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@example.com for your complimentary copy.
Beijing East IP Ltd. / Beijing East IP Law Firm received wide acclaim and high recognition from worldwide clients during the INTA 2019 Annual Meeting held at Boston, US. Among the positive feedbacks, it is of particular interest that Beijing East IP won the Best Local Counsel Award at Facebook Global Counsel Summit for the consistent high-quality service and outstanding performance.
The Third Council and Supervisory Committee of the 3rd Capital Intellectual Property Services Association reviewed and approved the “List of Trademark Professional Committee Members” on August 5, 2019, which announced the director, deputy director and members of the Trademark Professional Committee. YIN Liang from BEIJING EAST IP LTD was elected as a member of the Trademark Professional Committee.
McDonald’s “McFlurry in simplified Chinese” and “McFlurry in traditional Chinese” have been recognized as well-known trademarks by the Beijing IP Court – after the well-known recognition of “McDonald’s & Arches logo,” “McDonald’s in Chinese” and “McDelivery in Chinese” by the China Trademark office (CTMO) and the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (TRAB).
At the beginning of 2019, BEIJING EAST IP LTD/BEIJING EAST IP LAW FIRM received good news once again. In the activity of “Insight into Trends, Pioneer the Future—2019 China Intellectual Property Forum New Year Sharing Session and Service Industry Awards Ceremony” hosted by China Intellectual Property Forum Organizing Committee and Beijing Power-nation Intellectual Property Institute recently, ZHAO LIN from BEIJING EAST IP LTD/BEIJING EAST IP LAW FIRM won the honor of “Top Ten Internet Lawyers of the Year” by virtue of her excellent achievements.
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.
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.