Patent Statistics and IPR Laws Update Online

Patent Statistics Beginning from No.2 of 2005 of China Patents & Trademarks, the Statistics on Patent Applications & Grants in China, previously published under the column of Statistics, will be updated online, including the monthly Statistics on Patent Applications by Patent Category, the Patent Grants by Patent Category, the Domestic Patent Applications by Province, and the Overseas Patent Applications by Country, and their yearly statistics at www.cpt.cn or www.cpahkltd.com/cn/ Publications/staten.htm...

Patent Application, Grant and Patent Law Amendment in China

This study employs 920,108 invention patents from the State Intellectual Property of China(SIPO)to examine the impact of two patent law amendments,which occurred in 1993 and 2001 respectively,on the patent grant.The first patent law amendment in 1993 led to less strict criteria for patent approval.And the second patent law amendment,which occurred in 2001,showed a similar positive impact on patenting as well.It is more likely that the first patent law amendment encouraged foreign applicants to make patent application,because their applications and grant share started to rise after 1993.By contrast,the second patent law amendment played an opposite role by motivating Chinese applicants to make patent application,which is reflected by a rise of application and grant share by Chinese applicants in post-2001 period.Patent grant is viewed as one of the key indicators for judging the patent value.We find that foreign applicants from the U.S.,Japan and European Union have higher patent grant rate than that of Chinese applicants,suggesting that patents held by foreign applicants may have higher potential value than those held by Chinese applicants.Different types of applicants may differ from each other in terms of the patent grant rate,where research institutes have higher patent grant rate than that of corporations and individuals.Since the filed patents in China can enjoy a provisional protection for 3 years at most,some applicants do not request their examination.After an examination of the novelty,inventiveness and practicality of patent,the patent office determines whether to grant it.By using a bivariate probit model,we make an econometric analysis of this case.The result confirms the positive impact of both patent law amendments in 1993 and 2001 on the patent grant.We also find other determinants of the patent grant,for example,R&D human capital investment,applicant’s competitive technology advantage in the patent’s field,and applicant’s research ability,play positive roles in driving applicant to ask for examination.Patent’s complexity plays a positive role in driving the patent office to grant it.We discuss the significance of our study at the end of this paper.

RESEARCH ON THEORY, LEGISLATIONS AND PRACTICES ABOUT REGULATING NON-PRACTICING ENTITIES IN CHINA

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.