337调查管辖范围的最新发展及我国应对措施

Recent Development of the Jurisdiction of Section 337 Procedure and the Response of China

Suprema Inc.v.ITC以及Clear Correct Operating LLC v.ITC昭示了美国337调查的最新发展。前者确认了美国国际贸易委员会对引诱侵权行为享有管辖权,而后者则否认了数据资料为337调查的对象。两起案件的关键均在于对关税法337条款的解释,这两起案件对我国企业进军美国市场产生了重要影响。为了有效应对337调查管辖范围的最新发展,一方面,在国际谈判中,我国政府应当对ITC扩大行政职权与WTO贸易规则方面的冲突作出回应,并着力构建"中国版的337调查"制度,以保证国内产业安全;另一方面,我国企业应当加强知识产权管理,通过完善知识产权预警机制、专利布局等避免遭受337调查。

＂Suprema Inc. v. ITC＂ and ＂Clear Correct Operating LLC v.ITC＂are two cases that demonstrate the recent development of Section 337 procedures. The first confirms that ITC had jurisdiction over the induced infringement, while the second one denied jurisdiction base on the reason that the article about Section 337 covers only the digital data. The key to these two cases is the interpretation of the 337 provisions. These two cases can be of great importance for Chinese enterprises that want to enter the U.S. market. Concerning the significance of the above cases it is suggested that the Chinese government should control the ITC＇s expanding administrative power in international negotiations because it is not in accordance with the WTO rules. In addition it is also suggested in this article that, in order to ensure the safety of the domestic industry, the Chinese government should strive to build the Section 337 rules for China. On the other side, the Chinese enterprises should be cautious when managing intellectual property rights and patents layouts, in order to avoid being subjected to investigation by the rules of Section 337.