At the meeting, the three parties agreed that continuous cooperation in the field of IP rights serves each other's interests, which, especially through further strengthening communication with users of the IP system, will provide more convenient and higher-quality service for Asian and global patent applicants and innovators.

After the meeting, the three Directors signed the minutes of talks and jointly issued a joint press release on "Opening of Trilateral Cooperation Website (TRIPO)", announcing the official launch of the website. It is also determined that the next meeting would be held in 2014 in South Korea.

The mechanism of policy dialogue among Directors of China, Japan and South Korea State Intellectual Property Offices was established in 2001. Since its establishment, the three Offices have carried out fruitful cooperation in the patent examination practices, automation and personnel training.

In the afternoon, Tian Lipu-Director of China IP Office met with John Altee (Director of UK IP Office) and his delegation in Beijing. The two parties had an in-depth exchange of views on the Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) and cooperation between the two offices in 2014.

Sino-British PPH pilot will be officially launched on July 01, 2014, which will become a new starting point of cooperation between the two Offices. It is reported that so far, British enterprises have submitted 24,221 applications for patent of invention in China; from January to October in 2013, the number of patent applications by British enterprises in China has reached over 1,500 cases.

According to the joint decision, from December 01, 2013, the PPH pilot will be extended indefinitely, the requirements and processes of submitting PPH in the two offices will not change.

Due to the complexity of the case and huge amount of damages, with examination and cross-examination of the parties, by applying the “Trademark Law”, the “Anti-unfair Competition Law” and relevant judicial intepretations, and after strict court investigation and full discussion of the collegial bench and the judicial committee, Shandong High People's Court,found that the use of by Foshan QuanYou Sanitary Ware Co., LTD. infringed the exclusive right to use of registered trademark of QuanYou Furniture Co., LTD., and Its use of "QuanYou" in the company name constitutes an unfair competition with QuanYou Furniture Co., LTD. in its trademark rights and the right of "QuanYou". When determining the compensation, the defendant- Foshan QuanYou Sanitary Ware refused to give evidences for profit. After careful thinking, Unitalen proved carefully relying on the evidence submitted by the defendant, and tried to seek evidence for compensation in order to form a complete chain of evidences. Finally the court agreed comprehensively on this basis and ordered the compensation of 14 million Yuan.

It is worth mentioning that the result of the case is closely related to the administrative litigation retrial judgment of "全友QUANYOU" (objection review) made by the Supreme People's Court previously. It is because of the retrial judgment, which identifies "QuanYou" trademark constitutes a well-known trademark and shall be protected on different class of goods, that the relevant judgment and decision made by Beijing High People's Court, Beijing First Intermediate People's Court and the trademark review and adjudication board were cancelled, which approved "QuanYou QUANYOU" trademark registration for Foshan QuanYou Sanitary Ware Co., LTD. Therefore, the claim of defendant lost powerful support.

The results of administrative litigation retrial judgment regarding "全友QUANYOU" objection review made by the Supreme People's Court and the first-instance civil verdict for QuanYou trademark infringement and unfair competition made by Shandong High People's Court, once again demonstrate that Unitalen lawyers can properly handel difficult and complex issues of intellectual property rights entrusted by client. In recent years, Unitalen lawyers have formed a good mode of work, such as developing systematic program before litigation, implementing the program effectively, and various study and moot court in the process of cases. With their own efforts, Unitalen lawyers go all out to protect the legal rights and interests of the client, promoting China's judicial protection of intellectual property rights.

On September 30, 2011, the Board finally decided that the patent was invalid while all claims (1, 2) of the involved patent after modification lack of novelty, as compared to the comparison documents, and thus proclaimed invalid.

Baoyuan brought administrative action before the Beijing First Intermediate People's Court; On April 20, 2012, the court rejected all the pleadings in administrative litigation by the company.

Baoyuan brought an appeal again to Beijing High People's Court. On December 19, 2012 and the court dismissed all its pleadings in the second instance of administrative litigation.

Baoyuan did not accept the decision of invalidity, the judgment of the first and second instance, and put forward to the Supreme People's Court the retrial request. On September 22, 2013, the Supreme People's Court issued a notice to inform Tensar that it has accepted the retrial request of the applicant. The main reasons for retrial by Baoyuan are that: 1, when evaluating novelty of the patent, the decision of invalidity, the judgment of the first and second instance conducted a wrong evaluation by comparing the two technical parts with the claims of the patent involved, which violated the principle of "single comparison"; 2, the "three-direction geogrid" in Claim 1 shall contain the "hidden" technical feature of "equilateral triangle" according to the understanding of a person with ordinary skill in this field. Based on the above, Baoyuan requested the Supreme People's Court to cancel the original judgment.

On December 4, 2013, the Supreme People's Court issued its judgment of the case, rejecting the retrial application by the company, for major reasons that: 1, the disclosed technical solution in the comparison documents applies not only to the "structure with an angle of 60o between stretching pieces”, but also applies to the "structure with angles other than 60o”. Therefore, it found that Baoyuan’s proposal of violating the principle of "single comparison" cannot be established; 2, Baoyuan did not submit evidence to prove that a person with ordinary skill in the field should understand the "hidden" technical features of "equilateral triangle" into the "three-direction geogrid". So this assertion of Baoyuan is also not accepted.

In November 2013, Beijing Patent Agent Association carried out the evaluation for "Beijing Outstanding Patent Agency and Excellent Agents in 2013". After material submission, examination, expert evaluation and publication of results, ten outstanding agencies were honored, including Unitalen. A partner of Unitalen accepted the certificate and trophy awarded by director Wang Hong and other leaders.