China's top court interprets rules on patent damages

01 February 2010

The Supreme People's Court issues its latest IP Interpretation

Peter Ollier, Hong Kong

The Supreme People's Court has issued an Interpretation on patent trials that will change how damages are calculated and give comfort to IP owners who want to send cease and desist letters.

The Court promulgated the Interpretation on December 28 last year and it came into effect on January 1 2010. Judicial interpretations are binding on lower courts. It is the last of a series of interpretations and opinions on IP issued by the Court in 2009 (see box).

"The Interpretation has embraced a lot of international concepts," said Zhao Yan, of counsel at Foley & Lardner in Shanghai.

Article 16 of the Interpretation considers the way that damages are calculated. According to a translation obtained by Managing IP, it states that when a product infringing a patent is a component of another product: "the People's Court shall reasonably determine the amount of compensation in accordance with...



Only subscribers have complete access to Managing IP Magazine, log in or subscribe now.

Alternatively take a free trial, giving you 48-hour access to Managing IP Magazine (some articles and surveys may be excluded).

Subscribe Now

This article is available to subscribers. Please click subscribe to read the rest of the article.

Subscribe

Take a free trial

Please take a free 48-hour trial to gain limited access. Some articles and surveys may be excluded.

Take a free trial


INTA Daily News 2012

Read this year's INTA Daily News - published daily by Managing IP direct from the 134th INTA Annual Meeting in Washington DC

null null null
null null

May 2012

Do you want to be famous?

Famous, well-known, notorious, reputed: everyone wants enhanced protection for their trade marks. But should they, and what does it mean if it is? Emma Barraclough explains



Most read articles

Poll

Will the new post grant and inter partes review proceedings result in more litigators practising pro hac vice before the USPTO?







Supplements