In 2019 the IP Tribunal of the Supreme People's Court confirmed that a physical mobile phone was eligible prior art in assessing the novelty and inventiveness of a patent. The tribunal clarified that a party that asserts a physical object as prior art must specify the asserted prior technical solution, specify the corresponding relation between such prior technical solution and the physical object and prove or demonstrate that the public can intuitively obtain the technical solution from the physical object.
The exposure draft for the Implementation Measures for Early Resolution Mechanism of Pharmaceutical Patent Disputes (for Trial Implementation) was recently published to solicit public opinion. The measures are the first legal document explicitly addressing the pharmaceutical patent linkage system in China since the idea was first floated by the National Medical Products Administration in 2017. This article examines the measures' key takeaways.
The Supreme People's Court recently promulgated the Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Laws in Adjudicating Administrative Cases Involving Granting and Affirmation of Patent Rights, which is the first judicial interpretation concerning the trial of patent administrative cases. This article summarises the judicial interpretation's main points.
The Guangzhou IP Court recently upheld a first-instance judgment which had dismissed a trademark infringement claim against parallel imported products. The decision reaffirms the judicial practice that the import of non-counterfeit goods without the express permission of the trademark owner is not illegal in China, provided that the imported products comply with China's compulsory certification requirements and the importer does not modify, in any way, the imported product.
In China, an individual's name right is no longer protectable after their death. Although Marlon Brando passed away in July 2004, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) recently rejected an application to register the trademark MARLON BRANDO and the Chinese equivalent in respect of goods in Class 3. The CNIPA held that the registration and use of the trademarks would violate Article 10.1.8 of the Trademark Law.