With over 200 dedicated professionals, Beijing East IP has helped a full spectrum of clients – from startups to Fortune 500 corporations to domestic multinational companies – on their intellectual property issues in China.
Beijing East IP -
2017 Tier 2 Firm Ranked by MIP
Following the success in 2016 MIP IP Stars Ranking, once again Beijing East IP is ranked as 2017 Tier 2 Firm in China for both trademark contentious and trademark prosecution practices by MIP.
Learn more details here.
BEIP Provided IP Services to China
Blockchain Industry Competition
BEIP was appointed as the legal service team and provided one-stop professional IP services for the competition.
Please click here for more information!
New Books Available Now!
Beijing East IP’s experienced patent attorneys present the know-hows of China patent practices and insights into the latest IPR proceeding at the PTAB.
Please contact [email protected] for your complimentary copy.
On April 27, 2018, the Zhongguancun Intellectual Property Promotion Conference 2018 was held in Beijing. The conference was jointly sponsored by the Beijing Municipal Intellectual Property Office, the Management Committee of the Zhongguancun Science Park, and the Center for Patent Examination Collaboration Beijing Center of the Patent Office of the State Intellectual Property Office of China. Zhongguancun Intellectual Property Promotion Bureau and the Capital Intellectual Property Service Industry Association jointly organized the conference. The topic of the conference was “Optimizing Patent Management Services; Assisting Science and Innovation Center Construction.” During the conference, 13 patent attorneys from BEIP were appointed by Zhongguancun Intellectual Property Promotion Bureau as Zhongguancun foreign intellectual property service experts.
On April 24, 2018, the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) published the Annual Report on Intellectual Property Cases of the Supreme People’s Court (2017). The Annual Report selected 33 typical cases from IP and unfair competition cases concluded by SPC in 2017 and summarized 42 applicable legal issues with instructional significance, reflecting thoughts and judgment methods of SPC on hearing new, difficult, and complex cases in IP and unfair competition fields.
BEIJING, September 2017 – In the lead of Office of the National Leading Group on the Fight Against IPR Infringement and Counterfeiting and with the support of China Industry-University-Research Institute Collaboration Association, national primary associations China Anti-Infringement and Anti-Counterfeit Innovation Strategic Alliance (hereinafter referred to be “the Alliance”) in cooperation with hundreds of enterprises and public institutions.
On April 26, the Guangdong Higher People’s Court issued Guidelines for Trial of Dispute Cases Involving Standard Essential Patents (for Trial Implementation) (the “Guidelines”). The Guidelines includes 32 articles and focuses on the following four aspects: 1. General issues regarding standard essential patent (SEP) dispute cases; 2. Issues on civil liability for ceasing implementation of an SEP; 3. Issues for determining SEP license fees; and 4. Issues for anti-trust dispute trial involving SEP.
Samsung initiated a cross-licensing discussion in July 2011 with Huawei on standard essential patent (SEP), both parties could not come to agreeable terms in the next six years. On May 25, 2016, Huawei filed two lawsuits alleging Samsung infringed on two of its 4G SEPs No. 201110269715.3 (Method and apparatus for sending control signaling), and No. 201010137731.2 (Method, base station, and user equipment for feeding back ACK/NACK information for carrier aggregation) before the Shenzhen Intermediate Court and requested for an injunctive relief.
On February 28, the Beijing IP Court (“IP Court”) issued a decision in Qilu Pharmaceutical v. the PRB ((2017)京73行初字No. 5365), which reversed a ruling by the Patent Reexamination Board (“PRB”) that upholds the validity of Patent No. 200910176994.1 (the “’994 patent”) owned by Beijing Sihuan Pharmaceutical (“Sihuan”). The IP Court holds that the inauthentic experimental data presented in the original description result in the failure to satisfy the enablement requirement.
China has three types of patents, i.e., invention, utility model, and design. The utility model patent does not have the counterpart in some other jurisdictions such as the USA, so some essential aspects of the utility model patent will be introduced below for better understanding of it.
On December 20, 2017, in the Patent Reexamination Board of SIPO (PRB) v. Beijing Winsunny Harmony Science & Technology Co., Ltd. ((2016)最高法行再41号), the Supreme Court held that a Markush claim, when drawn to a class of chemical compounds, should be interpreted as a set of Markush elements rather than a set of independent specific compounds. The present case is a petition for retrial filed by the PRB, requesting the Supreme Court to review the second-instance decision made by the Beijing High People’s Court (“High Court”). In reversing the PRB’s decision in the invalidation proceedings instituted by Beijing Winsunny Harmony Science & Technology Co., Ltd. (“Winsunny”), the High Court recognized a Markush claim as claiming a set of parallel technical solutions.
Abstract: Currently “common knowledge" has become a hot topic in academic research. How to correctly determine common knowledge has become the key to improve the quality of patent examination. This paper introduces the availability bias theory to point out that the common knowledge determining process tends to produce availability bias, give too much weight to the easily conceived technical knowledge, and turn a blind eye to a lot of other information that must be considered, leading to errors in determining common knowledge. In patent examination, the availability of parts, the availability of work methods and the availability of technical problems may lead to the availability bias. In the end, the countermeasures is put forward.