Search results for

Wu Dongliang, Echo Lin and Simon Tsi of Chang Tsi & Partners evaluate the decision of the UK High Court to issue a global FRAND licence in Unwired Planet v Huawei, provide an insight into the way in which Chinese courts determine royalties for SEPs, and advise Chinese businesses on how to manage SEP litigation

Mengmeng Yu and Xia Zheng of AFD China evaluate the approach of the TMO, TRAB, CNIPA and courts to malicious trademark registrations

Victor Guo of Panawell evaluates the best way in which foreign companies can protect their IP against Chinese plaintiffs, looking at protection before launch of a product, procedural options and defences

Nell Greenhouse of Kangxin evaluates different ways to enforce IP rights in China, including administrative actions, mediation, cease and desist letters and customs recordal

Guanbin Xie and Bin Zhang of Lifang assess the effectiveness of copyright law in the protection of big data before moving on to detail the advantages of using competition law to protect this data

Shirley Fu and Yakai Shi of Sanyou analyse the different types of IP protection afforded by customs authorities in China, evaluating the advantages of seeking active protection from customs

Recently, the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court (SIPC) rendered a so-called partial or interlocutory judgment during a patent infringement lawsuit filed by the French automotive parts manufacturer Valeo against three Chinese defendants including Xiamen Lucas Automotive Parts, Xiamen Fuke Automotive Parts and an individual, Mr Chen. In this case, Valeo alleged that the wipers for cars being manufactured and sold by the defendants infringed its Chinese invention patent named "Connectors for wiper of motor vehicles and corresponding connecting devices" and, on that basis, the company requested RMB 6 million ($894,000) in damages. After careful investigation with support of technical experts, the SIPC found that the defendants' products fell into the scope of claims 1-3 and 6-10 of Valeo's patent in question and that they should immediately stop the infringement first, while the damages can be determined later.

Crocs is embroiled in several disputes with local footwear manufacturers in India (the defendants) to protect its clog design. Separate actions were brought by Crocs based on registered design and passing off to protect its footwear design. The lawsuits based on registered designs were dismissed as the court found no novelty in Crocs' design based on its prior publication. The actions against six footwear manufacturers brought by Crocs are based on common law rights in the distinctive shape and design of the footwear. All the cases were heard together as they involved a common question of law. Further, the court wanted to examine the maintainability of the passing off action before hearing arguments on the grant of a preliminary injunction in favour of Crocs.

As this is my first issue of Managing IP as editor, I want to start by saying hello to all our readers. It's great to be here at what is an exciting time in the IP world, and I hope that this magazine – as with all of the Managing IP content – is interesting and useful to you.

Since the first marketing authorisation for a monoclonal antibody (Mab) in the 1980s, the patent system has never stopped adding the fuel of interest to the fire of Mabs ingenuity.