In June 2016, Beijing East IP won the award for Contributor Most Read in China competing against strong China challengers. Beijing East IP have been providing featured articles to Mondaq for several years. These articles are selected by our IP Reporters team that are responsible for regularly collecting, editing, and drafting China related IP news and articles. Not only are these articles available on Mondaq, more China IP related news and articles drafted by our IP Reporter team can be found on our official website, or by subscribing to our newsletter and you will be receiving the latest China IP news and developments in your inbox.

Mondaq is one of the world’s most comprehensive online resources of professionals’ expertise and knowledge. Since 1994, they have been working with worldwide leading professionals to provide insights, opinions, and commentaries on legal and other topics across every continent.

Please follow the link to see some of our latest articles added in June that won the award: Contributor Most Read In China.

Recently, the International Instruments on Copyright was published by the China Book Press, which was translated by Mr. Anman QIU, senior advisor of Beijing East IP. This book has collected a total of 14 international copyright and copyright related treaties, conventions and agreements. This translation is a foundation research program of China’s Copyright Administration and Mr. QIU undertook the translation exclusively.

Xiaohong YAN, the Deputy Administrator of National Press and Publication with the State of Administration of Radio Film and Television and the Deputy Director General of National Copyright Administration, wrote the preface for the book, elaborated the significance of translation and publication of the book. Meanwhile, he mentions that Mr. QIU is a very suitable person to translate the book, because he used to serve at the National Copyright Administration in the 1980s, and later worked at the World Intellectual Property Originations for almost 15 years, which indicated that Mr. QIU has advantages in language and copyright laws. Mr. YAN also mentions that he has a deep impression on Mr. QIU’ thoughtful mind and meticulous working attitude. Mr. QIU also wrote the translator’s preface for the book.

The translation of this book is beneficial for understanding the courses of change and development of international copyright laws, and comprehensive systematic analysis of the documents thereof. This book is also a workbook convenient for investigation and verification of international copyright laws.

The extent of protection for an inventioCXVZCXVVCVCVXVCVn patent includes not only the extent determined by the technical features literally recited in the claims, but also the extent determined by the equivalent technical features.

A common question regarding English commercial signs, such as trademarks, personal names, or trade names, is how to protect their Chinese equivalent. On the one hand, the holder of the English commercial sign failed to select the Chinese equivalent for some reasons, or failed to have it registered as a trademark in a timely matter. On the other hand, the holder may have used the Chinese equivalent together with the English mark in commerce, or have used the Chinese equivalent passively.

When foreign brands enter into the China market they are generally translated into Chinese, either for use by the brand owners, or by Chinese media and Chinese public. According to authorities including the China Supreme Court, some Chinese equivalents for its English trademarks are protected, such as GOOGLE, CANON, LAND ROVER, HARLEY (of Harley-Davidson), MICHELIN, PORTS INTERNATIONAL, GIOGRIO ARMANI, SOTHEBY’S, RITZ CARLTON, and FREDDIE MAC. Others are not protected, such as VIAGRA, SONY ERICSSON, DELL, MICHAEL JORDAN, and RANDOM HOUSE. And still others are protected in one case while not protected in another, such as LAFITE.

In June 2015, the Beijing High Court (second instance court) sustained the decisions of the Beijing First Intermediate Court (first instance court) and the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (TRAB), and held that the opposed mark “FANG DI MEI in Chinese” (FREDDIE MAC in Chinese) constitutes similar to the cited mark “FREDDIE MAC” owned by Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (“Freddie Mac”) in terms of similar services in Class 36. The key issue of this case is the determination of similarity between Chinese equivalent and English mark.

This is the first case for successful enforcement of biological patent in China, which clarifies a feasible definition of new protein patent, i.e. defining homology, origin (species), and function simultaneously. Furthermore, this case provides directions to judgment of future invalidation and infringement cases of new protein patents.

In determining whether a patent infringement is established based on the doctrine of equivalents (“DOE”), attention should be paid to which feature in a claim is compared against which feature of an accused infringing product. Only those features of a product that are not identical to their counterparts in the claim should be taken into consideration for the purpose of DOE. Determination under DOE is different from the determination on inventiveness during patent prosecution – the requirement of “three substantially, one ordinarily” should be met.

On March 25, 2015, Beijing East IP Ltd. and DLA Piper LLP (US) successfully co-hosted a half day seminar covering cost and time saving techniques and best practices for securing patent rights in China, U.S, Australia, Korea, and Japan. A distinguished a panel of global practitioner from Beijing East IP, DLA Piper LLP (US), Cullens Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys, Central Intellectual Property & Law, and RyukaIP Law Firm presented two sessions of fascinating patent prosecution and protection strategies from a global perspective.

On March 25, 2015, Beijing East IP Ltd. and DLA Piper LLP (US) successfully co-hosted a half day seminar covering cost and time saving techniques and best practices for securing patent rights in China, U.S, Australia, Korea, and Japan. A distinguished a panel of global practitioner from Beijing East IP, DLA Piper LLP (US), Cullens Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys, Central Intellectual Property & Law, and RyukaIP Law Firm presented two sessions of fascinating patent prosecution and protection strategies from a global perspective.

In the first session, the panelists Vice General Manager Dragon WANG of Beijing East IP, Andrew Schwaab of DLA Piper LLP (US), Matthew Lord of Cullens Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys, Dong-Jae Lee of Central Intellectual Property & Law Office, and Aki Ryuka of Ryuka IP Law Firm addressed the best practices for obtaining patent protection using the most cost and time effective procedures in China, U.S., Australia, Korean, and Japan. This session examined ways to reduce the time and cost associated with patent prosecution for global (or multi-country) patent portfolios. Strategies and practices applicable to China, U.S., Australia, Korea, and Japan were presented, and considerations were given to the way patent prosecution in different countries can be coordinated to improve time and cost efficiency.

In the second session, the panelists General Manager Dr. Xiaodong LI of Beijing East IP, Dale Lazar and Yan ZHAO of DLA Piper LLP (US), Matthew Lord of Cullens Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys, Dong-Jae Lee of Central Intellectual Property & Law Office, and Aki Ryuka of Ryuka IP Law Firm addressed the best practices for obtaining updates regarding patent-eligible subject matter worldwide in China, U.S., Australia, Korean, and Japan. This session focused on patent-eligibility subject matter requirements for claimed inventions, including updates on laws and software and computer-implemented innovations in different countries. An overview of the applicable rules and examination guidelines in different countries were given, and followed by claim examples to highlight the issues that might arise when the same claim is to be filed in different countries, and the ways in which these issues may be addressed, overcome or pre-empted.