Intellectual Property Asia

PC World reports that Taiwan is to set up a specialised court for Intellectual Property Matters. Taiwan has long had problems with Intellectual Property issues and has been accused both by the US and the EU of ignoring infringements. Certainly experience in other countries shows that specialised courts can help in enforcing IP rights. Many judges are frightened by what they see as the combination of legal and technical issues and fail to realise the value of IP rights. Often they see "monopolies" which they consider inherently bad and so should be excluded - the reason behind the monopoly then becomes less significant.

Labels: Taiwan

Philips has complained to the European Commission that Taiwan's compulsory licences for patents on recordable CDs (CDR) infringe the Trade Barriers Regulation and are not in accordance with TRIPS. Philips claims to have offered seven out of the eight manufacturers a licence on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. Art 31 (f) of the TRIPS Agreement clearly states that such compulsory licences shall be predominantly for the supply of the domestic market. However, over 80% of the recordable CDRs are exported.

This seems to be to be a fairly clear violation of the TRIPS agreement - industrialised countries like Taiwan really should not be granting compuslory licences to help their local industry. Philips developed the CDR standard and should be entitled to their fair share of the exploitation. It is surely unacceptable for a developed country to invoke compulsory licence provisions without good reason.

Labels: CDR, Compulsory Licence, India US Patent Office USPTO, Philips, Recordable CD, Taiwan

The Jiji Press New Service reports that Japan is improving the position of patent licencees when the patent is transferred to another company. Currently the patent licencee needs to register the licence contract in order to continue using the licenced technology. Only 305 were registered during 2005 - which shows that many companies did not bother with the registration process. Given that many patent licences are world-wide this is hardly surprising.

The proposed new system will still require registration of the contracts, but not the listing of individual patents apparenty. This is certainly an improvement on the current system. However, the registration of patent licence contracts in a number of countries is impractical. Many countries - such as Germany or the US - do not require registration of contracts and this seems to cause no problems in enforcement.

Labels: Japan, Patent Licence, Registration

AP reports that China has upheld the validity of Pfizer's patent on viagra and stopped two generic companies from selling products on the market. This follows the same court's decision in June overturning the revocation of the patent by the Patent Review Board. Good news for Pfizer - which has already lost its rights to the basic patent on Viagra in some countries due to a publication a few months prior to the filing of the patent rights.

AP report:

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/061227/china_pfizer_viagra.html?.v=2

Labels: china, pfizer, viagra

The German government has announced that it will use its forthcoming EU presidency to put pressure on China to improve its protection for intellectual property. It will be interesting to see what the German government intends to do - other than to keep on applying pressure to the Chinese government. Part of the problem, however, is that many European companies have not bothered to register trade marks, designs or patents in China and then are surprised that their rights are copied. The same thing happens to companies who fail to register their rights in the European Union - the ideas can be copied without hindrance. The German Supreme Court has continually emphasised the need to file for intellectual property protection if companies want to protect their ideas.

Copy of the press release:
http://www.bmj.de/enid/099bbd52d587204371368a58a5272f05,da76fc706d635f6964092d0933383135093a0979656172092d0932303036093a096d6f6e7468092d093132093a095f7472636964092d0933383135/Pressemitteilungen_und_Reden/Pressemitteilungen_58.html

The US PTO web site reports a Memorandum of Understanding with the US and India on IP issues to help strengthen the Indian Patent Offices.

Hopefully this will help speed up the grant of patent applications in India - which is currently taking at least five years according to my sources.


The Department of Commerce’s United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced that Jon Dudas, under secretary of commerce for intellectual property, and Ajay Dua, secretary of the Indian Ministry of Commerce and Industry (IMCI), recently signed an historic Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on Bilateral Cooperation between the United States and India on intellectual property issues.
“This MOU is a first between the United States and India on intellectual property issues, and it will open the door for an unprecedented level of cooperation and sharing of best practices,” said Under Secretary Dudas.
“The MOU advances the objective established by President Bush and Prime Minister Singh in March for the United States and India to work together to promote innovation, creativity and technological advancement by providing a vibrant intellectual property rights regime,” added Dudas. Under the terms of the MOU, which builds upon the work of the U.S.-India Trade Policy Forum and other successful bilateral meetings between the United States and India, the USPTO and the IMCI’s Office of the Controller General will cooperate on capacity building, human resource development and public awareness of intellectual property. Among the activities designed to strengthen the work of both offices, the USPTO will help train Indian patent and trademark examiners, develop education material for the examiners and produce a manual on patent practice for use by Indian examiners and the public. This work will be carried forward with action plans that will establish specific areas for cooperation over a renewable two-year period of time.

Labels: India US Patent Office USPTO

White LED manufacturer Nichia has apparently suffered a setback in its attempt enforce its intellectual property rights world-wide. The Korean IP Office has cancelled its design patent in Korea. The decision seems to have been based on a pecularity of Korean law concerning "related designs" and may not have any impact on other design rights in other countries.

Design patents - called design rights in Europe - differ from "normal" patents (called utility patents in the US). They protect the form or shape of a product - not the technology behind it.

Press Release from Nichia:

Decision in Korean Intellectual Property Office regarding a Korean Design Patent: NICHIA Corporation:

The white LED manufacturer Nichia has apparently lost a case in Korea in which the Korean Intellectual Property Office ruled in favour of Baron Tech and cancelled a design patent (see separate Blog).

Nichia is suing another Korean company, SSC, in the US courts and two Taiwanese companies in Taiwan. Since the cancellation of the design patent seems to have been based on a pecularity of Korean law, it is unlikely to have any impact on these other cases.

LED Manufacturer Nichia has sued UK retailer for patent infringement. Apparently the white christmas tree lights infringe the Japanese company's patents.

Whilst it is true that a retailer can be sued for patent infringement, this is not very common. Usually the patent holder prefers to sue the manufacturer. These Christmas tree lights were probably made in China and so Nichia has probably chosen to sue in the British courts rather than trying to locate the infringer in China.