On December 2,2016,the Second Circuit Court of the Supreme People’s Court proclaimed the judgment of the Nie Shubin case for intentional homicide and rape in public,revoking the conviction judgment of the defendant N...On December 2,2016,the Second Circuit Court of the Supreme People’s Court proclaimed the judgment of the Nie Shubin case for intentional homicide and rape in public,revoking the conviction judgment of the defendant Nie Shubin rendered by the Intermediate People’s Court of Shi Jiazhuang City in Hebei Province in 1994 and the High People’s Court of Hebei Province in 1995 and acquitted Nie Shubin.So far,this momentous,difficult and complicated case,which occurred,tried and implemented展开更多
It has been 4 years since the sensational lawsuit between Chint Group Corporation (hereinafter: Chint ) and Schneider Electric Low Voltage (Tianjin) Co.,Ltd (hereinafter: Schneider) settled. However, issues emerged in...It has been 4 years since the sensational lawsuit between Chint Group Corporation (hereinafter: Chint ) and Schneider Electric Low Voltage (Tianjin) Co.,Ltd (hereinafter: Schneider) settled. However, issues emerged in the case that relate to major issues in current patent law enforcement in China. This makes a re-examination of the case, with special consideration for the revisions to Chinese Patent law, worthwhile.展开更多
文摘On December 2,2016,the Second Circuit Court of the Supreme People’s Court proclaimed the judgment of the Nie Shubin case for intentional homicide and rape in public,revoking the conviction judgment of the defendant Nie Shubin rendered by the Intermediate People’s Court of Shi Jiazhuang City in Hebei Province in 1994 and the High People’s Court of Hebei Province in 1995 and acquitted Nie Shubin.So far,this momentous,difficult and complicated case,which occurred,tried and implemented
文摘It has been 4 years since the sensational lawsuit between Chint Group Corporation (hereinafter: Chint ) and Schneider Electric Low Voltage (Tianjin) Co.,Ltd (hereinafter: Schneider) settled. However, issues emerged in the case that relate to major issues in current patent law enforcement in China. This makes a re-examination of the case, with special consideration for the revisions to Chinese Patent law, worthwhile.