inventor boot camp - geoffrey lin - 10-17-2009
DESCRIPTION
China's PRC Patent Practice In Comparison with the U.S. 1. Filing Practices 2. Differences in Patent Prosecution 3. Utility Model Patents, Filing Strategies and Clearances 4. Introduction to Patent Invalidation 5. Introduction to Patent LitigationTRANSCRIPT
www.lovells.comLovells LLP
PRC Patent Practice – in Comparison with the US
October 2009
www.lovells.comLovells
Overview
• Filing Practice– Differences in Patent Prosecution– Utility Model Patents, Filing Strategies, and Clearances
• An Introduction to Patent Invalidation• An Introduction to Patent Litigation• Case Study: The Schneider Electric Case
www.lovells.comLovells LLP
Filing Practice
www.lovells.comLovells
Summary
• Register your inventions as patents in the PRC– value– anti-hijacking
• Often weaker PRC examination, but harmonize international prosecution such that broad and valid PRC patents are issued
• Consider filing UMs and Invention Patents to cover the same concept
• Patent Clearance, Submissions, Miscellaneous
www.lovells.comLovells
Building a PRC Patent Portfolio
• Strong patent portfolio often the best defence to patent actions from competitors– Competitors concerned about countersuits and invalidation
actions– Strong portfolio increases costs and risks to competitors to take
action against company– Strong portfolio gives leverage in licensing/cross licensing
negotiations
• Put in place appropriate structures ensure important inventions are patented in China
• Exit Strategy: patents in China may be valuable to a purchaser of an invention or company as most large corporations are mfg or selling in China
www.lovells.comLovells
Examination for novelty
• Examiner considers following criteria when examining for novelty against prior art
• Prior art will be considered identical invention. if they are "in substance, in the same technical field, [have] the same technical solution, and their prospective results are [the] same."
• prior art references are considered individually, rather than
comparing to a combination of references. • Public disclosure in publications in China or
abroad or Public use or knowledge in China or abroad is considered prior art. Proof is an issue.
• No one year grace period
www.lovells.comLovells
Weaknesses in patent system
• Shortage of Examiners– SIPO had only 900 examiners at the end of 2003, compared to
about 4,000 in the U.S. – Each examiner must examine over 500 patents per year– Average time for examination 46 months in 2001 reduced to 30
months in 2003• Quality of Examiners
– 50% of examiners under 30– 2/3 of examiners have only 1-2 years patent examination
experience– Only 26% of examiners hold graduate degree
• No best mode requirement• No duty of Candor• Result
– Some bad patents are granted
www.lovells.comLovells
International Harmonization of Patent Prosecution
• Internationally harmonize your patent prosecution– Novelty destroying prior art
• PRC patents allowed with significantly broader claims than your US or EP patent should be reviewed
• Competitors and Infringers will search your counterpart US and EP patent prosecution file histories
• Claim Sets– Sufficiency of Claims– Matching claims with Specification– Use EP claim sets if possible
• Translation Issues
www.lovells.comLovells
Utility Models – Subject Matter
• Shape and structure only, and the applicant cannot claim a method, function, ingredients, or chemical composition.
www.lovells.comLovells
Invention Patent vs. Utility Model
• Consider whether to apply for:– Invention patent; and/or– utility model
• Major differences between patent and UM:– UM only can cover product claims– the test for inventiveness is lower for a utility model which means
effectively it is harder to invalidate; – utility models are not examined – utility models are granted for 10 years; patents for 20. – Invention patent infringement actions, are unlikely to be stayed if
an invalidation action is filed; – in the case of a utility model, it is likely the infringement
proceedings will be stayed.
www.lovells.comLovells
Filing strategies – Dual Filing UM and Invention Patents
• Some companies should consider filing both utility models and patent applications at the same time.
• Rely on the utility model until grant of the patent and once the patent is about to be granted cancel the utility model.
• Whether to follow this route needs to be carefully considered in light of:– Is the technology mechanical in nature?– the length of time new technology is likely to be commercialised
and – the strength of protection required
www.lovells.comLovells
Defensive Strategies
• Patent Clearance• Invalidation of patents considered a risk• Building own patent portfolio
www.lovells.comLovells
Patent clearance
• Increasingly important to conduct patent clearance searches for technology both:– prior to entering the market and – after entering the market
• Searches important to identify hijacking of rights where competitor may have registered a patent or utility model after reverse engineering the company's product.
• Particular risk with utility models which are not examined.
www.lovells.comLovells
Submission re pending applications
• No opposition proceedings under Chinese patent law
• Possible for any party to make submissions as to patentability to examiner in relation to pending application
• Should be strongly considered where threatening pending application found, particularly given that examiner may not locate prior art
• No duty of candour in China
www.lovells.comLovells
Miscellaneous
• First Filing Rules now confidentiality examination• Divisionals – Similar to EPO style of strict
verbatim support from original specification
www.lovells.comLovells LLP
Invalidation of Patents
www.lovells.comLovells
Summary
• Bifurcated System (as with Germany) • No Post Grant amendment (other than combining
claims) so get patents in good order • Divisionals – Similar to EPO style of strict
verbatim support from original specification• Burden of Proof on Applicant to show invalidity• No Discovery and documentary evidence must
be clear• If overseas evidence, must be notarized and
legalized
www.lovells.comLovells
Invalidation of patents
• Patent invalidation actions filed to Patent Review and Adjudication Board (“PRAB”) in Beijing
• Has good reputation as professional body with good technical skills
• Appeals lie to 1st Intermediate Court in Beijing and then Beijing Higher People’s Court
• Invalidation action based on grounds that patent does not meet requirements for patentability. – E.g. lack of inventiveness, insufficiency
• Experts not generally utilized. Fact witness statements can be utilized.
www.lovells.comLovells
PRAB procedures
• Applicant files invalidation action• Served by PRAB on patentee• Patentee files defence• Served by PRAB on applicant• Can be decided on paper but now normally oral hearing• Oral hearing held; both parties make oral and written
submissions• Decision• General time line: Minimum 1 year; maximum 5 years
plus
www.lovells.comLovells LLP
Patent Infringement Litigation
www.lovells.comLovells
Summary
• There are no jury trials.• Infringement and validity are tried separately;• The burden of proof is high:
• PRC Courts rely principally rely on documentary evidence and require notarization and legalization for overseas evidence;
• Oral evidence is extremely rare;• Judges do not usually make inferences
• There is no oral or written discovery by right
www.lovells.comLovells
Construction and Proof
• There is no "Markman" style hearing. • Claim construction – like Article 69 of EPC. • Claims are interpreted based on the wording of
the claims when read with the specification and drawings; and,
• Every element of a patent claim must be proved by the plaintiff
www.lovells.comLovells
Litigation - Forum Shopping
• Forum shopping venue selection is a key– Consider carefully the forum to
bring action• Beijing and Shanghai have better
courts, but busy
• Local protectionism
• Where can infringing products be found?
www.lovells.comLovells
The Courtroom
www.lovells.comLovells
Trial
• Preliminary injunction require bond• PRC case similar in burden and evidence
necessary to a US Preliminary Injunction case• Experts and expert evidence (e.g., testing
reports) can be utilized• Independent third party expert may be appointed
by the court in complex cases
www.lovells.comLovells
Asserting various claim types and patent types
• Litigations involving Utility Models are usually stayed if defendant applies for invalidation
• Method claims less useful to assert, but indirect infringement theory exists
• Product by Process claims cover a new product may be used to shift the burden of proof
www.lovells.comLovells LLP
The Schneider Electric Case
Geoffrey Lin
Lovells Shanghai
www.lovells.comLovells
Utility Models – Weak in theory
• In theory weaker than an invention patent in terms of validity, but injunction and damages are available.
• The record amount of damages for all IP infringement decisions in China (approx. USD48 million) has been granted for the infringement of one UM in 2007:
• The CHINT Group v. Schneider Electric Case
www.lovells.comLovells
PRC IPR Verdict Comparison
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Millions (Dollars)
•0.28
•48.73
•7.28
•2.91•0.54
•Highest reported Verdict for Utility Model Infringement prior to Chint v. Schneider - Zhongji Tonghua Auto v. Huanda Auto Assembly (Dec. 2006)
•Highest reported Verdict for Utility
Model Infringement-Chint v. Schneider Verdict (Sep. 2007)
•Highest reported Verdict for Invention Patent Infringement -Holley Communication V. Samsung (December 2008)
•Highest reported Verdict for Copyright Infringement - Educational Testing Service (US) v. New Oriental School (Dec. 2006)
•Highest reported Verdict for Trade Mark Infringement - Zhao v. G2000 (Jan. 2008)
•Highest reported verdict for Design Patent Infringement - Neoplan Bus GmbH V. Zonda (January 2009)
•3.07
www.lovells.comLovells
CHINT v. Schneider - Company Profiles
• Schneider Electric– Fortune 500 company, based in Paris.– Market leader in electric systems.– Completed major M&As in Europe and China.
• CHINT Group– Chinese manufacturer of low-voltage electric circuit
breakers, based in Wenzhou, Zhejiang Province. – Started as a garage shop in mid-1980's and emerged
as a major local player in early 2000's.
• Litigation– Multiple patent infringement suits between the two in
Europe and China.
www.lovells.comLovells
CHINT v. Schneider – Wenzhou Casemid-Nov. 1997 CHINT applies for a utility model for "a miniature circuit breaker".
March 1999 CHINT obtains its utility model.
late July 2006 CHINT files its Complaint against Schneider at the Wenzhou Intermediate People's Court. CHINT initially sought 500,000 RMB in damages from Schneider.
late August 2006 Schneider applies to invalidate CHINT's utility model patent before the Patent Review and Adjudication Board (PRAB) of SIPO.
Dec. 2006 The PRAB holds oral hearings on Schneider's invalidation filed in December 2006.
late April 2007 The PRAB issues its decision upholding the validity of CHINT's utility model,
with respect to Schneider's invalidation filed in late August 2006.
late- April 2007 Heard by the Wenzhou Court
late Sept. 2007 The Wenzhou Court issues its record judgment (about USD47 million).
October. 2007 Schneider appeals the Wenzhou Court's judgment to the Zhejiang Higher People's Court and appeals the PRAB decision to the Beijing Intermediate Court
www.lovells.comLovells
Comparison of Schneider Prior Patent with CHINT UM Patent
www.lovells.comLovells
CHINT v. Schneider – Wenzhou case
• Outcome (as reported by media)– Settled in April 2009 right before appellate trial.– Settlement with payment of approx. USD22 million to
CHINT.– Worldwide settlement of all disputes.
www.lovells.comLovells
CHINT v. Schneider – Wenzhou case
• Lessons to learn:– UMs ("mini patents") can be used aggressively and
can be difficult to invalidate.– Monitor a local competitor's IP portfolio, including its
UMs (file for invalidation if necessary).– Evidence: keep complete original records– Forum Shopping: Consider filing declaration of non-
infringement in your selected venue first– Consider expanding patent portfolios in China to
include more UMs and using them against competitors .
– Consider Dual Filing – Expect a higher burden of proof for foreign companies.
www.lovells.comLovells LLP
For further informationPlease contact
Geoffrey Lin, Counsel
Lovells Shanghai LLP
Tel: +86 21 6138 1688
Fax: +86 21 62792695