Beijing East IP Law Firm (referred as “East IP Law Firm”) on behalf of Beijing Great Wonder International Cultural Technology Co., Ltd. (Great Wonder), sued a company operating culture and art development in Hefei for copyright infringement and unfair competition disputes, in which East IP Law Firm filed an application for behavior preservation on behalf of the client in order to prevent the further spread of the confusion and adverse effects caused by the defendant’s behaviors.

East IP Silicon Valley Partner Dr. Liaoteng Wang talked about the weakening of the US IP system with respect to patent eligibility and China’s concurrent strengthening in those areas. The webinar is moderated by former Chief Judge Paul Michel and joined by former PTO Director David Kappos, Berkeley Law Professor Robert Merges and Associate Dean of Tsinghua Law School Dr. Guobin Cui.

On the afternoon of April 2, 2020, Chris LIU, a lawyer from Beijing East IP Law Firm, attended the third “Online Forum of IP Topic Business Class” at the invitation of the International Licensing Industry Merchandiser’s Association and Magic Bean Up, and delivered a keynote speech titled “legal regulation and response strategies against trademark preemption”.

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.