The AmeriKat ready to go for the final round of comments on the UPC prototype |
After five years of trade secret litigation, and millions in billings, has Lawyer Barbie made partner yet? |
China waving the flag for specialists IP courts |
"The announcement indicated that the Government will set up 3 Special IP Courts in Guangzhou, Beijing, and Shanghai, where a majority of Chinese IP cases are filed. This is ostensibly to handle the growing backlog of cases in these jurisdictions and to address the special technical requirements and intricacies of IP cases. While the announcement does not require Judges to have technical backgrounds, the IP court judiciary should be selected from judiciary who have excellent performance in IP or related judicial works, or professionals who have equivalent qualifications and conditions in IP legal practice, legal research and teaching law. Thus, these judges will be required to have some type of legal background, as compared to the regular court system where some judges, especially some senior judges appointed 20+ years ago, have no legal background. Furthermore, last week the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) has issued some “suggestions”: specifically the Beijing Court should be set up this month with the Shanghai and Guangzhou courts to be completed by the end of 2014. The new IP courts should be trial as well as appeal courts. The trials should cover:
(1) Civil and administrative cases in technical fields such as patents, plant species, layout-designs of integrated circuits, technological secrets, computer software, etc.;
(2) Administrative cases for legal action related to administration actions of copyrights, trademarks, anti/unfair competition, etc. against or by State Council Departments (i.e., “Federal-level” cases) or the people's governments at or above the county level (i.e. “Province/County-level” cases); and
(3) Civil cases related to the recognition of well-known trademarks. Accordingly, IP courts will handle both civil and administrative cases.
However, the Beijing IP court may focus more on administrative cases while the other two focus more on civil infringement cases. The courts will also have regional jurisdiction, likely meaning that Cases in North-Eastern China can be brought in Beijing, even if they are based in cities such as Tianjin, which is close-by. Similarly, Shanghai would cover the East Coast, while Guangzhou would cover the south (Shenzhen, Dongguan, etc.). And finally, the Beijing IP Court (BIPC) has itself actually started operations as of 6 November, 2014! We congratulate the Chinese Government on moving so quickly, and look forward to seeing how these courts actually work in practice. Hopefully this will cut into the backlog of IP cases and strengthen IP enforcement (and the image of IP enforcement) in China! "
A star-studded evening of Copyright in Sydney: Dr Isabella Alexander of the Faculty of Law at the University of Technology in Sydney brings news of an upcoming event on 20 November 2014 entitled "Copyright in 2014: The Year in Review & Evening Lecture" with the illustrious Professor Jane Ginsburg of Columbia University School of Law. But its not just Professor Ginsburg who will be bring to life the turbulent year of copyright law, she will be joined by Joel Smith (Herbert Smith Freehills) who seems to have transplanted from London to Sydney when the AmeriKat wasn't looking, Vanessa Hutley (General Manager Music Rights Australia) and Nic Suzor (Queensland University of Technology). For more details and to register for the event click here.
Monday Melange
Reviewed by Annsley Merelle Ward
on
Monday, November 17, 2014
Rating:
No comments:
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: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html