Recently, the list of winners of the 23rd China Patent Award jointly recognized by the CNIPA and the WIPO was released. Altogether, 958 patents won the gold, silver and excellent award of the China Patent Award, and the gold, silver and excellent award for China Design Award. 28 organizations won the best and excellent organization award of the China Patent Award, and 18 academicians won the best recommendation award of the China Patent Award.

It is reported that in the current China Patent Award selection, 30 invention and utility model patents including "Butylbenzene phthalein cyclodextrin or cyclodextrin derivative clathrate, its preparation method and application" won the China patent gold award, and 10 design patents including "gamma knife" won the China design gold award. 60 invention and utility model patents including "Traditional Chinese medicine composition for treating infantile cough and preparation method thereof" won the Chinese patent silver award, and 15 design patents such as "Neutron Activation Multi-Element Analyzer" won the Chinese design silver award. 791 invention and utility model patents including "Dry powder composition for improvement of effective position medical deposit" won the Chinese patent excellence award, and 52 design patents such as "LED courtyard lamp (Chinese style)" won the Chinese design excellence award. In addition, the CNIPA has decided to award the best organization award of the China Patent Award to 8 units including the Intellectual Property Office of Jiangsu Province, the excellent organization award of the China Patent Award to 20 organizations including the Bureau of Science & Technology for Development Chinese Academy of Sciences, and the best recommendation award of the China Patent Award to 18 academicians including SHU Xingtian.

Attachment: Decision of the CNIPA on awarding the 23rd China Patent Award

(Source: China Intellectual Property News)

According to the official website of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), on July 19, the 1st WIPO Global Award ceremony was held during the general assembly of WIPO member states. 5 enterprises emerged from 272 participating enterprises in 62 countries and won the trophy. In alphabetical order, the winning enterprises are Hydraloop (Netherlands), Lucence (Singapore), Raycan (China), Shylon Optoelectronics (China) and Splink (Japan). In terms of the number of award-winning enterprises, China took two seats and became the country with the largest number of award-winning enterprises in the 1st WIPO Global Award.

(Source: Official Wechat of the CNIPA)

Recently, the CNIPA released the 2021 China Patent Investigation Report. The survey data shows that at this stage, China's patent transfer and transformation remain active, the industrialization rate of effective invention patents continues to increase, the industry-university-research cooperation and innovation have achieved remarkable results, and the domestic intellectual property protection environment progresses while maintaining stability.

First, the industrialization rate of China's effective invention patents has steadily increased. In 2021, the industrialization rate of China's invention patents was 35.4%, an increase of 0.7 percentage points over the previous year, showing an upward trend in the past three years and stable at more than 30% in the past five years. As the main body of innovation, the industrialization rate of effective invention patents of enterprises reached 46.8%, an increase of 1.9 percentage points over the previous year. From the perspective of enterprise scale, the industrialization rate of invention patents of large, medium and small enterprises reached 47.1%, 54.6% and 47.7% respectively, all of which increased over the previous year.

Second, industry-university-research cooperation effectively promoted the level of patent industrialization. According to the survey, the industrialization rate of universities as the first patentee in the industry-university-research invention patents reached 22.8%, more than seven times the average level of universities. The industrialization rate of industry-university-research invention patents with scientific research institutions as the first patentee was 25.8%, about 10 percentage points higher than the average level of scientific research institutions. The data also shows that the average industrialization income of the invention patents of industry-university-research cooperation exceeds the average level of enterprises by 32.5%, and the industry-university-research cooperation has an obvious effect on improving economic benefits.

Third, China's intellectual property protection environment is improving overall. In 2021, 76.4% of Chinese enterprises took measures to protect their rights after encountering patent infringement, an increase of 2.5 percentage points over the previous year. Enterprise patentees were more proactive in responding to patent infringement. In China's patent infringement lawsuits, 16.3% of the cases were determined by the court for compensation, litigation mediation or court settlement with an amount of more than 1 million yuan, 9.0 percentage points higher than the previous year.

(Source: Official Wechat of the CNIPA)

Case summary:

Double Rider Medicine Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Double Rider company) is the right holder of the registered trademark "雙飛人". The trademark is approved for use on goods in Class 3 including toilet water, cosmetics, etc. Meanwhile, Double Rider company is also the right holder of the two three-dimensional trademarks "雙飛人" approved for use in peppermint aqua products. Haribo Ricqles Zan has the registered trademark "Lijia" designated for use on goods in Class 3. Guangzhou Laites Business Consulting Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Laites company) is the sole agent to advertise, promote, distribute and sell Lijia peppermint cure and other "Lijia" brand cosmetics in China. Double Rider company filed a lawsuit with the court on the ground that the production and sales of Lijia peppermint cure by Laites company infringed on the exclusive right of its registered trademark and at the same time Laites company carried out unfair competition. The court of first instance held that Lijia peppermint cure and "peppermint aqua" approved for use by the "雙飛人" trademark belong to the same commodity. Through comparison, the packaging of the sued infringing product is similar to the three-dimensional trademark of Double Rider company and may cause confusion and misunderstanding among the relevant public. Laites company infringed the exclusive right of the three-dimensional trademark of Double Rider company. At the same time, in order to achieve commercial purposes, Laites company emphasized in the product publicity that its products are "雙飛人" products (RICQLES peppermint cure), which constitutes an infringement of the word trademark "雙飛人". In addition, the packaging and decoration of Lijia peppermint cure is similar to the packaging and decoration of well-known products of Double Rider company, and the act of Laites company constitutes unfair competition. Laites company refused to accept and filed an appeal. The second instance court rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment. Laites company applied to the Supreme People's Court for retrial. The Supreme People's court held in the retrial that the evidence submitted by Laites company can prove that Haribo Ricqles Zan published the advertisement of "RICQLES peppermint cure" in newspapers in some areas of Chinese Mainland since the 1990s, which lasted for a long time and has a large distribution area and circulation volume, which can prove that the "blue, white and red" packaging used by Haribo Ricqles Zan for the priorly used "RICQLES peppermint cure" has a certain impact. Double Rider company knew that "RICQLES peppermint cure" existed in the market, but maliciously applied for registration of a three-dimensional trademark similar to the packaging of "RICQLES peppermint cure" and exercised its rights. It is hard to say that its act is justified, and the defense for prior use of Laites company is established. Double Rider company's claim that Laites company constitutes infringement of the exclusive right of registered trademark and unfair competition cannot be established. The Supreme People's Court therefore made a judgment to cancel the judgments of the first and second instance, and rejected the claims of Double Rider company.

Typical significance:

The case involves the examination of the defense of prior use right of the trademark. The prior use right defense system aims to protect the interests of bona fide prior users to continue to use their influential business marks within the original scope, and is an important embodiment of the principle of good faith in the field of trademark law. The retrial judgment effectively protects the use rights and interests brought by the honest operation, and is a beneficial exploration for the people's court to strengthen the construction of the honest system of intellectual property litigation.

(Source of case: Supreme People's Court of the People's Republic of China)

Case brief:

Jiaxing Zhonghua Chemical Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Jiaxing Zhonghua Chemical company) and Shanghai Xinchen New Technology Co., Ltd. have the technical secrets of using glyoxylic acid method to prepare vanillin. Based on this process, Jiaxing Zhonghua Chemical company has become the largest vanillin manufacturer in the world, accounting for about 60% of the global market. Wanglong Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Wanglong Group) and its legal representative illegally obtained the technical secret through the deputy director of vanillin workshop of Jiaxing Zhonghua Chemical company, and used the technical secret process to produce vanillin products on a large scale, resulting in the decline of vanillin product price and the reduction of market share of Jiaxing Zhonghua Chemical company. Jiaxing Zhonghua Chemical company filed a lawsuit to the court. The court of first instance determined that Wanglong Group constituted infringement of partial technical secrets, and ordered it to stop the infringement and compensate the economic loss of 3.5 million yuan. At the same time, the court made a ruling on action preservation and ordered to immediately stop the infringement of the technical secrets involved. After the judgment of the first instance, Wanglong Group continued to carry out the infringement. Both parties filed an appeal. As deemed in the second instance of the Supreme People's Court, Wanglong Group was established by its legal representative for infringement, and its legal representative actively participated in the implementation of the infringement. Therefore, Wanglong Group and its legal representative constituted joint infringement of all technical secrets and should bear the joint and several liability. According to the economic loss data provided by the right holder, and taking into account the factors such as the high commercial value of the technical secrets involved, the bad infringement circumstances, and the defendant's refusal to execute the people's court's action preservation ruling, the judgment was changed to the joint and several compensation of 159 million yuan for Wanglong Group and its legal representative.

Typical significance:

This case is the case of infringing trade secrets with the highest amount of compensation determined by the effective judgment of the people's court in history. The judgment of this case raises the cost of infringement and effectively protects the core technology of important industries, which is of reference significance for the determination of damages in the case of infringement of technical secrets.

(Source of case: Supreme People's Court of the People's Republic of China)

Case brief:

Schneider Electric (China) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Schneider China company) is authorized to enjoy the right to use five Chinese and foreign trademarks of "Schneider" and "施耐德" such as No. G715396 on goods in Class 9 including "electric switches, circuit breakers and electric relays", and has the right to file civil lawsuits. In January 2013, Schneider China company filed a lawsuit with the people's court of Xiacheng District, Hangzhou, claiming that "Hangzhou Schneider Electric Co., Ltd.", the predecessor of Hangzhou Dongheng Electric Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Dongheng company), infringed the trademark No. G715396. After the mediation and confirmation of the court, Dongheng company shall stop infringing the trademark No. G715396, change the enterprise name, and compensate Schneider China company for its economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling 100,000 yuan.

After the mediation of the previous case, although Dongheng company revised its website and changed its name, it continued to use the "Schneider" trademark in a large number of places such as the homepage, article title, product price list and product links. At the same time, in the "China supplier network" operated by Beijing Qizhihaotian Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Qizhihaotian company), where the products of Dongheng company were displayed, there were 201 product links with the "Schneider" trademark. In the product introduction, the Chinese and foreign trademarks "Schneider/施耐德" were also widely used. The above behavior continued until 2019. Schneider China company filed a lawsuit again to require Dongheng company to compensate for the loss of 3 million yuan, and Qizhihaotian company to bear joint and several liability within the range of 10,000 yuan.

The court of first instance held that Dongheng company's act involved in the case belongs to the use of the same or similar trademark logo as Schneider China company on the same or similar goods, which is easy to confuse the relevant public about the source of the goods and infringes upon Schneider China company's rights to the trademark involved, and should bear the legal liability for compensation. As an information release platform, Qizhihaotian company had fulfilled the obligation of reasonable care and deleted the infringing links in a timely manner, so it does not need to bear the tort liability. As for the specific amount to be compensated by Dongheng company, it is decided that Dongheng company compensated Schneider China for the economic loss of 3 million yuan based on the comprehensive consideration of the popularity of the trademark involved, the repeated infringement of the sued act, the obvious subjective malice and the long duration. The first instance judgment of the case has come into effect.

Comments:

This case is a typical case in which punitive factors are fully considered to determine the amount of legal compensation at a high level. Although this case can meet the legal requirements for the application of punitive damages, it is difficult to determine the base of punitive damages, and the court fully considered the punitive factors to determine the amount of legal compensation from a high level, and fully supported the plaintiff's claim of compensation of 3 million yuan. The judgment of this case fully reflects the implementation of the requirements of increasing punishment for serious infringement act and strict protection of intellectual property rights, which is conducive to the improvement of the market-oriented, legal and international business environment.

(Source of case: Beijing Higher People's Court)

On July 26, 2022, the CNIPA announced the decision on the 23rd China Patent Award, aiming at giving commendation to patentees, inventors (designers) who have made significant contributions in implementing innovation and promoting economic and social development and relevant organizers. In the selection of this year's China Patent Award, the cases represented by Unitalen achieved another success in that a total of 33 invention patents won this year's China Patent Award, including 1 Chinese patent gold award, 1 Chinese patent silver award and 31 Chinese patent excellent awards. So far, Unitalen has won the China Patent Award for nearly 200 patents represented thereby, leading the list of national agencies for many consecutive years.

Attached news link: http://www.rujun.top/html/report/22074398-1.htm

Recently, the "List of China's Excellent Intellectual Property Agencies in 2020-2021" was officially announced. With its long-term outstanding performance in the field of intellectual property and outstanding ability to handle difficult cases, Beijing Unitalen Law Office stood out from more than 400 intellectual property agencies and was honored as a "Top 10 of China's Excellent Intellectual Property Agency Trademark Administration List".

In addition, Beijing Unitalen Law Office was honored as a "Top 50 Excellent Agencies in China's Intellectual Property Service in 2020-2021". With its stable comprehensive strength, excellent professional services and excellent achievements, Unitalen has been widely recognized by the industry and has been listed in the "Top 50 Excellent Agencies in China's Intellectual Property Service in 2020-2021"!

Recently, various lists of "IP STARS 2022" selected by the internationally well-known intellectual property media Managing Intellectual Property (MIP) have been released one after another, and Unitalen has been honored in the recommended list of 5 fields including "patent litigation", "patent application", "trademark litigation", "trademark application" and "copyright business" in IP STARS.

At the same time, the selection results of MIP global intellectual property individual awards have also been announced. Attorneys LI Deshan, SUN Changlong, HOU Yujing and WU Shuchen won MIP 2022 IP Stars for their outstanding performance and high influence in their respective fields, and attorney HOU Yujing was also selected into the list of "2022 Outstanding IP Women"!

Recently, the internationally authoritative intellectual property media Intellectual Asset Management (IAM) announced the selection results of "IAM Global Top 1000 Patents" in 2022, and Unitalen was selected into the annual recommended firms in the fields of "patent prosecution" and "patent litigation" for eight consecutive years. Meanwhile, three patent attorneys of Unitalen were selected into the list of outstanding individuals with excellent achievements. Attorney LI Deshan was rated as an outstanding person in the fields of "patent litigation" and "patent prosecution", and patent agent LI Yang and attorney PAN Wei were rated as outstanding persons in the field of "patent prosecution".