JURISDICTION REPORT: CHINA
REGULATIONS AND GUIDELINES FOR PATENTS
Stephen Yang
Peksung Intellectual Property
A few months aſter the third amendment to the Chinese Patent Law came into force, the new Implementing Regulations of the Chinese Patent Law became effective on February 1, 2010, together with the new Guidelines for Examination.
Te new implementing regulations and the guidelines for examination include detailed provisions that reflect the changes in the law. Some changes will be of particular note to foreign businesses.
For inventions made in China, the new regulations require applicants to go through security examination by disclosing the technical solution to the State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) before filing patent applications outside of China. Tis is similar to the US foreign filing licence system. Te applicants could choose to simply request this foreign filing licence without filing any applications in China. Alternatively, they could file such a request on or aſter filing a Chinese application. Te third option is to file a Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) application, which will be automatically deemed as a request. Te guidelines further prescribe that the technical solution is written in Chinese for security examination purposes and suggest that it be draſted in the format of the description of a patent application.
SIPO may issue a notification to the applicant if it thinks the invention relates to national security or crucial interests. If the applicant does not receive such a notification in four months, it can file outside of China. If the applicant does get this notification, it may have to wait six months for the security examiners to grant or deny the application for a foreign filing licence. If the applicant does not receive such a decision within six months, it can file outside of China. It is to be noted that violation of this provision will lead to rejection and invalidation.
Another important revision relates to genetic material. Te new law prescribes that if an invention relies on certain genetic resources that were acquired or used illegally, the patent application will be rejected and, if granted, will be invalidated. China is the first country in the world to use illegal acquisition and exploitation of genetic sources as a ground for rejecting patent applications and invalidating patents.
Te law also prescribes that the direct source and the original source of genetic resources shall be indicated in a patent application. If the applicant cannot provide an original source, it must give reasons. Te new guidelines prescribe in detail the required information, such as the date, location and method of procurement, and details of the provider of the genetic material. Tis looks like it could be a burden on many applicants. However, it is to be noted that these provisions do not apply to inventions that use genetic material but do not rely on the genetic function of the material. Te new guidelines define many relevant terms, such as genetic material, genetic
40 World Intellectual Property Review March/April 2010
“THE LAW ALSO PRESCRIBES THAT THE DIRECT SOURCE AND THE ORIGINAL SOURCE OF GENETIC RESOURCES SHALL BE INDICATED IN A PATENT APPLICATION. IF THE APPLICANT CANNOT PROVIDE AN ORIGINAL SOURCE, IT MUST GIVE REASONS. THE NEW GUIDELINES PRESCRIBE IN DETAIL THE REQUIRED INFORMATION, SUCH AS THE DATE, LOCATION AND METHOD OF PROCUREMENT, AND DETAILS OF THE PROVIDER OF THE GENETIC MATERIAL.’’
function, genetic function unit, as well as direct source, original source and ‘rely on’. Hopefully, this clarifies the procedure. Furthermore, it is worth noting that disclosing genetic sources is not part of the sufficiency requirement for a valid patent.
A third interesting aspect of the new regulations relates to changes in the remuneration terms for inventions. Te old implementing regulations only prescribed the level of compensation in state-owned companies; the new regulations remove this limitation, but also prescribe that employers can reach an agreement with the inventor and that these agreements take priority. Te level of compensation could be determined in a separate agreement or in an employment contract. In other words, the prescribed level of compensation applies only if there is no existing agreement between the inventors and their employer.
yyong@peksung.com
www.worldipreview.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76