China trademark application remained growing at fast pace during the first three quarters of 2016 and hit 2.649 million pieces by the end of the period, up 25.2% vs. last year; meanwhile applications filed online increased to 78.8% of the total volume, up 10%. The industry structure has also been found improved and there is a steady growth in the average ownership of valid trademark by market entities, with every 7.1 market entities own one valid trademark. More noticeable results of the reform of simplifying trademark registration process are coming forth gradually. (Source: China Industry & Commerce News)

Recently, the “National New & High Tech Zones Innovation Capacity Evaluation Report of 2016” was published in Beijing. According to the report, there were 147 New & High Tech Zones as of the end of 2015, which were at a steady pace with improved startup models and innovation capacities.

According to the report, in 2015 the companies in National New & High Tech Zones were found with 2.7 times R&D investment and 14.6 times R&D professionals density above the national average respectively. As for the innovation output, the invention patents granted per 10,000 persons and the numbers of valid patent in National New & High Tech Zones are 8.9 times and 8.5 times of the national average respectively. By volume, the amount of patents granted per 10,000 professionals in the National New & High Tech Zones is 1.9 times of that in Sillicon Valley in 2015, which reflects the innovation effeiency achieved in the National New & High Tech zones is comparable to international counterparts. (Source: China IP News)

On September 30, Heads of SIPO and EPO met in Paris, France. SIPO Direcctor Mr. Shen Changyu and EPO President Mr. Benoit Battistelli attended the meeting and jointly signed the Work Plan of SIPO-EPO on Bilateral Co-operation 2017. During the meeting, in-depth discussions were held on topics of cooperative projects such as CPC classification, exchange of patent data, EPOQUE and personnel training. (Source: SIPO.gov.cn)

On December 25, 2015, CRRC Qiqihar Locomotive Co., Ltd, Dalian Container Company under CRRC Qiqihar Transportation Equipment Co., Ltd, and Qinzhou North Gulf Logistics Co., Ltd. (jointly the “Defendants”) received from Sichuan Chengdu Intermediate People’s Court the Notice of Responding to Action concerning the lawsuit filed by Tianjin Zhaohua Logistics Co. Ltd. (the plaintiff) for infringement of utility model patent.

Entrusted by all three defendants, Unitalen took up the case and first filed a jurisdiction opposition to Chengdu Intermediate Court on the ground that although the actual user of the alleged infringing goods locates in Sichuan, Sichuan shall not be the venue of jurisdiction since the plaintiff has given up the right to sue the actual user. On April 22, 2016, Chengdu Intermediate People’s Court issued an adjudication confirming that the court has no jurisdiction over the case, as none of the three defendants’ residencies are in Sichuan province; that the plaintiff could neither prove Sichuan to be the venue of production, sales or use of the alleged infringement product, nor to be the venue where infringement consequence had taken place. Accordingly, the court decided to transfer the case to Guangxi Naning Municipal Intermediate People’s Court, the venue of the third defendant’s residence.

As the second step, Unitalen started invalidation proceedings against all three utility model patents cited by the plaintiff. After review, the Patent Reexamination Board of SIPO announced total invalidation of two of the cited utility model patents, and partial invalidation of the third. Subject to the partial invalidation, the protection scope of the third utility model patents has become completely different from the technical solution of the alleged infringed products.

As a result, the plaintiff had no choice but withdrawn its litigation requests against all three defendants.

In between the end of 2015 and the beginning of 2016, Guangzhou WALKERA Technology Co. Ltd. (WALKERA), initiated lawsuits against DJI for two alleged patent infringements, alleging DJI’s Phantom 3 model to have infringed on their utility model patents no. ZL200720060190.1 for “model aircraft” and no. ZL201220100061.1 for“a remote-controlled aircraft with state monitoring function”, and asking for an indemnity of 2.2 million yuan.

After examining the plaintiff’s patents, DJI entrusted Unitalen to rebut the plaintiff by filing invalidation petitions against the plaintiff’s the patents.

The plaintiff’s patent no. ZL200720060190.1 requests to protect a type of “model aircraft”, with the required protection scope in its independent claim as follow: 1. a model aircraft comprises a main body frame and a head cover connected with the top of the main body frame, a foot rest structure connected with the lower portion of the main frame and is used for supporting the main frame, a power assembly arranged on the main frame and a controller capable of receiving an external control signal; and is characterized as having four corresponding corners of the main body frame respectively fixed into a cross-shaped four-axis line, each shaft is fixed with a power assembly.

During search, Unitalen attorneys located a prior art document from Germany about an aircraft, in particular a quadrocopter. The quadrocopter is defined by a preferably cross-shaped structure, each with a drive unit including propeller at the four corners; a processor-based electronic unit to control motor according to the pilot’s control signals, multiple bumper bars spanned in both longitudinal and transverse directions protect the electronics in the event of an impact. Lightweight materials such as aluminum, magnesium or carbon fiber composites are used. The cross-shaped boom is fixed by a screw per strut connector. A landing gear can be constructed of spring steel wires.

Based on the finding, Unitalen requested for invalidation of the plaintiff’s patent due to invalidity of creativity, which was supported by Patent Reexamination Board in their decision made on September 22, 2016. In spite of the plaintiff claiming the German patent is under B64C27/08 professional aircraft category while theirs is under A63H27/00 toy model aircraft category, the difference in technical fields shall lead to other substantial differences in structures, the board believed the development of model aircrafts was done mostly with reference to the real models being used in civil, public and military arenas by the time when the patent application was filed, especially for toy remote-controlled aircrafts, which are hard to distinguish from small-sized UAVs. The technical personnel in this field tend to look for inspiration from the more developed UAV technologies to improve model aircrafts’ structure, and it is technically feasible for the technical personnel to apply the UAV structure to toy model aircrafts. Therefore, it is obvious that the technical personnel in this field would develop toy model aircrafts based on the prior art DE202006013909 quadrocopter. Thus, Patent Reexamination Board announced total invalidation of the No. ZL200720060190.1 patent.

As to the plaintiff’s other patent, namely, ZL201220100061.1 , requests to protect a type of “remote-controlled aircraft”, demanding the protection scope in its independent claim as follows: 1. a remote-controlled aircraft with state monitoring function, is composed of a remote-controlled aircraft with a signal transceiver of the aircraft terminal and a remote control with a signal transceiver of the remote control terminal, the remote-controlled aircraft is provided with a motor powered by batteries, and is characterized as having a sensor assembly arranged on the remote control aircraft, and the sensor assembly is used for transmitting the message of the aircraft condition to the aircraft terminal of the signal transceiver, where the message is then relayed to the remote control terminal of the signal transceiver.

Unitalen lawyers discovered a prior art in China (CN101866180A) that is about a flight control system, which includes airborne and ground systems. The airborne system comprises a micro camera and a GPS receiver which are arranged outside the UAV, a GPS signal acquisition unit which is arranged inside the UAV, a power monitoring unit, a superposition unit and a microwave emitting unit; the ground system comprises a microwave receiving unit, a video display and a remote controller. The airborne system of this invention converts the flight parameters and power supply information etc. into video signals and transmits them to the video display of the ground system. The remote controller can be used for turning on or off the superposition function of the superposition unit. Based on the finding Unitalen requested for invalidation of the plaintiff’s patent due to invalidity of creativity.

Similar to ZL200720060190.1 patent invalidation discussed above, although the plaintiff claimed their patent is under A63H27/00 toy aircraft category, different from G05D 1/00 automatic pilot category of CN101866180A, the collegial panel supported the proposition of invalidity of creativity due to the same arguments illustrated above. Thus, Patent Reexamination Board announced total invalidation of 201220100061.1 as well.

In this case, DJI, as the manufacturer of consumer-level small-sized UAVs, fought against the plaintiff, whose patents are in the toy model UAVs field. With the prior art evidences provided by the invalidation petitioner, Patent Reexamination Board has clarified the features of and connections between toy remote-controlled aircraft and small-sized UAVs technical fields, which shall provide important guidance for determination of the protection scopes of UAV patent claims in the future.

Zaigle company is the right owner of “an infrared heating cooking device” invention patent, which was granted on November 5, 2014. Zaigle believed the grills sold by Yongkang Jinshide company (“Jinshide”) on Tmall (www.tmall.com) infringed on the above-mentioned patent, and Tmall didn’t take any effective measures upon receipt of their complaint about the infringement, so that Tmall shall be held jointly liable for the infringement. Zhejiang Jinhua Municipality Intermediate People’s Court agreed that Jinshide’s products had infringed on Zaigle company’s patent right, and toward the complaint materials submitted by Zaigle, which are compliant with Tmall’s format requirements, Tmall only issued a decision of “approval failed” without rendering proper examination neither taking any necessary measures to prevent losses from expanding, therefore, Tmall shall bear the joint liability with Jinshide for the expanded part of losses. Jinshide shall stop selling the infringing products immediately and pay an indemnity of 150,000 yuan for Zaigle company’s economic losses, including the 50,000 yuan to be paid by Tmall for joint liability.

In disagreement, Tmall appealed to Zhengjiang Higher People’s Court. However, the first instance ruling was sustained because the Higher Court found Zaigle’s complaint being compliant with all the essential requirements prescribed by the Tort Law of China so that it is an effective notice. It’s proper to hold Tmall accountable for the shared liability for the losses expanded after they received the complaint and failed to take any necessary measures.

This case relates to the determination of liability borne by Internet platforms in regards of sales of patent infringing products. Since patent infringement cannot be easily identified, the second instance ruling mentioned that the “necessary measures” defined in the Tort Law are not limited to deletion, shielding and link disconnection, instead, this shall be determined by combining the examinations of the nature of the infringed right, the specific circumstances of infringement and technical means. Nevertheless, it is critically necessary to deliver the complaints to the party at complaint, and Tmall was found “not taking necessary measures” because of this. This case has referred to the “notice, counter-notice” mechanism in copyright field, so as not only to protect the right owners, but also to prevent abusive use of complaints, taking into account of balancing the interests of the right owners and the party at complaint and promoting the positive development of E-commerce platform businesses.

Hosted by Law School of Shenzhen University, one of the Supreme People’s Court theoretical research bases, the forum on “Frontier Issues Surrounding China Judicial Protection of IP” was held in Shenzhen this October 15. Well-known experts and scholars in IP field attended this high-level event. Yongbo Li, partner of Unitalen was invited to give a keynote speech on “Requirements for establishing the liability of stopping standard patent infringement”.

Since the opening of the Supreme People’s Court theoretical research base at Shenzhen University, their high-level forums, with full support by the Supreme People’s Court Intellectual Property Tribunal and China IP Law Association, have been highly regarded in the field for the vision and applicability demonstrated. The forum is one of the most influential IP forums in South China.

This October State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) published the results of the 18th China Patent Awards on the official website. “light rail vehicle and hinged bogie thereof” and “a motor end cover and a mover”, which were filed through the assistance of Unitalen were enlisted among Gold Medal winners.

Co-issued by Chinese government and WIPO, China Patent Awards is the highest recognition for in China patent field. Starting from 1989, it has been held successfully for 18 sessions with solid credibility and influence and represents the best in class. The awards standards are not only focused on the levels of technology and innovation, but also on the utilization status during the transformation to market. In addition, China Patent Awards requires strict examination of statuses of patent protection and management. To some extent, the technology level and innovation capacity of a business can be observed through them winning this award.

On October 27, 2016, China International Trademark & Brands Festival, hosted by China Trademark Association (hereinafter as CTA), was held in Kunshan Jiangsu. Vice Chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, Deputy Secretary-General of WIPO, Deputy Chief of State Administration for Industry and Commerce, and Chief of US Patent Office attended the event. Unitalen delegates led by Director Zehui Yu attended the event along with 1,500 trademark professionals, scholars, business representatives and branding professionals.

By the opportunity of the event, CTA held the selection session for the first “trademark leaders” ever and Mr. Yu, Unitalen Director, was elected as one of the winners.