Abstract Non-Practicing Entities （NPE）, as a subject, is a neutral concept, but the derogatory sense of translation and understanding on this concept and the chaos of understanding make the legal regulation of NPE e...Abstract Non-Practicing Entities （NPE）, as a subject, is a neutral concept, but the derogatory sense of translation and understanding on this concept and the chaos of understanding make the legal regulation of NPE encounter more difficulties and challenges. In fact, NPE issues are con~,erned, discussed and researched in China within quite a long period, however, it would not become an outstanding legal issue nowadays. NPE as a market entity, its existence is legitimate per se, and what the law should focus on is the unfair conduct that NPE might be engaged in rather than the subject of NPE itself. It is not necessary to make specific articles and provisions on the subject of NPE at present in the Patent Law of the People＇s Republic of China （PRC） and the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the PRC which are revised in China, and a serial of rules and guidelines for Anti-Monopoly Law of the PRC which are formulated in China. It proved that the unfair conducts of NPE should be regulated according to Patent law, Anti-Unfair Competition Law and Anti-Monopoly Law as well as, reconfirmed that the conclusion that the regulation of NPE in China laws focus on conducts rather than subject in a serial of cases such as the anti-monopoly investigation case against INTERDIGITAL Corporation initiated by the National Development and Reform Commission, the case that the Ministry of Commerce imposed restrictive conditions to approve that Microsoft acquired Nokia equipment and service business, and the commercial defamation case that Shenzhen Libang Precision Instrument Co., Ltd vs Shenznen Mairui Divlogivai Meliva Electronic Co,Ltd.which was reviewed by the Supreme People＇s Court.展开更多
文摘Abstract Non-Practicing Entities （NPE）, as a subject, is a neutral concept, but the derogatory sense of translation and understanding on this concept and the chaos of understanding make the legal regulation of NPE encounter more difficulties and challenges. In fact, NPE issues are con~,erned, discussed and researched in China within quite a long period, however, it would not become an outstanding legal issue nowadays. NPE as a market entity, its existence is legitimate per se, and what the law should focus on is the unfair conduct that NPE might be engaged in rather than the subject of NPE itself. It is not necessary to make specific articles and provisions on the subject of NPE at present in the Patent Law of the People＇s Republic of China （PRC） and the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the PRC which are revised in China, and a serial of rules and guidelines for Anti-Monopoly Law of the PRC which are formulated in China. It proved that the unfair conducts of NPE should be regulated according to Patent law, Anti-Unfair Competition Law and Anti-Monopoly Law as well as, reconfirmed that the conclusion that the regulation of NPE in China laws focus on conducts rather than subject in a serial of cases such as the anti-monopoly investigation case against INTERDIGITAL Corporation initiated by the National Development and Reform Commission, the case that the Ministry of Commerce imposed restrictive conditions to approve that Microsoft acquired Nokia equipment and service business, and the commercial defamation case that Shenzhen Libang Precision Instrument Co., Ltd vs Shenznen Mairui Divlogivai Meliva Electronic Co,Ltd.which was reviewed by the Supreme People＇s Court.
