China Patent Forum: an unrepeatably good offer

Great Chinese inventions I: indistinguishable
from the real thing, these patented robo-pandas
are made to measure for foreign zoos where
bamboo shoots are scarce.  They run on AA
batteries ...
The IPKat is constantly aware of the need to keep updated in the ever-changing world of intellectual property, which is why this blog exists in the first place. He is also equally aware of the impossibly large scale of this task. Back in 2003 the IPKat team was just two-strong; now its permanent squad is up to six, supported by a team of four guest bloggers -- but the task of keeping one's paws on the pulse of IP remains just as impossible as it was before. Accordingly we do our best and deliver such news and views as we can, but we're painfully aware of how much we're missing.

One of the biggest gaps in the IPKat's coverage is China. Although this vast and (to many non-Chinese) incomprehensibly complex and often highly subtle jurisdiction has featured in as many as 259 posts over the past nine years, 259 out of some 6,500 posts isn't that many. There are some blogs and law firm websites that target China and its satellites and neighbours closely -- IP Dragon is an excellent example, as is the China Law Blog and Paul Jones -- and the Kat takes great comfort in the fact that, since these sources are available, he doesn't have such a high-fibre diet of Chinese legal news and analysis.

Anyway, given an interest in Chinese IP, which he believes many of his readers share, this Kat is particularly pleased to inform them that his friends at Management Forum are making them a special offer.

A China Patent Forum is being held on Thursday 31 May at the Rembrandt Hotel, London.  It's chaired by Luke Minford (Rouse), who must know a thing or two about how to wield a chopstick after spending 14 years out there.  Luke's team for the day consists of Toby Mak (Tee & Howe, Beijing), Benjamin Bail (Allen & Overy, Shanghai), Doug Clark (the Hong Kong-based barrister who penned Patent Litigation in China), Thomas Pattloch (from the China-facing bit of Taylor Wessing's Munich IP practice), Nongfan Zhu (King & Wood, Beijing) and Tim Smith (a China-based dispute resolution specialist in Rouse's Beijing office).

Great Chinese inventions II: this detachable
hand hovers between you and your foodbowl,
scoops up your favourite delicacies and
delivers them to your mouth, not your
lap. Runs on AAA batteries ...
The programme itself is designed to pander [Merpel says "panda?"] to the tastes of the discerning patent-problems-in-China person. On the negative side, you can discover why you can't get a patent in the first place and how you can't enforce it.  On the positive side, you get to know how broad is the scope of protection which Chinese patent law offers and how diligently the courts. the country's administration and its legal practitioners toil to ensure that your investment is protected ...

And there's even better news: the organisers have promised the IPKat that his readers can sign up for this event at a very generous discount: you can attend for just £250 plus VAT -- and there's 5.5 hours' worth of accreditation if you are a points-collector.

You can check out the programme online here. To register, email Josephine Leak here and tell her the IPKat sent you.  She'll sort out your registration discount!

China Patent Forum: an unrepeatably good offer China Patent Forum: an unrepeatably good offer Reviewed by Jeremy on Thursday, May 03, 2012 Rating: 5

1 comment:

  1. In the United States, a patent application must be filed with the Patent & Trademark Office ( no later than one year after a description of the invention is published or publicly disclosed or the invention is first put on sale or made available for commercial use. In general, disclosure under a signed confidentiality agreement is not deemed to be "public disclosure."


All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here:

Powered by Blogger.