Led by the State Intellectual Property Office of China (SIPO), the English version of “Coronavirus Pneumonia Epidemic Prevention Patent Information Sharing Platform” (https://ncp.patentstar.cn/en/) ,which was developed jointly by the China Patent Information Center (CNPAT), the SIPO Patent Office Examination Center in Beijing, launched officially on April 20.

It is reported that the platform adopts the new online Chinese to English translation feature, realized by CNPAT’s new AI machine translation system. It is free for users at home and abroad. It contains more than 7,000 pieces of domestic and foreign patent information concerning epidemic prevention work, sorted by technical relevance and importance, and is subdivided into 9 first-level branches, 34 second-level branches and 78 third-level branches, covering 9 major technical fields; there is a reports session that consolidates the patent data analysis reports related to epidemic prevention for users to have a quick review of the latest patent research results; users do not need to log in or register, and access is not subject to geographical restrictions.

(Source: China National Intellectual Property Office)

The State Intellectual Property Office and the National Bureau of Statistics released the output growth data based on the “Statistical Classification for IP (Patent) Intensive Industries (2019)”, which had been audited in accordance with the results of the 4^th National Economic Census. According to the data, the output growth in patent-intensive industries in 2018 was 1070.9 billion-yuan, accounting for 11.6% of China's GDP. This is the first time China has officially released national output growth data for patent-intensive industries.

Here’s the breakdown of output growth in the seven major categories of China's patent-intensive industries: 3.2833 trillion yuan in the new equipment manufacturing industry, accounting for the highest proportion of the overall output growth, at 30.7%; 2.1551 trillion yuan in the IT and communications manufacturing industry, accounting for 20.1%; 1.9472 trillion yuan in the IT and communications service industry, accounting for 18.2%; 1.413 trillion yuan in the new materials manufacturing industry, accounting for 13.2%; 946.5 billion yuan in the pharmaceutical and medical industry, accounting for 8.8%; R&D, 721.5 billion yuan in the design, and technical services, accounting for 6.7%; 242.4 billion yuan in the environmental protection industry, accounting for 2.3% .

It’s worth noting that the “Statistical Classification for IP (Patent) Intensive Industries (2019)” was officially released and implemented on April 1, 2019.

(Source: The People's Network)

The China National Intellectual Property Office (CNIPA) and the Norwegian Industrial Property Office (NIPO) had kicked off the pilot of the Patent Examination Highway (PPH) on April 1, 2020, which will expire on April 1, 2013. 　　

Herewith, NIPO applicants can file a PPH request with CNIPA in accordance with the "Procedure for Submitting PPH Requests to the CNIPA under the China-Norway Patent Examination Highway Pilot"; CNIPA applicants can file a PPH request with NIPO in accordance with the "Procedure for Submitting PPH Request to the NIPO under the China-Norway PPH Pilot".

(Source: China National Intellectual Property Office)

Backgrounds:

In recent years, numerous mobile applications have emerged that provide the feature of generating screenshots that mimic Tencent WeChat software interfaces as a functional selling point. These apps copy the content and art works in WeChat functional interfaces and provide editing module that can create fake WeChat screenshots; some of them have even provided the online version of the screenshot generator.

Tecent Company entrusted Unitalen Attorneys at Law to sue a network company in Shenzhen involved (hereinafter referred to as the “defendant”) for infringement of copyright and unfair competition and had recently won the lawsuit.

Court decision:

The People’s Court of Nanshan District, Shenzhen, Guangdong Province found in the first-instance judgment of this case that:

1.The alleged WeChat screenshot generator has infringed the right of communicating WeChat works, such as “WeChat emoticons, WeChat payment icons, WeChat red envelope webpages, WeChat red envelope icons and WeChat icons”, to the public over information networks.

2.The defendant's development of the alleged WeChat screenshot generator and production of corresponding training content and the provision of paid watermark removal services has violated the principles of good faith and business ethics;

3.The alleged act has infringed the commercial interests and competitive advantages enjoyed by Tencent in the WeChat ecosystem. Meanwhile, it has infringed the interests of consumers and market order, constituted unfair competition in accordance with Article 2 of the Anti-Trust Law;

4.In this case, Tencent’s legal interests vary with difference bases on Copyright Law and Anti-Trust Law respectively. The latter is to protect the competitiveness enjoyed by Tencent in the true and honor manner within WeChat ecosystem, so both Copyright Law and Anti-Trust Law can be applied for protection in this case.

5.The defendant is ordered to immediately stop the alleged infringement and compensate Tencent for economic losses and reasonable expenses of 750,000 yuan.

Typical Significance:

This is the first case in China, in which the development and operation of fake WeChat screenshot generator application is determined as constituting copyright infringement and unfair competition. 　　

Backgrounds :

The patentee FAMALINADA applied for an invention patent for "Chair Massager" (hereinafter referred to as “the patent involved”) on July 14, 2008, and was granted on February 25, 2015.

A third party, Shanghai Rongtai, filed the request for invalidation of the patent involved for the reasons such as unclear patent claims, lack of novelty and inventiveness, citing 9 pieces of evidence for evaluation of novelty and inventiveness. In response, the State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) held that all claims were not inventive and declared invalidation of the patent involved.

In refusal, FAMALINADA initiated an administrative lawsuit in the Beijing IP Court of the first instance. The Beijing IP Court upheld the invalidation decision made by the SIPO and ruled to dismiss the claims made by FAMALINADA.

FAMALINADA then appealed to the Supreme People's Court against the judgement of the first instance.

Court Decision:

Recently, the Supreme People's Court ruled that: Famei Li's appeal request for the patent in question was established, and the State Intellectual Property Office Review Committee and Beijing Intellectual Property Court made the invalidation decision on the ground that the patent in question was invalid and should be invalid. The first-instance judgment is wrong in applying the law and should be revoked. At this point, with the unremitting efforts of Famei and Jijia, Jijia's agent issued the Meili case and won the case!

Comments:

In the litigation concerning patent right determination, the patent inventiveness is the most controversial issue and the key to determine this is on how to determine whether there is a technical inspiration in the technical prior art. This case is controversial on this too.

In the Supreme Court’s judgement, it’s held that technical inspiration refers to the existence of specific guidance in the prior art, prompting ordinary technical staff in the field to refer to that guidance so as improve the closest prior art when they are in face of an objective technical issue, and thus obtain the invention and realize the technical solution of the invention. The underlying definition of the inspiration that can be learnt by the ordinary technical staff in the filed from the prior art shall be those specific and clear technical means, rather than abstract ideas or general research directions.

In addition, in this judgment, the Supreme Court expressed a negative attitude toward the “judgement in hindsight" that is commonly found in the process of determining patent right. In other words, when judging the inventiveness, after reading the technical solution of this patent, one should not assume that the difference between this patent and the prior art is an improvement that can be easily imagined, instead, it shall be judged with respect to the existence of clear and specific inspiration. 　　

On the World IP Day, the Supreme People's Court issued their annual report on IP cases in 2019. And the Chongqing Lifan Automobile v. Cao Guilan and others patent invalidation administrative litigation case, represented by Unitalen, was selected into the 60 typical cases out of the 3254 IP cases concluded in 2019.

On the World IP Day, as announced by the Beijing Higher People’s Court, the “Chuiniu App” copyright infringement case (also known as “WeChat emotion” case) represented by Unitalen was selected into the “Top 10 Beijing IP Court Cases of 2019”of the court.

More on the case can be found at Unitalen Helped Tencent Win the First Instance in the Case Involving “WeChat Red Pocket” Design Works and “WeChat Emoticons”

On the World IP Day, as announced by Jiangsu IP Court, the Xiaomi trademark infringement and unfair competition case represented by Unitalen was selected into the “Top 10 Typical IP Cases for Judicial Protection of 2019”of the court as the case ruled with the highest indemnity amount so far, where punitive damage is applied to protect the well-known trademark, after the revision of the new Trademark Law.

More on the case can be found at Unitalen Client “Xiaomi” Won the 50M Yuan Indemnity in the Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition Litigation

On the World IP Day, as announced by Shandong IP Court, the “Yingli” trademark infringement and unfair competition case represented by Unitalen was selected into the “Top 10 IP Cases” of the court.

This case is the first IP case ruled with written admonishment in Shandong court. This case is also a typical case of applying the evidence obstruction exclusion rule.

Recently, MIP, a global leading IP media, announced the 2020 IP Star ranking of trademark matters. Unitalen was found in tier 1 in Trademark Prosecution and tier 2 in Trademark Contentious again.

Asia IP, the region’s leading IP magazine, has recently announced the region’s leading IP firms and the Chinese IP firms that won the annual awards in 2019. Unitalen, highly recognized by the industry for quality professional services and reputation among clients, is found among tier 1 in Trademark Contentious, tier 2 in Patent Contentious, Patent Prosecution and Copyright.

Also, Unitalen won the following three China IP Awards including“Trademark Firms of the Year”, "Enforcement Firms of the Year" and " IP Litigation Firms of the Year”.