IP Dragon’s friend Peter Ollier of Managing Intellectual Property reports about the ‘Instructions for National Indigenous Innovation Product Application Procedures’, promulgated by the Ministry of Science and Technology and the National Center for Science and Technology in September 2009. See Mr Ollier’s MIP article here.
In the Third Amendment to China’s Patent Law of 2008, China got rid of the requirement that if you want a patent outside China of an invention that was done in China, you first needed to file the patent in China. However, what was the replacement? Article 20 Patent Law 2008 demands a “mandatory advance confidentiality examination” as the IPR2 writers of the excellent booklet ‘Third Revision of China’s Patent Law’ call it, before a patent can be filed abroad; to prevent so called national security issues, has its own disadvantages, about which I will elaborate upon later.
Level Playing Field
China devised the following accreditation principles:
“1. Products should be of great significance. The accredited products must contribute much to or can produce vital influence on the economic and social development;
2. Products should be proprietary. The accredited products must have Chinese intellectual property and proprietary brands, and the ownership and the right of use are clearly defined, without producing disputes;
3. Products should be symbolic. The accredited products must be symbolic products mirroring China’s indigenous innovation capabilities and levels.“
So: Economically significant products (vague terms), that are protected by Chinese intellectual property rights. However, the last sentence that the products should mirror China’s indigineous innovation capabilities and levels, shows that China will make use of Chinese alternatives if they are available. Read the ‘Instructions’ translated by US Information Technology Office (a US Government institute that is for example is involved in ‘Ruled for Formulating Standards Involving Patents), here.
Photo/Text: Danny Friedmann
