Issue Date: 2021-07-07
Effective Date: 2021-07-07
On July 7, 2021, the CNIPA issued a policy interpretation of the "Opinions on Strengthening Collaboration on Intellectual Property Protection" (the "Opinions").
The Opinions clarifies that the CNIPA will provide support to public security organs in terms of trademarks, patents, geographical indication information and legal status. It is mainly reflected in the fact that if the public security organ needs to verify the trademark registration certificate and priority certificate, trademark change, transfer, renewal certificate and other certification documents in the process of handling the case, it can do so through the CNIPA trademark registration certificate publicity system. At the same time, considering that there may be incomplete and lagging information in the publicity system, the public security organ may send a letter to the Trademark Office of the CNIPA to verify the information that cannot be verified from the publicity system or that the information is disputed.
If the public security organ needs to verify the legal status of the patent involved in the case in the process of handling the case, it may report to the CNIPA. In the process of handling a case, if the public security organ needs to verify such information as geographical indications, special geographical indications (official marks) and market entities that have approved the use of special geographical indications, it may send a letter to the CNIPA for verification.
In addition, the CNIPA will also provide support to public security agencies in terms of specific enforcement standards. Regarding the identification of the use of trademarks, the same trademark, the same kind of goods, and counterfeit patents involved in criminal cases, the public security organs can directly identify the issues based on relevant judicial interpretations and trademark and patent infringement judgment standards established by the CNIPA.
Issue Date: 2021-05-24
Effective Date: 2021-07-05
On 24 May 2021, the Supreme People's Court passed the provisions on Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Civil Cases of Patent Disputes Related to Applications for the Registration of Drugs (the “Provisions”), which came into force on 5 July 2021.
The Provisions provide guidance to Article 76 of the Patent Law on drug patent protection. It specifies the scope of the patent, the materials required for bringing a civil action, and methods to deal with administrative adjudication and preservation:
Article 6: If a party, after filing a lawsuit in accordance with Article 76, applies for suspension of the lawsuit on the ground that the patent administration department under the State Council has accepted the request for invalidation of the relevant patent right, the People's Court shall not generally support the application.
Article 10: Where a patentee or an interested party applies for conduct preservation (that is, an interim injunction) in the litigation mentioned in Article 76, and requests to injunct the applicant for the drug marketing license from carrying out the conduct specified in Article 11 within the validity period of the relevant patent right, the People's Court shall deal with the matter in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Patent Law and the Civil Procedure Law. The People's Court shall not support a request to prohibit the drug listing application or review and approval thereof.
Sisvel is a patent licensing company from Italy with a patent pool and co-licensing programs covering wireless communications, digital video and display technologies, audio and video (DE) coding, broadband and localization.
In April 2019, Sisvel filed for interim injunctions and patent infringement proceedings against Xiaomi in England, the Netherlands and Italy, claiming that Xiaomi infringed its patents and requesting the English High Court to rule on the global licensing rates of its patent portfolio for various wireless transmission technologies.
On 29 May 2019, Sisvel requested the District Court of The Hague to grant an interim injunction to Xiaomi. On 1 August of the same year, the District Court of The Hague in the Netherlands denied Sisvel's request for an injunction on the grounds, among others, that Sisvel's interest in this proceeding was not sufficiently urgent and could seriously harm Xiaomi's interests. On 4 November of the same year, the Court of The Hague in the Netherlands ruled that Xiaomi did not infringe a European patent of Sisvel on a 4G communication standard (No. EP2329272).
In December 2019, Xiaomi sued Sisvel in the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, requesting the court to determine the license rate for all Chinese standard-essential patents related to wireless transmission technology held by Sisvel.
On 26 April 2021, the English High Court ruled against the second patent involved in the dispute between Sisvel and Xiaomi, EP1925142B1, holding that Xiaomi does not infringe Sisvel's patent rights. According to Sisvel's official website, Xiaomi and Sisvel announced on 30 June 2021 that the two companies have signed a license agreement to end the two-year-long patent litigation dispute.
Source: https://new.qq.com/omn/20210616/20210616A0546E00.html, https://new.qq.com/omn/20201117/20201117A0A86S00.html, http://ip.people.com.cn/n1/2019/1211/c179663-31500978.html,