This was a case in which the plaintiff had alleged that the patent tort had not been made - jiang soo jiu a high-tech company, inc. - had filed a lawsuit with the court alleging a violation of the plaintiff's patent on lithium extraction. From an economic point of view, lawyer liu feng of the law firm dae-jung (shanghai) in beijing argued that if it were to operate in a patented manner, it would be impossible to complete the actual scale of production and would result in safety incidents such as explosions due to uneven pressure on the production line. Eventually, the court rejected the plaintiff's entire claim, thereby combating the malicious actions of intellectual property rights and the abuse of the right of suit as an impediment to innovation。
This case reflects a necessary theme in the innovation process: how to establish boundaries between intellectual property rights and balance the protection of innovation with incentives for innovation
In the context of the era of economic globalization and the knowledge economy, intellectual property rights have become a strategic resource for national development and a central element of international competition, and my country is accelerating its transition from a large country in which intellectual property is imported to one in which intellectual property is created。
In this process, intellectual property disputes are also becoming increasingly frequent and complex: from contractual disputes, tort disputes to tenure disputes, from unfair competition to malicious litigation ... How can existing laws better protect innovation? The shanghai intellectual property counsel is on the rise and continues to explore this path。
Liu feng has been an intellectual property lawyer for 35 years. He saw an internal and external change in foreign legal services. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, he served more in foreign companies that had gone into the chinese market, such as substitute production, parallel imports, etc. There are enterprises that transfer products from foreign markets to domestic markets without the authorization of intellectual property rights holders. In court, he looked at the chinese enterprise sitting across the street, and he was upset that they did not understand the law, did not understand the patent, and sometimes had a feeling of hatred。
Gradually, he discovered that chinese companies had changed. They not only step by step in raising awareness of the importance of intellectual property rights (iprs), they constantly raise and even exceed product quality requirements, keeping up with and even exceeding the capacity of foreign technology research and development. Today, in the area of foreign legal services, his main client has become a chinese enterprise that is offshore。
Following the same economic developments, a similar observation was made by suh myung-hye, a lawyer at wawa yong-tae's law firm in shanghai. She found that in recent years chinese companies had increased their access to the sea, but that intellectual property rights abuses were frequent in overseas markets, such as on the amazon platform, where products had been taken down for violating appearance patents. Enterprises are becoming aware of the need for timely patent layout in overseas target markets and for access to “passes” “protective shields” in overseas markets for innovative technologies。
How do you understand the patent layout? On the one hand, the geographical configuration, xu myung hye, “this is a game of time”, is given priority by submitting an application to the patent office of the target country within 12 months of the date of the initial patent application。
On the other hand, the patent layout is a well-prepared network of protected patents, designed for core patents, with a series of peripheral patents designed to consolidate technological advantages into long-term market advantages。
What happens if you don't? Suh myung-hye was the agent for an ad hoc patent review: a company whose patent application was rejected by the state intellectual property agency for “incompetence” has been traced to the fact that the comparative document was the patent that it had first applied for, and that this “self-defeating” happened three times in a row, “it was a lack of forward-looking layout, one wrong step and one wrong step”
The role of litigation as one of the most important and fundamental operations for lawyers is often “fire-fighting after the fact”, but many of the forward-looking issues encountered in the construction of the cbi are the need to be proactive, and the non-litigation legal business of lawyers is becoming more important, of which the patent layout is one。
More recently, liu feng, as chairman of the professional committee on intellectual property of the city bar association, co-organized with the pudong court of justice and the municipal law society's research society on intellectual property law a “judicial practice seminar on punitive compensation for intellectual property torts”, which brought together industry to explore the difficulties of applying the relevant provisions and ways of addressing them. Such front-line seminars are often held. He recalled that there had been a practical seminar on the subject of artificial intelligence, which had coincided with the storming of shanghai on the same day, when people had come to a meeting to discuss it with great enthusiasm。
At the time of the interview with the press, seo myung hui was studying the forthcoming decision of the national intellectual property agency to revise the patent review guide. Today, she is familiar with professional terms in the field of new materials, artificial intelligence, “at least able to communicate normally with core technicians”. She said, “we need complex people in the legal profession, who are really learning people.”
