Both parties discussed on subjects at the conference, like Patent Cooperation Treaty, graphical user interface, supplementary data submission after application date, patent examination highway, data exchange, etc.

The draft made clear regulations on determination of violation of network copyright, determination of fault of network service providers and determination of direct economic interests. The public has expressed opinions before June 1 via ways, including the Supreme Court website.

The draft stipulates that, if the network user or the network service provider offers without permission works, performance, audio and video record products, rights of which are held by others, through information network, the people’s courts shall order that he/she bear the civil responsibilities for violating information network transmission right.

The draft also stipulates that, the lack of active examination by the network service provider for network users’ behavior in violation of others’ information network transmission right generally would not be regarded as consideration of fault. If the provider takes relevant technical measures actively to prevent violation of information network transmission right from happening, then it could be regarded as consideration of non-fault. If the provider takes reasonable and effective measures but still could hardly find infringement, then he/she should not be deemed knows or should have known the infringement.

The draft further stipulates that, the network service provider would be regarded as violation with “should have known” knowledge if he is found doing any of following: setting focus list, catalog, index for hot films and television series, popular literature works and music works and providing deep linking service; recommending linked works, performance, audio and video products etc. by giving descriptive paragraphs and brief introductions; providing directional links for the third websites that are mainly engaged in infringing acts; other situations that can regarded as violation with “should have known” knowledge.

In over three years practice since the implementation of Antimonopoly Law in August 2008, district courts at all levels heard 61 antimonopoly civil cases in total while trialed and closed 53 cases. From the prospective of actual operation circumstances of Chinese market, the figures are far from satisfactory by all means for the need of antimonopoly.

On one hand, a lot of monopoly acts still thrive in the market, on the other hand, the application of the Antimonopoly Law faces numerous difficulties. This phenomenon indicates that there are certain procedural or substantive barriers for antimonopoly litigation in the judicial practices. Thus, the judicial interpretation about antimonopoly trials released by the Supreme Court no doubt clears certain practical barriers for the application of antimonopoly laws on the basis of summary and analysis of the antimonopoly cases heard in all districts at all levels in the past three years, and improves the availability of antimonopoly laws.

Reading the content of judicial interpretation about antimonopoly trials released by the Supreme Court, the tendency for benefits the plaintiffs in antimonopoly litigation is very obvious. According to the judicial interpretation, the cause of action for antimonopoly cases can be based on not only the specific behavior of monopoly, but also abstract behavior of monopoly (contracts, constitutions of trade associations). The judicial interpretation stipulates clearly in regulations about the qualification of plaintiffs in antimonopoly litigation, where the interests were damaged by specific behavior or abstract behavior of monopoly, or disputes arises thereof, a natural person or a legal person or other organizations can bring the antimonopoly action.

The Chinese Trademark Strategic Annual Development Report (2011) contains 13 chapters, and it has collected important events happened in trademark field and has made statistical analysis for all kinds of trademark data.

It is introduced that according to relevant laws and regulations like Chinese Antimonopoly Law, where enterprises that commence business in China, meanwhile having an annual business income over RMB ten billion in the world market and have an annual business income over RMB 400 million in Chinese market prepare merge and acquisition, they shall seek permission from the government departments. Last year China received the application from Google for acquisition of Motorola; China then examined relevant Motorola Mobile’s patent and licensing issues and comprehensively estimated relevant influences.

On May 30, Yongbo Li from Unitalen Attorneys at Law made a speech titled “The Stratosphere of Using of Patent Information----Guidance for Technology Research and Development”, and shared the understanding and recent research results of using patent information with present professionals.