LONGAN LAW FIRMContents
Long An IP News
Long An Nominated for TWOALB China Law Awards 2022 and has been listed in the ALB CHINA IP Rankings for seven consecutive yearsLong An listed in the LEGALBAND China Top Law Firm Ranking 2022
Cindy Quan of Long An Organized the 15th AIPLA Women in IP Global Network Event of Asia
Cindy Quan Invited to Participate in the 42nd Live Interview of WeLegal Talk on IP Compliance Caused by the Advertisement of the Grain Buds
China IP News
CNIPA: The Hague System | 10 Questions and 10 Answers
CNIPA: Invention authorization rate reached 55% in 2021! The number of utility model patent applications fell for the first time in 8 years
Long An Case Study
Long An Top 10 IP Cases in 2021 (Cases 1-2)
Long An IP News
Long An Nominated for TWO ALB China Law Awards 2022 and has been listed in the ALB CHINA IP Rankings for seven consecutive years
Recently, Asian Legal Business (ALB), an international legal media owns by Thomson Reuters, announced the shortlist for the China Law Awards 2022. Long An won the IP Law Firm of the Year Award and the Labor and Employment Law Firm of the Year Award with its strong strength and outstanding achievements. And it has been ranked in the two business fields of Patent and Copyright/Trademarks for 7 consecutive years.
https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/Jq35efnTL2FkkXFSjvE19Q
https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/os1EXlyB9AYpLpX7VyNY6Q
Long An listed in the LEGALBAND China Top Law Firm Ranking 2022
Recently, LEGALBAND released the “LEGALBAND China Top Law Firm Ranking 2022″, and Long An was ranked in the two major business areas of IP-Litigation and IP-Non-Litigation with its strong strength and outstanding achievements.
https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/9jhyFU3AV97EAcOEm0l3zA
Ms. Cindy Quan of Long An Organized the 15th AIPLA Women in IP Global Network Event of Asia
In May 2022, the AIPLA Women in IP (WIP) Committee held the 15th AIPLA WIP Global Networking Event. Ms. Cindy Quan, senior partner of Long An, hosted the online meeting as the Asian Chair, which attracted professionals from 7 cities including Hong Kong, Hangzhou, Singapore, New Delhi, Jakarta, Pune and Patna, and received consistent high praise.
https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/dw9eDcmVGXECklh8wfDQTg
Ms. Cindy Quan Invited to Participate in the 42nd Live Interview of WeLegal Talk on IP Compliance Caused by the Advertisement of the Grain Buds
On May 25, 2022, Ms. Cindy Quan, senior partner of Long An, was invited to participate in the 42nd live interview of WeLegal Talk. In response to the hot topic of the advertisement during the “Grain Buds”, Ms. Quan analyzed and commented the issue of IP compliance from the perspective of professional IP attorney, closely focused on the copyright law, and gave in-depth answers to issues such as the identification of originality of works and the ownership of short video copyrights. Besides, through judicial practice to date, she analyzed in detail the issue of substantial proximity in the copyright infringement determination and analyzed the infringement issues involved by various subjects in the Grain Buds advertisement incident.
The live interviews in cooperation with the WeLegal Talk is one of the series of activities for the 30th anniversary celebration of Long An. The WeLegal is currently one of the top self-media agencies in the legal community. Long An hopes to take this opportunity to strengthen exchanges with elites from all walks of life, and jointly explore the future of corporate lawyers.
https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/POMqlyKQvUkbqailjvLybQ
China IP News
CNIPA: The Hague System | 10 Questions and 10 Answers
On February 5, with the approval of the State Council, China joined The Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs (1999 text) (hereinafter referred to as the Hague Agreement), which came into effect on May 5. In this regard, the CNIPA formulated the Interim Measures for the Handling of Relevant Affairs after China’s Accession to the Hague Agreement, and answered questions related to the Hague Agreement at the same time.
E1: Do we have to appoint an attorney to use the Hague System?
The CNIPA pointed out that the applicant can choose whether to appoint an attorney during the international procedure. If the applicant appoints an attorney, only one attorney can be appointed. The Hague system does not impose any restrictions or requirements on the qualifications of attorneys in international proceedings (e.g. regarding occupational level, nationality or residence).
E2: How long does it take to obtain an international registration after applying in the Hague System?
The CNIPA will conduct a formal examination. If the requirement is not met, the applicant needs to make amendments within 3 months. If the requirement is met, the international application will be recorded in the International Register and published within 12 months after the international registration date unless the applicant requests immediate publication or delayed publication.
E3: Does obtaining an international registration grant national protection?
After international registration, national protection is immediately available if the National Office designated by the applicant issues a declaration for granting protection. If no declaration is issued, for the registry (most offices such as the European Union), if no declaration is issued within 6 months, the international registration will take effect in the country by default.
https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/We2IROYb2HFPM-uewv3gMA
CNIPA: Invention authorization rate reached 55% in 2021! The number of utility model patent applications fell for the first time in 8 years
Recently, the CNIPA released the 2021 annual report.
In 2021, the number of invention patent applications in China was 1.586 million, with a year-on-year increase of 5.9%. Among them, domestic invention patent applications are 1.428 million, accounting for 90.0% of the total, with a year-on-year increase of 6.2%. Foreign invention patent applications in China are 158,000, accounting for 10.0% of the total, with a year-on-year increase of 3.6%.
In 2021, the number of utility model patent applications in China was 2.852 million, with a year-on-year decrease of 2.5%. The number of design patent applications in China was 806,000, with a year-on-year increase of 4.6%.
In 2021, 696,000 invention patents were authorized, with a year-on-year increase of 31.3%. Among them, 586,000 domestic invention patents were authorized, accounting for 84.2% of the total; 110,000 foreign invention patents were authorized in China, with a year-on-year increase of 23.0%.
In 2021, 3.12 million utility model patents were authorized, with a year-on-year increase of 31.2%; 786,000 design patents were authorized, with a year-on-year increase of 7.3%.
In 2021, the invention patent authorization rate was 55.0%.
https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/dQrY2oXsKcbuebXWuttMQA
https://www.cnipa.gov.cn/module/download/down.jsp?i_ID=175845&colID=2925
Long An Case Study
Long An Top 10 IP Cases in 2021 (Cases 1-2)
The case of the trademark infringement and unfair competition between Beijing ** Furniture Co., Ltd. and Shanghai ** Co., Ltd., etc.
BEKING (Beijing Shiji Baiqiang Furniture Co., Ltd.) is a well-known furniture manufacturer in China, and its “BEKING” brand has a high reputation and influence in furnishing field home. BEKING found that Shanghai Langju Industry Co., Ltd. and Shanghai Bangying Brand Management Co., Ltd. sold and promised to sell panels, customized furniture and related products in the name of brands “BEKING” and “GERMANY TOP 100 (which holds the same meaning with BEKING in Chinese)” by themselves and through distributors, which is causing confusion to the relevant public. BEKING entrusted Long An to sue Shanghai Langju Industrial Co., Ltd., Shanghai Bangying Brand Management Co., Ltd., GERMANY TOP 100 INTERNATIONAL HOLDING GROUP LIMITED and Ma Guifu to the court on the grounds of trademark infringement and unfair competition.
Long An team explained to the court in detail the infringing acts of each defendant and their respective roles, proving that the division of labor and cooperation between the defendants and they constituted a joint infringement. Through a large amount of evidence, Long An lawyer team has fully expounded on the plaintiff’s brand value, the defendants’ infringements, the subjective malicious intention of infringements, and the proceeds of infringement. Shanghai Intellectual Property Court (the court of first instance) comprehensively considered the above factors, and determined that the four defendants jointly and severally compensated BEKING for RMB 11.96 million above the maximum statutory compensation amount. The Higher People’s Court of Shanghai fully upheld the first-instance judgment.
The administrative dispute over the invalidation of the utility model patent between Foshan ** Water Purification Equipment Co., Ltd. and Foshan ** Electric Technology Co., Ltd.
The patent involved is a utility model patent named “composite filter element” for water purification equipment. The patentee is Foshan Viomi Electric Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Viomi Company). In 2019, Foshan Midea Qinghu Water Purification Equipment Co. (hereinafter referred to as Midea Company) filed a request for the patent invalidation, and the CNIPA declared all the patents involved invalid. Viomi Company refused to accept it and filed an administrative lawsuit. Both the Beijing Intellectual Property Court in the first instance and the Supreme People’s Court in the second instance upheld the invalidation decision.
The focus of the dispute in this case is whether the reference document 1 can destroy the novelty of the patent involved. Reference document 1 discloses a fuel filter, the structure of which is basically the same as that of the patent involved. However, the patentee, Viomi Company, claimed that the reference document 1 is used to filter fuel, while the patent involved is used to filter water, and the technical fields of the two are different.
The difficulty and highlight of this case lie in how to determine the technical field of the patent involved. In this regard, our attorneys explained the determination of the technical field of the patent involved from the following three perspectives: It is determined based on what is defined in the claims; the patent classification code cannot define the technical field of the technical solution in the claims; it is determined based on the meaning of related technical terms.
Finally, our attorneys supplemented a large number of prior precedents that emphasized the interpretation rules of claims, preventing the patentee from improperly and limitedly interpreting technical terms in the claims, and further consolidating the victory.
Link: https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/JxkkbgijcVTR7oxU4i535A
For more details, please follow us on: