SECTION 337 INVESTIGATION ON CERTAIN NITRILE GLOVES

ITC INSTITUTES SECTION 337 INVESTIGATION ON CERTAIN NITRILE GLOVES

The investigation is based on a complaint filed by Tillotson Corporation d/b/a Best Manufacturing Company of Menlo, GA, on May 30, 2007. The complainant requests that the ITC issue a permanent general exclusion order and permanent cease and desist orders.

Identified respondents from China in this investigation include:

Beijing Huateng Rubber Plastic of China（北京华腾橡塑乳胶制品有限公司）;
Ideal Healthcare Group Co. Ltd. of China;
and JDA (Tianjin) Plastic Rubber Co. Ltd. of China（兰奇天津塑胶有限公司）.

Sisvel & Aigo

Time for a Reverse Patent Troll to seek invalidation of Sisvel mp3 patents?

MP3不缴费就封柜 CeBIT展上演专利惊魂

Sisvel代理爱国者专利全球推广

Aigo acquires Sisvel license

What interests me is "A Reverse Patent Troll, seeking invalidation of the Philips’ mp3 patents asserted by Sisvel against major consumer electronics companies". Caution is needed in evaluating this proposal due to the complex dynamics among the licensor, licensee, and consumer.

COMMUNITY CUSTOMS ACTIVITIES ON COUNTERFEIT AND PIRACY

European Commission's Taxation and Customs Union: SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY CUSTOMS ACTIVITIES ON COUNTERFEIT AND PIRACY - RESULTS AT THE EUROPEAN BORDER 2006

Some highlights:

1 "In terms of overall quantities seized, China remains the main source for counterfeit goods, with over 80% of all articles seized coming from there. However, it should be noted that with regard to the number of cases treated by customs, the selection is far more widespread and China only accounts for a third of the cases."

2 "In the medicines sector, India is the number one source, followed by the United Arab Emirates and China. Together these 3 sources are responsible for more than 80% of all counterfeit medicines. In other cases, other countries predominate; in the food sector Turkey remains the main source and in the electrical equipment sector Malaysia has become the main source."

The summary points out that "reliable figures are required, in order to be able to better understand the scope and extent of the problem, which has become a global phenomenon. To this end, the Commission is committed to ensuring that relevant statistical data on customs actions in the EU is analysed and shared with customs in a timely manner. In addition, the Commission will continue to pursue the possibility of exchanging such data with customs in third countries, in accordance with relevant customs cooperation provisions that apply."

In May, U.S., China Customs Agreed to Combat Global Trade in Counterfeit Goods during the second meeting of the Sino-U.S. Strategic Economic Dialogue. This memorandum of cooperation on intellectual property rights calls for, among other things,

1 exchange of significant intellectual property rights seizures information each quarter in order to track violators and conduct enforcement actions. The country receiving information will have 90 days to report to the providing country on enforcement actions resulting from this disclosure of information.

2 exchange of counterfeit and pirated goods seizure statistics every six months for goods originating in or destined for the other country. The statistics exchange will describe the number of seizures, quantity and value of goods, description and/or Harmonized Tariff Schedule classification of the commodities, mode of transportation and the main ports of import and export for the goods in the two countries.

Mu Xinsheng, Minister of Customs for the General Administration of Customs of the People’s Republic of China, told some background stories about the Sino-U.S. customs cooperation in an interview:

"美国对我们的知识产权保护，包括海关的知识产权边境保护一向颇多指责，态度强硬。最常见的是拿美国海关查获的源于中国的侵权产品说话。我们曾一再要求美方将其查获与我国有关的进口侵权货物的信息向我方通报，以便中国海关有针对性地加强执法，但是一直没有得到有效的回应。

2006年12月中旬，美方向我们提出了签订中美双方海关知识产权执法合作备忘录的要求，并提供了合作备忘录的建议文本。由于今年４月初美方决定将中美知识产权争端提交WTO争端解决机制解决，中美海关知识产权保护执法合作备忘录工作曾一度暂停。"

See THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF COUNTERFEITING AND PIRACY PART IV. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY produced by OECD from a global, economic view.

版权贸易逆差

新闻出版总署报告显示我国版权贸易逆差依然巨大

以下摘自“2006年全国新闻出版业基本情况”：

1、2006年全国共引进出版物版权12386种，其中图书10950种，期刊540种，录音制品150种，录像制品108种，电子出版物174种，软件434种，电影29种，电视节目1种。

图书版权引进地情况如下：美国2957种，英国1296种，德国303种，法国253种，俄罗斯38种，加拿大40种，新加坡156种，日本484种，韩国315种，香港地区144种，澳门地区2种，台湾地区749种，其他地区4213种。

2、2006年全国共输出出版物版权2057种，其中图书2050种，期刊2种，电子出版物5种。

图书版权输出地情况如下：美国147种，英国66种，德国104种，法国14种，俄罗斯66种，加拿大25种，新加坡47种，日本116种，韩国363种，香港地区119种，澳门地区53种，台湾地区702种，其他地区228种。(说明：以上统计未含香港、澳门、台湾地区的相关统计数据。)

版权贸易逆差危局 外版图书中国市场持续性高烧

引进十本 输出一本：中国书业贸易逆差之痛

版权贸易中进口多出口少：中国图书要学会卖版权

SIPO does not handle patent infringement disputes

Mr. Danny Friedmann's paper "How to work within China’s IPR enforcement system for trademark and design rights" takes SIPO as one of the administrative IPR enforcement routes in China:

"Article 3 Patent Law promulgates that the State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) is responsible for the patent work throughout the country, including the enforcement of counterfeit patented products and patent infringement. Provincial offices generally deal with patent complaints. Pursuant to article 57 Patent Law when parties are unwilling to consult with each other or where the consultation fails, the parties may institute legal proceedings in the people’s court or request SIPO to handle the matter. When an infringement is established, SIPO may order an injunction and upon request of the parties mediate in the amount of compensation for the damage caused by the infringement. ... Where a person passes off the patent of another, he shall be ordered by SIPO, pursuant to article 58 Patent Law, to amend his act. SIPO will confiscate the illegal earnings and may impose a fine of not more than three times the illegal earnings, or if there are no illegal earnings, a fine of not more than RMB 50,000. If the infringement constitutes a crime, SIPO will transfer the case to the People’s Security Bureau. SIPO has limited enforcement resources. Therefore, it has less power than the other administrative bodies."

The patent administration department under the State Council, namely SIPO, is responsible for the patent work throughout the country, including receiving and examination of patent applications and grant of patent rights for inventions-creations, but excluding "the enforcement of counterfeit patented products and patent infringement".

SIPO NEVER handles patent infringement disputes in China. The local administrative authority for patent affairs under the local governments takes the role.

SigmaTel, Actions Settle Patent Suits

SigmaTel, Actions Settle Patent Suits

To quote: "The two companies dismissed all litigation pending against one another and reached a three-year cross license agreement. Financial terms are confidential."

A press release from Actions: Actions and SigmaTel Settle All Patent Litigation and Enter into Cross-License Agreement

Hsiang-Wei (David) Lee, Chief Financial Officer of Actions Semiconductor, has told Actions' litigation story at the Summit on Overseas Protection of Intellectual Property of Chinese Enterprises, part of the 2007 China High-Level Forum on Intellectual Property Rights Protection in Beijing this April. That speech was, in my view, quite helpful to Chinese enterprises' business strategy in terms of IP disputes.

IP & Antitrust

最近，断断续续地在听 Oral History Task Force (This program is "established to permanently document the perspectives and memories of those who have figured prominently in the development of US antitrust law")，于是，就联想到国内知识产权与反垄断的一些讨论与报道。我以为，严肃的讨论，首先需要深刻地理解问题本身，无论是学理上的，还是实务上的，否则，是无法提出富于建设性的解决方案的。

今年4月，DOJ & FTC发布了ANTITRUST ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS: Promoting Innovation and Competition的报告，其中很多问题，比如Patent Hold Up, Patent Pool，国内的企业或多或少已经触及。AVS就是一个很好的例子。AVS工作组已经做了很多不错的工作：知识产权政策、关于AVS专利池管理的建议性规定、关于AVS专利池许可的建议性规定、会员缺省许可义务、会员提案专利披露与许可承诺、标准草案审阅期专利披露与许可承诺等等。这样的努力，让人鼓舞。据我所知，这些工作也得到了不少的外部帮助。

发展中国家的反垄断本来就是有争议的、新鲜的话题。在这种背景下，在中国，动辄就将知识产权与反垄断联系起来，这个调子或许定得太高了，相反，脚踏实地，理性地去尝试解决现实中的一个一个问题，可能才是正解。

毕竟，仅仅在《反垄断法（草案）》里写下“经营者依照有关知识产权的法律、行政法规行使知识产权的行为，不适用本法；但是，经营者滥用知识产权，排除、限制竞争的行为，适用本法。”，只是一个起点。

李书通为什么要这么做呢？

商標訴訟、ヤマハ発動機が中国で勝訴

ヤマハバイク、商標権侵害で勝訴　中国で賠償額「最高」

剪不断 理还乱——李书福家族矛盾显露冰山一角

在看了最高人民法院就浙江华田工业有限公司因与雅马哈发动机株式会社，台州华田摩托车销售有限公司、台州嘉吉摩托车销售有限公司、南京联润汽车摩托车销售有限公司商标侵权纠纷一案的民事判决书后，我想问的却是，李书通先生究竟为什么要这么做呢？

我想到了吴晓波先生写的《狼图腾的终结》，还有《中国企业失败的基因》：

“这些年，我一直在探寻中国企业失败的基因，现在，我称之为‘中国式失败’。

‘中国式失败’的前提是，存在一个独特的中国式商业环境。在过去的三十年里，中国一直处在一个剧烈转型的时代，法制在逐渐的建设和完善之中，冒险者往往需要穿越现行的某些法规，这造成很多商业行为都将在一种灰色的中间地带运行，企业家将遭遇商业之外的众多挑战。”

此外，《新兴市场公司创新面对的困难和对策》中的下述评论亦有见地：

“其实包括中国在内的很多新兴的国家是有知识产权立法的，但是很难执行。即使政府愿意执行这些法律，但是受保护的有商标的产品和普通仿制品价值差别非常大，消费者则非常支持这些仿制品。而大多数亚洲社会没有尊重无形商品的惯例，比如品牌、软件和业务模式，这样又加重了这个情况。但是，这也并不意味着创新者不需要寻找保护自己的方式，或者说不要阻止仿制者进行仿制。”

USPTO's pilot peer to patent project

USPTO Releases Notice Setting Forth Rules for Pilot

Also in NYTimes:

"The patent office is experimenting with the concept of opening the examination process to outsiders, inviting public peer reviews. On June 15, Mr. Dudas said, the patent office will begin a pilot project for open reviews of software patents. The patents in the pilot program will be posted on a Web site, and members of the public with software expertise will be allowed to send the patent office technical references relevant to the patent claims.

But the pilot project applies only to patent applications in the field of information technology, and only with the approval of patent applicants. Legislative changes would be required to have public peer views without an applicant’s approval, and thus to extend the concept to other fields."

起初知道这个项目，是去年5月通过IBM的David J. Kappos在北大所作的一次学术报告。 后来，IBM发布的"Building a New IP Marketplace - A Global Innovation Outlook 2.0 Report"也谈到了这个项目，其中的一组对话很是精彩：

“Community Patent Review is one of the most exciting and revolutionary changes to the patent system in decades. In today’s networked world, the wisdom of a wide array of experts—not just the examiner and the applicant—can be brought to bear in manageable and affordable ways.”
— Beth Noveck, New York Law School

“Community review is a very interesting idea which should be supported.”
— Charles Fish, Time Warner

“At first glance, Community Patent Review seems a good idea. But the experience in China suggests that it may not work well as we expect…The patent office found there were very few meaningful challenges coming from the public. So the 1992 patent law abolished this arrangement. So the problem is: Is there really a community full with technical experts and competent patent agents who are interested in the onerous work of patent review during their part-time?”
— Guobin Cui, Tsinghua University Law School

“The community is keenly interested in ensuring that patents don’t issue improperly in a way that will impinge upon their work. We have seen a lot of support thus far from technical professionals—I don’t think that will be a problem—also some participation is better than none.”
— Marc Ehrlich, IBM

“The intent of community review may be to foster a friendly community of volunteers willing to improve patent quality by pointing out uncited art, but when millions in R&D and patent filing fees are at stake, I believe that an open market economy will create an environment wherein competitive commercial interests will capitalize on the opportunity to invest in reviews for the express purpose of eliminating a competitor’s claims to a market.”
— Andy Gibbs, Patent Café

“The real challenge is the development of secondary institutions and resources that allow the market to self-organize.”
— Kevin Werbach, Wharton School of Business

崔老师的担心不无道理，毕竟中国的很多情况不同于美国。至于这个项目的实际效果如何，还是耐心等待相关的facts and figures吧。

Brazil's HIV drug compulsory license

Brazil overrides Merck patent on HIV drug

The interaction between public health, innovation and intellectual property rights is of serious concern to governments, business and the general public. The Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, Innovation and Public Health (CIPIH) established by the World Health Assembly in 2003 has already completed a compelling report on this complex issue with focuses on the intersections between intellectual property rights, innovation and public health.

In my presentation titled "TREND OF THE THIRD REVISION OF CHINA'S PATENT LAW AND ITS IMPACT ON CHINA’S PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY" at the First International China Biopharmaceutical Symposium (ICBPS) - development, regulatory approval, production, distribution - China and Worldwide held in December 2006, Beijing, I talked about the proposed changes in the draft third amendment of China's Patent Law (now handed to the State Council for further deliberation) on drug compulsory license. These revisions include, inter alia,

Article 49.

Where a national emergency or any extraordinary state of affairs occurs, or where the public interest so requires, the Patent Administration Department Under the State Council may, as suggested by a competent department under the State Council, grant the entity designated by the department a compulsory license to exploit the patent for invention or utility model.

In order to prevent, treat and control an epidemic disease, the Patent Administration Department Under the State Council may grant a compulsory license to exploit the patent for invention or utility model according to the provisions of the preceding paragraph.

and Article 50.

Where a drug for treating an epidemic disease has been granted a patent in China, and a developing country or a least developed country who have no or insufficient capability to manufacture the said drug, hopes to import the drug from China, the Patent Administrative department Under the State Council may grant an entity which is qualified for exploitation, a compulsory license to manufacture the said drug and to export it to the said country.

Where the Patent Administrative department Under the State Council grants a compulsory license in accordance with the provisions of the preceding paragraph, the said department shall clearly set forth relevant requirements in the decision on compulsory license.

不过，国家知识产权局条法司司长尹新天在最近会见美国礼来公司全球总裁约翰·勒奇莱特博士时表示，中国政府已注意到巴西和泰国政府开始采取强制许可措施来确保本国公众的卫生利益，但中国会慎重行使这类权利，决不会贸然行事。

飞利浦：“知识产权教席项目”

飞利浦与复旦大学续签“知识产权教席项目”合作协议

昨夜，刚好粗略翻看了一篇关于知识产权教育的文章：Intellectual Property education – In the Law School and Beyond。

在Allan Huang和我去年合写的 “Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights of Industrial Design: Multinationals’ Strategy, Practice, and Concerns in China” (in Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Computer-aided Industrial Design & Conceptual Design: Digital Techniques, Humanized Design, Regional Autonomous Innovation, p456-459, IEEE Press, Nov 2006, Hangzhou) 那篇文章中的OTHER INSTITUTIONAL AND CULTURAL CONCERNS RELATING TO DESIGN RIGHTS PROTECTION部分，我也说到了IP Education这个问题：

Multinationals are also taking initiatives to cultivate local IPR talents and enhance local IPR knowledge in China. In recent yeas, Royal Philips Electronics of the Netherlands has partnered with several leading Chinese law schools strong in IPR field, e.g., Renmin University, Tsinghua University, Fudan University, etc., to set up IP Academy aiming to promote Chinese IPR studies to cope with international competition. These programs involve, in these law schools, Philips’ selection and sponsorship of European IPR experts to teach IPR courses or give lectures, establishment of IPR scholarship, sponsorship of IPR Research, invitation of local professors to visit European universities, and support other IPR related projects and workshops. Multinationals see such educational efforts as an excellent opportunity and a long-term solution to drive China to improve its IPR situation. As one executive from one multinational company put it, “If we educate a hundred people on IP issues, they are going to tell a hundred more, and so on. The knock-on effect is unimaginable in scope. And that's how you reach every strata of society in a country as big as China.”

三年前，我也曾受益于飞利浦在清华法学院举办的IP Academy，那是我的知识产权启蒙课。

飞利浦的知识产权立场在国内常被人指责，像“飞利浦向中国教授‘低头’，承诺撤销争议专利”这样的报道屡见不鲜。我也常常在研讨会上听到其他跨国企业的知识产权高管批评飞利浦的一些做法。

但是，就“知识产权教席项目”而言，飞利浦的努力，我以为，值得称赞。

向世贸组织申诉？

五一长假回京之后写的，刊登在《中国发展观察》2007年第6期。



4月24日，在2007中国保护知识产权高层论坛上，国务院副总理吴仪在谈到美国就中国的知识产权问题向世界贸易组织（WTO）提起申诉一事时，态度严厉，直言我国将“按照WTO相关规则积极应诉”，“奉陪到底”。美国政府是4月10日提出这一申诉的。目前，日本、欧盟、加拿大等先后要求加入这一申诉的磋商程序。

我国现行《刑法》规定，只有在情节“严重”、“特别严重”，或者涉案金额“较大”、“巨大”时，假冒商标和盗版者才会面临刑事制裁。至于何谓情节“严重”、“特别严重”，以及涉案金额“较大”、“巨大”，最高人民法院、最高人民检察院（简称“两高”）在2004年12月出台的有关司法解释中设定了具体门槛。美方认为，目前中国对于假冒商标和盗版的“非法经营数额”的认定，是按照侵权产品的标价或者实际售价计算的，而没有依照被侵权产品的市场价格来确定。因此，假冒商标和盗版者完全可以通过降低标价或者售价，来制售更多的侵权品，而逃避刑事制裁。这样，免责的门槛仍然设定在较低的水平，“商业规模”的造假售假得不到彻底打击。但是，根据“两高”今年4月4日新出台的司法解释，非法复制发行的复制品数量在500份以上的，无论“非法经营数额”如何，就已构成犯罪。

同时，申诉认为，按照我国《刑法》的规定，仅仅非法“复制”而不“发行”，或者仅仅“发行”而没有“复制”侵犯著作权的物品，可以免于刑事指控。实际上，新司法解释已经澄清了这一问题：“复制发行”的行为，包括复制、发行或者既复制又发行的行为。

申诉对我国知识产权保护的海关规定也提出了异议。对于侵犯知识产权的没收货物，我国海关首先考虑的是公益使用或者回购。如果“被没收的侵犯知识产权货物无法用于社会公益事业且知识产权权利人无收购意愿，海关可以在消除侵权特征后依法拍卖”。只有在侵权特征无法消除的情况下，侵权的货物才被销毁。美方认为，像拍卖这种使侵权货物进入商业渠道的做法，不符合《与贸易有关的知识产权协议》，试图寻求改变。

此外，申诉还与美国同时向WTO提起的另一关于我国出版物市场准入问题的申诉相呼应：认为待审查出版发行的作品，在我国缺乏著作权保护。《著作权法》明确：依法禁止出版、传播的作品，不受保护。但是，中国法院对符合《伯尔尼公约》的版权作品在实践中是予以保护的。不少未通过审查的作品，像电视剧《金枝欲孽》，在被侵犯著作权后，同样能够得到司法的救济。

WTO申诉的技术性强、程序明确。在美国提起申诉后，中美将首先启动WTO争端解决机制下的磋商程序，寻求在磋商期内找到解决问题的办法。如果在此期间，双方无法达成一致，申诉将由争端解决的专家组受理。据悉，中美双方将于6月初进行磋商。　

在美国贸易谈判代表办公室公布的“2006特别301报告”中，美国政府将知识产权问题诉诸WTO争端解决机制的意向已经显露。美方表示，此次申诉表明了双方贸易伙伴关系日渐成熟；而吴仪则警告，申诉违背了“两国领导人倡导的通过对话解决分歧的共识”，“将会造成极坏的负面影响”。　

此番美国在WTO提起申诉，而没有选择非正式磋商等渠道来解决分歧，反映了中美之间的知识产权摩擦不断升级。近年来，除了像上海襄阳路市场(已撤销)、北京秀水街、义乌批发市场等传统商业领域外，美方对知识产权保护的关注范围也逐渐扩张至虚拟领域——互联网。我国去年出台了《信息网络传播权保护条例》，但是，在互联网上如何保护著作权的争执却并未消失。事实上，美国唱片业巨头和国内互联网公司之间的诉讼日益激烈。美国出版业、电影和音乐业、制药业、软件业、通讯业等在华的不同利益追求，以及他们对美国政府政策取向的不同要求，也使得未来中美知识产权的纠纷更加复杂。　

中国政府如何在国内保护知识产权，这还只是问题的一个方面。最近几年，中国企业在开拓美国市场时，不断遭遇到知识产权的狙击，各种各样的“专利门”事件层出不穷。浙江通领集团、珠海炬力集团等都有过应对美国国际贸易委员会（ITC）337调查的经历。根据美国法律，如果ITC裁定专利侵权属实，那么涉案产品将不能进入美国市场。据悉，由于我国企业遭遇涉外知识产权纠纷的案件逐年增多，有关部委正着手建立企业知识产权海外维权的支持和协调机制。　

《与贸易有关的知识产权协议》已经为WTO成员制定了最低标准的知识产权保护规则，确立了全球知识产权保护的基本框架，但知识产权的全球化不会就此止步，比如说专利制度的全球化。虽然可以回旋的空间有限，但是，面对知识产权的“先行者”不断要求“后来者”提高知识产权保护水平的压力，确认我国的自身利益、认清谈判地位、化解矛盾、促进发展却是可行的。毕竟，如果“对话比对抗好，合作比施压好”的理念不能付诸现实，至少还可以按照规则，积极应对，“奉陪到底”。