ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT OF PATENTS JURISDICTION REPORT: CHINA
Stephen Yang Peksung Intellectual Property
Administrative enforcement of IP rights has long been a characteristic of the Chinese IP enforcement system.
Following the amendment to the Chinese Patent Law and its implementing regulations, the State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) published Amendments to the Rules on Administrative Enforcement of Patent Rights (Draſt for Comments) on September 1, 2010. Te public consultation period closed on September 30, 2010.
Te rules elaborate the role and power of administrative bodies to govern enforcement of patent rights, including handling patent infringements, mediation of disputes over patent rights and handling patent passing-off cases. In the draſt amendment, the current rules (dating from 2001) were amended to be consistent with the new law and regulations.
Te administrative bodies responsible for patent enforcement are local intellectual property offices, which are quasi-independent of SIPO and can be found all over China. In terms of administrative enforcement of patent rights, SIPO is supposed to give support and guidance to the local IP offices. In the draſt rules, SIPO’s power over the local offices is strengthened. Specifically, the draſt says that in a cross-province/cross-city patent infringement case or patent passing-off case, SIPO has the power to organise the relevant administrative bodies to work together.
Based on experience in many local IP offices, city or provincial-level offices are relatively weak on local enforcement due to limitations such as manpower. Te draſt rules include a new provision allowing city or provisional IP offices to delegate cases to competent IP offices at district or county level (one level below city). Te provision further says that the city or provisional IP offices should supervise the district or county IP offices and should be held liable for their activities.
One important change to administrative bodies’ power provided in the new patent law concerns patent passing-off cases such as falsely marking pending applications as granted, continuing to mark patent numbers aſter patent expiry and forging patent certificates. Te administrative bodies were given the power to inspect, seize and detain such products. Accordingly, provisions that prescribe the working procedure in handling such cases were added to the draſt rules. Furthermore, the rules also specify three possible outcomes of patent passing-off cases: passing-off is found and administrative punishment is issued; passing-off is not found and the case is dismissed; and criminal activity is suspected and the case is transferred to the police. It is to be noted that administrative bodies are not given the power to inspect, seize and detain products during infringement cases.
“ SPECIFICALLY, THE DRAFT SAYS THAT IN A CROSS-PROVINCE/CROSS-CITY PATENT INFRINGEMENT CASE OR PATENT PASSING-OFF CASE, SIPO HAS THE POWER TO ORGANISE THE RELEVANT ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES TO WORK TOGETHER.”
Te draſt rules further include a new provision meaning that before administrative punishment is issued with a fine, the relevant parties have the right to request a hearing in front of a third party, where the administrative body and the relevant parties can debate the case.
In addition, the draſt rules prescribe a three-month period from instigation for administrative bodies to finalise patent infringement cases or patent passing-off cases.
Interestingly, the draſt rules include a revision providing that the administrative bodies cannot administer a more severe punishment simply because the relevant parties have filed complaints against the administrative bodies. Apparently, this is to avoid subjective rulings and abuses of power, which seems to work well with the provision allowing district or county- level IP offices to handle patent disputes.
Te draſt rules also include a new provision affirming the power of administrative bodies to mediate between parties in a patent infringement dispute. However, administrative bodies still do not have the power to award damages, though they do have the power to impose fines, payable to the government.
In addition, a provision directed to collaboration between customs and the local IP offices has been added to the draſt rules.
Tere is no doubt that administrative enforcement of patent rights
will continue to be part of the Chinese IP enforcement system and that continued improvement needs to be made.
Stephen Yang is a partner at Peksung Intellectual Property Ltd. He can be contacted at:
yyong@peksung.com
80 World Intellectual Property Review November/December 2010
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 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108