The key objective of the campaign, which was initiated in accordance with the request of China State Intellectual Property Working Group, is to put a premium on any organization or individual who contributes to the prosecution of a vital pirate case.

NCA has established a processing center to receive information and reports against piracy. According to the newly released temporary provisions, enforcement authorities at all levels including copyright administrations, public security bureaus, culture departments, administrations of industry and commerce, customs, and supervision departments of publication, which raid or assist raid actions in line with China’s laws and regulations concerning copyrights, and individuals who is verified to have contributed to the prosecution of a piracy case, would get a reward of up to 100, 000 yuan (over 13,000 U.S. dollars).

From 2002 to October, 2006, courts at all levels heard 430 temporary pre-litigation injunction cases and 425 were concluded, reaching an actual majority verdict support of 87.3 percent. During the same time, 642 pre-litigation evidence perpetuation application cases were handled and 607 were concluded, reaching an actual majority verdict support of 92.67 percent. Court at all levels also heard 218 application cases for property preservation and concluded 208 during the same time, reaching an actual majority determination support of 96.07 percent. Most application cases for temporary measures prior to lawsuit were sentenced by court within 48 hours, which ensures time-effectiveness.

In line with the principles of comprehensive IPR infringement compensation, courts at all levels had gradually increased the amount of compensation and applied capital sum principle in some cases. Civil punishments were imposed in those cases of vital infringement.

Courts at all levels also managed to properly allocate judicial recourses and improve the professional trial organizations. According to preliminary statistics released in early 2006, China has 172 special courts and 140 collegial panels designated for handling IPR-related cases, and 1,667 IPR judges.

The rules, known as Several Rules of State Intellectual Property Office on Regulation of Patent Application Behaviors, require that applicants or agencies file applications in line with China’s laws and regulations and should be honest in the process. Any abnormal applications are prohibited.

According to the rules, local governments should guide applicants and patent agencies to file applications in a lawful way. Patent agencies should report to SIPO about any abnormal applications once they are discovered. Any illegal application behaviors aimed at rewards or subsidies are subjective for criminal punishment in accordance with laws, providing that the circumstance is so serious to constitute a crime.

The rules prescribe the definition of “abnormal applications” as the follows: “applications which are filed by one single entity or individual or filed under the direction of one single entity or individual and are obviously identical in content; applications which are filed by one single entity or individual or filed under the direction of one single entity or individual and obviously plagiarize existing techniques and designs.” This definition also applies to patent agencies.

The amount of invention, utility model and design applications was 1,190,000, 1,370,000 and 1,040,000, accounting for 33.1 percent, 37.9 percent and 29.0 percent respectively of the total.

Patent application, which maintained a rapid growth in the first half of this year, represents three new features:

1. In the first half of the year, the amount of three kinds of patent applications increased by 7.3 percent as against the same period of last year, remarkably slowing down after the 20-percent annual growth rate registered over the past consecutive seven years. In the first half of the year, design applications registered a rapid increase of 16.3 percent to reach 89,852 cases, and invention applications grew slightly by 6.9 percent to stand at 104,341 cases; while utility model applications totaled 74,733 cases, down 1.4 percent as compared with the same period of last year.

2. The increase rate of domestic invention applications is higher than that of overseas. While increase in invention applications slowing down around the world, the increase rate of domestic invention applications is 3 percent higher than that of overseas, and the proportion of domestic invention applications in overall applications in the first half of the year is 14 percent higher than that of overseas.

3. The increase of domestic patent applications was attributed to the growth of service applications. Compared with the same period of last year, service patent applications increased by 20 percent, non-service applications decreased by 1.4 percent, and patent applications by enterprise still increased rapidly.

Officials with SIPO pointed out that considering the three new characteristics, the increase of patent applications is expected to enter a new period of adjustment, when the increase of total amount of patent applications will slow down, domestic service invention applications will keep growing rapidly and enterprises and science research institutions will take more efforts in intellectual property protection.

The Beijing-based company, naming itself as Huirui (same as Pfizer’s Chinese trade name) biotechnologies Co. Ltd. and prominently used the name on its website to promote sales of its product.

Pfizer claimed that the defendant's infringing acts had incurred damage to its reputation and constituted unfair competition.

On September 24, the Beijing 1st Intermediate People's Court made the sentence at the first instance, ruling that the defendant pay the due compensation to the plaintiff for the infringement.

In August 2006, CHINT, who is based in Wenzhou, China, raised a lawsuit for patent infringement against Schneider Lower Voltage Electrics (Tianjin) Co., Ltd.(the Chinese subsidiary controlled by Schneider with holding 75% shares) and its distributor Ningbo Tax-free Zone Schneider Electrics Co., Ltd. together with its branch office in Leqing, petitioning the court to order Schneider to cease sales of and destroy all its five types of infringing products, as well as claiming damages of 3.33billion RMB, which is the highest amount in damages claimed in the previous IP cases in China.

Schneider insisted that the patent claimed by CHINT should be invalid and also filed an invalidation request against CHINT’s patent with the Patent Reexamination Board of SIPO during the litigation process, which, however, was refused by the Board.

On September 29, 2007, after two oral hearings, several cross-examinations of evidences and the auditing process of sales and profit amount, Wenzhou Intermediate People’s Court rendered the judgment in the first instance, ordering the plaintiffs to immediately cease patent infringement and pay 3.33billion RMB to CHINT within ten days from the effect date of the judgment.

Schneider was not satisfied with the judgment. According to the attorney of Schneider, whether the CHINT’s patent is valid should be the legal basis of this litigation and the refusal decision of Patent Reexamination Board is not the final conclusion on this issue.

Schneider has already appealed against the refusal of the Patent Reexamination Board with Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court. The court has completed the oral hearing on September 24, 2007 but has not yet rendered the judgment.

Ray-Ban, founded in 1937 in Italy, remained as the world's leading sunglasses manufacturer due to its high quality and continuous innovation efforts.

Entrusted by LUXOTTICA S.R.L., the owner of Ray-Ban brand, Unitalen worked with local AIC to launch large-scale crackdown campaigns on fake Ray-Ban sunglasses across China.

During the pre-check of the Xinshijie Sunglasses Company located at Henglou village, Duqiao town of Linhai City, Unitalen found out that the company was selling counterfeited “Ray-Ban prince” and “雷鹏王子” (the Chinese for Ray-Ban prince) sunglasses.

Unitalen then reported the case to the local AIC. After careful joint study on the case, AIC officers raided the company on September 27 and confiscated around 715 fake sunglasses and accessories.

(For details, please contact us)