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.
Since the beginning of Beijing East IP, our attorneys has been assisting multinational corporations with electronics, semiconductor, and related technologies in procuring and protecting their intellectual property rights in China. Over a decade of experiences in China allowed us to provide comprehensive counseling services to our software and information technology clients on patent prosecution, patent portfolio management, validity challenges, and infringement before the State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO), Patent Reexamination Board (PRB), and the People’s Courts. In addition, our Patent Information Consulting team provides timely and detailed freedom-to-operate search, evidence-of-use search, patentability, due diligence, and IP monitoring reports using the best available proprietary databases from the U.S., Japan, and China.
Our attorneys have deep legal and technical understanding based on their prior experiences as SIPO examiner, engineer, or in-house attorneys. They obtained advanced degrees in electrical engineering, computer science or other science or engineering degree that is related to electrical and computer technology from top universities around the world. The combination of technical knowledge and working experiences from our attorneys enable us to provide practical solutions to our software and information technology clients by broadening the protection and preventing problems.
Beijing East IP have worked on many high level cases and wide spectrum of projects for our clients. Our services include:
Telecommunication equipment companies saw China’s explosive future growth and decided to, in the early 90s, help China’s developments in the relevant technologies. We have been representing multinational telecommunication equipment companies since the beginning of Beijing East IP. Our attorneys have specialized knowledge in telecommunication industry, which enables them to acquire the insight to provide valuable strategic advices to enhance our client’s market position, even when they are facing strong competitions.
Semiconductor & Integrated Circuit
Semiconductor is the heart of all modern electronics. With China’s rapid growth in electronic market, intellectual property protections become one of the most important tool for semiconductor companies to maximize their value. In order to maximize the client’s value, we recruited our attorneys from the best universities around the world with advanced science and engineering degrees. Our attorneys understand semiconductor’s sophisticated nature, and pay attention to the latest trends and developments in semiconductor industry in China, U.S., Japan, and Europe. Their experiences and knowledge enables them to provide comprehensive analysis and opinion to our multinational clients across all intellectual property spectrum. Our experiences includes: analog and digital circuit design; high speed serial bus integrated circuits; general semiconductor fabrication and process patents; baseband processors; volatile and nonvolatile memory; inverters; regulators; semiconductor structures and integration flows; complex mixed-signal integrated circuits; and probing/testing technologies.
Two U.S. brands recently battled brand squatters in China with very different outcomes. Facebook won. Apple lost. Jason Wang and Amy Hsiao look behind these different results for strategic insights. What are the key issues to bear in mind when an infringer copies your brand – in China? The authors, including the lead attorney for the Facebook case, tell you the secrets.
This case relates to invention patent No. ZL 96107072.2 of the patentee, Qianping AO. After issuance of the patent, the patentee issued a license to Shenzhen DNS Industries Co., Ltd. (“DNS Industries” hereinafter), agreeing that DNS Industries can further permit a third party to exploit the patent in a manner of commissioned processing such as OEM or ODM.
Examination Decision No. 19631, which is related to the validity of patent No. ZL95190642.9, titled “Shaving Apparatus”, is the first decision that involves the petitioner withdrew the invalidation request and the examination of the request for invalidation was not terminated. This is the PRB’s first application of the principle of conducting examinations ex officio under Rule 72.2.
A technical solution refers to a collection of technical means that are adopted to solve a technical problem and utilize the laws of nature. Generally, a technical means is embodied by one or more technical features. When an invention-creation, especially inventiveness of a claim, is evaluated, usually a standard three-step method is adopted. However, there is a deviation that an invention-creation is NOT evaluated as an organic whole and a claim is divided as several fragmented parts and the respective parts are evaluated separately. However, such kind of evaluation is inappropriate. In this case, the Supreme People’s Court emphasized that an invention-creation should be evaluated as a whole.
An equivalent feature is a feature that, as compared to the feature described in a claim, performs substantially the same function by substantially the same means, produces substantially the same effect, and can be associated by an ordinary person skilled in the art without any inventive work. While determining whether a prosecuted product falls within equivalent infringement, the means, function, effect, and inventive work should be determined in the above order. Only when all four elements of a feature meet the above conditions, the feature can be determined as an equivalent feature.
The case relates to an infringement dispute between Patentee, Wanqing BAI, and Chengdu Nanxun Marketing Service Center (hereinafter referred to as “Nanxun Center”), Shanghai Tianxiang Industry Co.,Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Tianxiang Industry”).