. This is the first-ever anti-suit attack on the UPC as well as the first-ever request for an interim license in a SEP case to have been filed with a U.S. court. The hearing was supposed to take place on January 24, 2025, however, the latest development of the case is that Netgear filed a motion to withdraw its Anti-Enforcement Injunction (AEI) in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on December 23, 2024...

To view the full article, please click:

On December 18, the Unified Patent Court (UPC) in Europe announced the ruling of the case Huawei v. Netgear, which granted Huawei an injunction against Netgear in seven countries in EU, for Netgear was ruled to have infringed Huawei’s Wi-Fi 6 patent in EU.

25/12/2024

Went after again for Rights

In a recent financial interview program, Gree Electric Chairwoman D**g Mingzhu revealed that Gree had received a compensation of 500,000 yuan from Xiaomi for infringing Gree’s air conditioner patent.

This announcement immediately attracted extensive attention in the Chinese home appliance industry and even the entire field of science and technology. D**g Mingzhu not only emphasized Gree's firm stance on patent protection in the interview, but also proudly said, “I can say that Gree offers the best air conditioners in the world. We have more than 100,000 patents.” Her words not only highlighted Gree's technical confidence, but also once again disclosed the intense competition between Gree and Xiaomi.

In response to this news, on the morning of December 16, head of Xiaomi’s Public Relations Wang Hua posted on Weibo: “After re-verification, the information is not true. First, Xiaomi’s air conditioners made no patent infringement; second, we didn’t pay a patent infringement compensation of 500,000 yuan.”

In fact, the feud between Xiaomi and Gree has long existed. At Gree’s 2023 Annual Shareholders Meeting in June 2024, D**g Mingzhu openly questioned Xiaomi’s innovative power, “Gree is constantly fighting counterfeiting while Xiaomi is relying solely on OEM. Have you developed any technology of your own?”

In July, Gree said on Weibo that it had received the legal document issued by the Supreme People's Court on June 18, 2024. According to the judgement, Xiaomi’s Mijia electric fan BPTS01DM infringed Gree’s patent rights, therefore should no longer be manufactured or sold. In addition, the infringer should pay the plaintiff 1.85 million yuan as economic compensation....

Click to read the full article:

http://www.chinaiptoday.com/post.html?id=2189

Photo: 东方IC

19/12/2024

and ——Innovative Turn or Risk to ？

In recent years, Artificial Intelligence (AI) has evolved very rapidly in terms of performance and has revolutionized numerous fields, from medicine to finance, from industrial production to artistic creativity. In this context of very rapid technological evolution, in parallel with the rapid growth of AI applications, the debate about patents related to these technologies has developed, raising important questions about intellectual property, protection of innovation, and ethical and legal challenges.

Intellectual property, and patents in particular, are one of the key tools for protecting technological innovations. The patent system grants patent holders exclusive rights with territorial value for a limited period of time. The protection provided by patents allows patent holders to obtain a return on investments made in research and development (R&D) to incentivize further investments- It also prevents third parties from exploiting their innovations without compensation. However, AI - with its innovative features and inherent potential - is challenging the international patent system.

Patenting solutions based on AI technology is complex, as many of the core elements of AI involve machine learning algorithms, mathematical models, computing processes and neural networks, which in many jurisdictions are not patentable per se. To circumvent this obstacle, methods of using the algorithms in specific applications or AI-related hardware solutions are generally patented.

In recent years, there has been a boom in the number of AI-related patent applications filed, which grew exponentially between 2015 and 2022. China and the United States lead the list of largest filers, followed by Europe, Japan, and South Korea. ...

Co-managing partners Davide L. Petraz and Daniele Petraz from GLP Intellectual Property Office bring their extensive expertise to this discussion, offering valuable insights and perspectives on the evolving intersection of AI and patent law.

Click to read the full article:
http://www.chinaiptoday.com/post.html?id=2188

16/12/2024

investigated for its suspected monopoly conduct

On December 9, 2024, China's State Administration for Market Regulation("SAMR") issued a public notice announcing that it would initiate a case to investigate NVIDIA's suspected monopolization due to alleged violations of the Anti-Monopoly Law of China and the "Announcement of the Decision made by SAMR on the Anti-Monopoly Review of the Case of Approving the Acquisition of the Shareholding of Mellanox Technology Co. by Nvidia Inc. under the Attachment of Restrictive Conditions" (Announcement of SAMR (2020) No. 16).

NVIDIA Corporation is a semiconductor company headquartered in Santa Clara, U.S.A. Founded in 1993 and listed in January 1999 on the NASDAQ exchange, NVIDIA is one of the world's leading manufacturers of graphics processing units (GPUs), which play an important role in high-performance computing, data centers, artificial intelligence, and gaming.

Mellanox Technologies, Ltd. is an Israel-based technology company founded in 1999 and also got listed on the NASDAQ exchange. Mellanox focuses on the research, development, production and sales of network interconnection products. Its products are important in the fields of data centers, cloud computing, and high-performance computing.

This investigation traces back to the acquisition of Mellanox initiated by NVIDIA in 2019. on March 10, 2019, NVIDIA and Mellanox entered into an acquisition agreement, whereby NVIDIA intends to acquire all of the shares of Mellanox. This transaction aims to enhance NVIDIA's competitiveness in the areas of data centers, high-performance computing, and artificial intelligence by integrating the technology and market resources of the two companies.

However, due to the vertical relationship between the two companies in the commodity markets of data center servers and general Ethernet adapters and the adjacent relationship between the commodity markets of graphics processor gas pedals (hereinafter referred to as "GPU gas pedals") and dedicated network interconnection equipment, and GPU gas pedals and high-speed Ethernet adapters, and because both groups are global suppliers, there is a compliance risk of monopoly of concentration of undertakings. Therefore, on April 24 of the same year, NVIDIA made an antitrust declaration of undertaking concentration for the acquisition of equity interest in Mellanox to the SAMR, and on August 15, SAMR filed a case and conducted a preliminary examination of the declaration of operator concentration after NVIDIA supplemented the relevant declaration materials according to the requirements.

Click to read the full article:
https://lnkd.in/gz7yfUvj

Photo: Medium

11/12/2024

Obtaining Protection in

The design of the product is considered as one of crucial elements of its attractiveness for consumers. Accordingly, obtaining due protection for the product’s design would aim to gain a competitive advantage on the market and an effective instrument for preventing copying and imitation of the product by competitors.

Viacheslav Rybchak，Partner of Gorodissky & Partners introduces three main ways to obtain registration for an industrial design in Russia, namely: National Russian Design Patent,International Design registration (Hague system) designating Russia and Eurasian Design Patent.

Click to read the full article:
https://lnkd.in/gzTGjbjq

10/12/2024

Murata has initiated patent enforcement action against another of its Chinese competitor Maxscend

Japanese electronic components manufacturer Murata has initiated patent enforcement action against another of its Chinese competitors, as per an announcement made by the China National Intellectual Property Administration(CNIPA).

On December 2, the CNIPA revealed in its oral hearing announcement that Maxscend Microelectronics Co., Ltd. has filed an invalidation challenge against Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd.'s invention patent ZL201610512603.9, entitled “elastic wave device”. The oral hearing for this case is scheduled for December 17.

Grant by the CNIPA in 2019, This patent primarily pertains to an elastic wave device used in resonators or band-pass filters and its manufacturing method.

Details about the dispute between the two parties have not been disclosed. However, it is speculated that Murata has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Maxscend, seeking to prohibit the sale of infringing products related to filters.

Founded in 2006, Maxscend is a publicly listed Chinese semiconductor design company that manufactures integrated circuits in the field of radio frequency (RF). It focuses on RF front end design for RF switches, RF low-noise amplifiers and RF filters.

Murata, a leading Japanese manufacturer of electronic components, specializes in ceramic passive electronic components. The company holds a majority market share globally in ceramic filters, high-frequency parts, and sensors.

In recent years, Murata has been very active in its patent enforcement activities in China.

In January 2021, Murata filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the Fuzhou Intermediate People's Court against Wuxi, Jiangsu-based Shoulder Electronics Limited, a move that eventually hindered Shoulder Electronics' STAR Market IPO.

As per an announcement in August 2024, Murata has also sued Shenzhen Sunlord Electronics Co., Ltd. in the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court, alleging infringement of five patents. The related cases are still ongoing.

Photo: Murata Manufacturing

For more:
https://lnkd.in/g-4Mftws

09/12/2024

Outdoor vendor fined 300,000 RMB for using logo as barbecue grill vent

A Chinese outdoor vendor has been fined 300,000 RMB for using the logo of leading Chinese electric vehicle manufacturer NIO as the vent design on its barbecue grills, as per a judgment issued by the Nanjing Intermediate People’s Court of Jiangsu Province on November 22.

The court ruled that the barbecue grills produced by Zhejiang BSWolf Outdoor Products Co., Ltd., featured vents resembling NIO Inc.’s vehicle logo, which constituted trademark infringement. As a result, NIO was awarded 300,000 RMB in compensation.

Earlier this year, NIO sued BSWolf at the Nanjing Intermediate People’s Court, alleging that BSWolf used NIO's registered trademark No. 20259564 “
” without permission on the barbecue grills it produced and sold. This unauthorized use caused public confusion, significant economic losses, and negative impacts on NIO. NIO initially sought over 2 million RMB in compensation.

NIO presented evidence showing that many consumers had mistaken the allegedly infringing barbecue grills for NIO’s products. NIO also argued that its registered trademark No. 20259564 should be recognized as a well-known trademark, entitling it to cross-class protection rights.

BSWolf contended that the disputed logo was merely a vent design on the barbecue grill and did not serve to identify the product’s origin, thus not infringing on NIO’s trademark rights. They also claimed that their barbecue grills fell under a different category than the goods covered by NIO’s trademark, which would not confuse consumers.

Upon review, the court determined that according to Article 14 of the Chinese Trademark Law and considering NIO’s high and widespread reputation, NIO’s registered trademark was recognized as a well-known trademark. Additionally, the disputed logo was not a common industry vent shape. The defendant BSWolf failed to provide a reasonable explanation for using the disputed logo as a vent design, indicating an intent to associate with the trademark in question. The use of a logo similar to NIO’s trademark on the disputed product could easily mislead the relevant public into believing there was a specific connection between the product and NIO, causing confusion. Furthermore, the defendant’s use of the disputed logo diluted the trademark’s established function of identifying product origin, thereby infringing upon the exclusive rights of the registered trademark.

As a result, the court ordered the defendant to pay NIO 300,000 RMB in economic damages and an additional 15,840 RMB in other costs.

A representative for NIO stated on December 4 that NIO has its own line of outdoor camping products. Some consumers have already mistakenly believed that the products sold by BSWolf were NIO products.

Photo: NIO logo vs the allegedly infringing barbecue grills ( source: shopee)

Full article:
https://lnkd.in/gPRKVbjR

09/12/2024

secures key win in patent dispute with

Lithium battery manufacturer Contemporary Amperex Technology Co. Limited (CATL) has achieved a significant interim victory in its ongoing patent battle with rival China Aviation Lithium Battery (CALB), according to recent reports.

On November 28, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) issued another evaluation report on one of the four patents involved in CALB's 1 billion RMB lawsuits against CATL. This report concluded that CALB's utility model patent, numbered 201820895186.5 and titled "Liquid-Cooled Plate Battery Module," lacks inventiveness compared to existing technology. This patent is associated with a claim of 560 million RMB.

A week earlier, CNIPA released an evaluation report for another utility model patent involved in the lawsuits, numbered 202222803519.6 and titled "A Battery Pack." This report found that the patent, linked to a 140 million RMB claim, lacks both novelty and inventiveness.

To date, both utility model patents that CALB has used to enforce its patent rights have received negative opinions from CNIPA.

On October 18, CALB announced that it had filed lawsuits against CATL, accusing the company of infringing on four of its patents, including the two aforementioned utility model patents, which had not undergone substantive examination.

Under Chinese patent law, an evaluation is typically required to assess the validity and stability of utility model patents when enforcing patent rights. Consequently, CALB requested these patent evaluations from CNIPA at the time of filing the lawsuits.

The recent negative evaluations from CNIPA may prompt CALB to reconsider its litigation strategy against CATL, as recent rulings from some local Chinese courts suggest that continuing a lawsuit in light of a negative patent evaluation report could be deemed malicious litigation.

However, it is important to note that the utility model patent evaluation report serves only as a reference suggestion and is not a final determination of patent validity. To invalidate the patent, the formal patent invalidation procedure must still be pursued.

Additionally, CALB still has the option to request a reconsideration of the evaluation report. The reconsideration process could potentially overturn the initial conclusions of the evaluation report.

Photo: Hungarytoday
For more:
https://lnkd.in/gp_jKEUq