New Publications on FRAND, Patent Remedies in China

1. On Monday of this week, Yin Li, Hui Zhang, and James Yang published a post titled New Developments on SEP-Related Disputes in China on the Kluwer Patent Blog.  The post discusses the Huawei v. IDC and Iwncomm v. Sony cases, as well as the April 2016 Interpretations (II) of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Patent Infringement Dispute Cases and the April 2017 Beijing High People's Court Guidelines for Patent Infringement Determination.

2.  A company called IP House published a report titled Beijing Intellectual Property Court :  Judicial Protection Data Analysis Report (2015), which has information on (among other matters) damages awards (see pp. 21-30).  The report has previously been discussed by Mark Cohen on China IPR and by Jacob Schindler on the IAM Blog.

3.  Liu Wei published The Boundary for Proper IP Warning Letter--An Analysis of the Supreme People's Court Decision in the Edan Case, China IP Magazine (Oct.-Nov. 2015), pp. 66-68, discussing the standards for determining the circumstances under which an IP owner might be liable under unfair competition law for sending warning letters to an alleged infringer's business partners or for communicating allegations of infringement to the public.  Wang Guiling (Lucy Wang) also published an article titled Proposals for Improving Remedies Available for Patent Infringement in China in the same issue (pp. 69-72).

4.  Xiutin Yuan and Paul Kossof published Developments in Chinese Anti-Monopoly Law:  Implications of Huawei v. InterDigital on Anti-Monopoly Litigation in Mainland China in 37 EIPR 438-41 (2015).  Here is the abstract:

Recent litigation between Huawei Technologies and InterDigital Group in the People’s Republic of China has been closely followed by the international legal community owing to its relation to cases in the US and implications for intellectual property holders and licensees. This article analyses this important case and the potential effects on anti-monopoly litigation in China.

5. Brian J. Love, Christian Helmers, and Marks Eberhardt have published Patent Litigation in China:  Prpotecting Rights or the Local Economy? in the April 2017 issue of Mitteilungen der deutschen Patentanwälten (pp. 163-69).  Here is the abstract:

Today, China is the world leader in both patent filings and litigation.   However, many in the West believe that the Chinese patent system facilitates protectionism, not innovation.  We took a look at five years of Chinese invention patent litigation to see what the data can tell us.

The authors previously published a paper by the same name in the Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law (see here).

Update (July 6):  Also of possible interest to some readers might Zhu Dan titled Review and Reconstruction of the jurisdiction System of the Criminal Trial of Intellectual Property in China, China IP Magazine, 11-12/2016, pp. 58-63 (translated by Liu Xiaoyu).  From the introduction:

Jurisdiction is the prerequisite and basis for the trial.  If the jurisdiction is imperfect, it will inevitably hinder the improvement of trial quality.  At present, many weak points in the criminal justice protection for intellectual property rights (IPR) in China are caused by imperfect trial jurisdiction system.  Therefore, in order to promote the perfection of the IPR criminal jurisdiction system in China, this article puts forward some ideas and suggestions on reforming and reconstructing the IPR criminal trial jurisdiction system by fully reviewing Chinese current IPR criminal trial jurisdiction system.