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.
Your browser sent a request that this server could not understand:
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 firstname.lastname@example.org for your complimentary copy.
Zhang Wei, as Chairman of Zhongguancun Intellectual Property Bureau, visited Beijing East IP LTD (referred to as “Beijing East IP” hereinafter) together with his colleagues to conduct work exchanges.
On August 28, 2018, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court pronounced judgements on two invalidation cases against the “FACEBOOK” marks used for the goods “doors of metal; etc.” in Class 6 and “wine; etc.” in Class 33. Ms. Yan ZHANG and Ms. Di YUAN at Beijing East IP Law Firm represented Facebook Inc., and recently received the Court judgments in written, which revoked the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (TRAB) decisions approving the registration of the disputed marks and ordered the TRAB to render new decisions.
Dr. Lulin GAO, Chairman of Beijing East IP Ltd., met Mr. Aso, senior consultant of Fukuoka Institute of Technology on Sep 27, 2018.
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.
Appointed Translators: Jason WANG / Austin CHANG, Beijing East IP Law Firm Author: Baoqing ZANG, Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (TRAB) Original Chinese text: China Industry and Commerce Newspaper June 21, 2016
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.