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.

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.