Among the invention patent applications, domestic applications account for 256,000 cases, with year-on-year increase of 27.4%, accounting for 81.0% of the total invention patent applications; foreign applications account for 60000 cases, with year-on-year increase of 5.3%, accounting for 19.0% of the total invention patent applications. Among domestic invention patent applications, 209,000 cases are service applications, accounting for 81.6%; and 47000 cases are non-service applications, accounting for 18.4%.

Relevant experts said, compared with the same period of last year, the patent application and authorization in China in the first half of the year has the following characteristics: the growth of total accepted patent applications slowed down markedly from the same period of last year, but domestic application for invention patent grows obviously, with year-on-year growth of 5.6% from the same period of last year, and domestic application for invention patent accounts for 80% of total amount; among domestic invention applications the service invention accounts for more than 80%, and among domestic patent applications for service invention, the enterprise application accounts for about 70% during seven consecutive years; authorization of invention patent grows a bit, and authorization of utility model patent grows rapidly.

As a distributor of Johnson & Johnson’s medical suture and stapling and other medical equipments, Ruibang has 15 years of distribution relationship with Johnson & Johnson, with the contract of distribution renewed every year. In the annual distribution contract signed in January 2008, both parties agreed that: Ruibang could sell some products of Johnson in region specified by Johnson, and during this period, Ruibang shall not sell the products lower than the price set by Johnson & Johnson.

In March of that year, Ruibang won the bid of Johnson & Johnson medical suture in the sales bidding of Peking University People's Hospital with the lowest price, which had been warned by Johnson & Johnson for such low price bidding. Since then, Johnson & Johnson subsequently cancelled Ruibang’s franchise in some hospital and eventually stopped completely the supply of suture and stapling products. In 2009, Johnson & Johnson no longer renewed the contract with Ruibang.

In August 2010, Ruibang launched a lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson (Shanghai) Medical Equipment Co., LTD and Johnson & Johnson (China) Medical Equipment Co., LTD. In May 2012, Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate Court identified that Ruibang had insufficient proof and dismissed the claims and Ruibang later appealed. Recently, the Shanghai High Court held after hearing that, the fact that Johnson & Johnson asked dealers to sell products at no less than its specified price was a conduct of monopoly, where the Anti-monopoly Law shall apply. Therefore, the Court rescind the original judgment and ordered Johnson &Johnson to compensate Ruibang’s economic loss of 530,000 Yuan within ten days after the judgment, rejecting other pleadings of Ruibang.

Vertical monopoly refers to conducts that eliminating or restricting competition through express or implied way by two or more parties of the same industry which are at different economic levels and have no direct competition but business relationship.

Meanwhile, when Beijing patent administrative department orders a stop of infringement in accordiance with law, if the infringers refused to perform according to administrative decisions, the Department can confiscate the products and equipment, molds and other production tools involved.

The plaintiff's VISA credit card is widely used by Chinese consumers and is a well-known brand, and the trademark-VISA has been registered on goods in Class 16 such as "printing bank card, traveler's checks" and services of Class 36 such as "credit card and debit card service, traveler's checks service".

A Chinese individual-Du Hanwu filed on December 12, 2005 application for "VISA" to be registered on goods such as "beer, beverage syrup" etc. The plaintiff applied for objection review of the opposed trademark by the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board. Being unsatisfied with the outcome of the objection review, the plaintiff initiated an administrative action before Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People's Court.

After hearing, Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People's Court held that, the plaintiff- VISA Association registered "VISA" trademark in Classes 16 and 36 dated back to 1980 and 1993, the evidence submitted in the trademark review and litigation process can prove that before application of the opposed trademark, the aforesaid trademark had achieved great influence on China’s consumers and was well-known by the public through considerable and lasting promotion and use by VISA Association; it had been widely known as famous brand and constituted a well-known trademark. It further held that, with China's economic development, card consumption, online payment and foreign credit card payment have become an important part of commodity circulation and has gradually replaced traditional cash payment and become the most common way of consumption of Chinese consumers. The opposed trademark was designated to be used on beer, which is common consumer goods, while the well-known trademark of Visa Association was registered to be used on "print bank card, traveler's checks" and "credit card and debit card service, traveler's checks service"; they were very closely related in terms of marketing channels and consumers, the opposed trademark was completely the same with the well-known trademark, which may easily make consumers to think that the commodities with the opposed trademark were originated from Visa Association or its associated enterprises when they consume with card, therefore, the related public would be misled and the interests of Visa Association was likely to be impaired. Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People's Court concluded that it was wrong for the Trademark Review Board not to support the objection review application proposed by the plaintiff based on Article 13 of the Trademark Law. The court rescinded the objection review rule of the Trademark Review Board and ordered the Board to make a new decision.

But as "Armstrong" gradually becomes a well-known brand in the market of Chinese building materials, infringement shadows.

Anhui Armstrong Building Materials Co., Ltd. was founded on September 5, 2011, producing and selling mineral wool decorative acoustic board with the brand of "Armstrong". The mineral wool decorative acoustic board of this company is used for indoor ceilings under the name of "Armstrong", its company name also incorporates "Armstrong".

Armstrong seeks solution in constant cooperation of American lawyers with Unitalen Attorneys at Law. In May 2012, Armstrong formally empowered Unitalen to lodge a civil infringement litigation before the Beijing No.2 Intermediate People's Court for infringement to registered trademark and unfair competition. In view of the complexity of the case, after many hearings, the judgment of the first instance was finally issued in December 2012, which held that the production and sale of mineral wool decorative acoustic board by Anhui Armstrong Building Materials Co., Ltd. infringed the registered trademark “Armstrong” and “阿姆斯壮” which were registered earlier and well-known, and the use of its company name on the accused commodities by Anhui Armstrong Building Materials Co., Ltd. also constituted unfair competition.

After the issuance of first instance judgment, Anhui Armstrong Building Materials Co., Ltd. appealed to Beijing High People's Court. In July 2013, the Court rejected the appeal of Anhui Armstrong Building Materials Co., Ltd. and sustained the first instance judgment by Beijing No.2 Intermediate People's Court.