The China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) has released the Guidelines for Handling Government Service Matters of Intellectual Property (Second Edition)

To implement the work deployment of the Guiding Opinions of the State Council on Accelerating the Standardization, Normalization, and Convenience of Government Services (GF [2022] No. 5) and the Guiding Opinions of the State Council on Further Optimizing Government Services, Enhancing Administrative Efficiency, and Promoting the "Efficient Handling of One Matter" (GF [2024] No. 3), facilitate the public to obtain information on intellectual property business handling, and promote the non-discriminatory acceptance and standardized handling of government services, the China National Intellectual Property Administration has revised and compiled the Guidelines for Handling Government Service Matters of Intellectual Property (Second Edition) in accordance with the newly revised Detailed Rules for the Implementation of the Patent Law and the Patent Examination Guidelines.

The guidelines cover five major parts of patents, trademarks, geographical indications, integrated circuit layout designs, and intellectual property rights, encompassing all aspects of related government services. The previous edition of the Guidelines for Handling Government Service Matters of Intellectual Property published on March 3, 2023, was simultaneously repealed.

ZLWD Commentary：

Based on the needs of intellectual property government services and covering various aspects such as patents and trademarks, these guidelines are of great significance for optimizing related government service processes and improving service quality.

The National Intellectual Property Administration issued the "Implementation Measures for the Registration of National Intellectual Property Information Public Service Outlets (Revision)."

On May 31, 2024, the Office of the National Intellectual Property Administration issued the "Implementation Measures for the Registration of National Intellectual Property Information Public Service Outlets (Revision)." 

The implementation measures clarify the definition, role, and conditions and procedures for applying for the registration of national intellectual property information public service outlets. The measures also put forward specific requirements for the construction, support, and management of outlets, requiring outlets to strengthen daily management and service capacity building, ensure resource and financial support, strengthen personnel training, fully utilize modern technological means and new media, enhance service quality and efficiency, and explore personalized, differentiated, and digitalized services. It is encouraged to strengthen communication, collaboration, and resource sharing between different outlets, as well as between outlets and other intellectual property public service institutions, to carry out collaborative services, business exchanges, research projects, etc. across fields and regions.

ZLWD Commentary：

The National Intellectual Property Administration is promoting high-quality development of the intellectual property service industry by increasing training efforts and enhancing the patent and trademark agency supervision capabilities across the country.

The National Intellectual Property Administration, the Central Propaganda Department, the Supreme People's Court, the Supreme People's Procuratorate, and other departments have issued the "Implementation Plan for the Construction of the Intellectual Property Protection System Engineering."

To accelerate the construction of a strong country in intellectual property, the National Intellectual Property Administration, the Central Propaganda Department, the Supreme People's Court, the Supreme People's Procuratorate, and other departments have issued the "Implementation Plan for the Construction of the Intellectual Property Protection System Engineering." Guided by Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, the plan clarifies that by 2027, substantial progress will be made in modernizing the intellectual property protection system and protection capabilities. 

The intellectual property laws and regulations will become more comprehensive and systematic, the policies and standards for strict protection will be further improved, administrative enforcement and judicial protection will be stricter, authorization and confirmation will be more high-quality and efficient, rapid collaborative protection will be smoother, the foundation for national security governance in the field of intellectual property will be further consolidated, the joint forces for social governance will be further enhanced, and the protection capabilities will be significantly improved. A more perfect intellectual property protection network covering national, provincial, city, and county levels will be established, further consolidating the foundation for intellectual property protection, and a comprehensive protection framework will be fully formed. 

By 2035, the modernization of the intellectual property protection system and protection capabilities will be basically achieved, forming a modern intellectual property protection governance system with the government fulfilling its duties, law enforcement departments conducting strict supervision, judicial organs administering justice fairly, business entities managing in a standardized manner, industry organizations practicing self-regulation and autonomy, and the public observing integrity and lawfulness.

ZLWD Commentary：

The release of the Implementation Plan for the Construction of Intellectual Property Protection System signifies a solid step forward for China in strengthening intellectual property protection, promoting innovation development, and building a modern governance system. This plan provides clear guidance for building a more comprehensive, systematic, and highly coordinated intellectual property protection system, aiming to achieve strict, coordinated, precise, efficient, and intelligent protection of intellectual property rights through strengthened examination and authorization, administrative law enforcement, judicial protection, and other aspects, providing strong support for accelerating the construction of a strong intellectual property country and promoting high-quality economic development.

The State Council promulgated the Regulations on Fair Competition  Reviews

The Regulations on Fair Competition Reviews (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations) consists of five chapters and 27 articles, consisting of five parts: general provisions, review standards, review mechanism, supervision and guarantee, and supplementary provisions. The Regulations will come into force on August 1, 2024.

In the general provisions, the Regulations specify the scope of fair competition review, that is, the behavior of administrative organs and other units in drafting laws, administrative regulations, local regulations, rules, normative documents and specific policies and measures related to the economic activities of business operators. At the same time, according to the Regulations, the main body with the right to carry out the fair competition review work is the administrative organs and the organizations authorized by laws and regulations to have the function of managing public affairs.

In the review criteria, the Regulations list four types of behaviors that affect fair competition and their specific forms, including: 1. The policies and measures drafted by the drafting body restrictingmarket access and exit in a direct or disguised form; 2. The contents restricting the free flow of commodities and factors; 3. The contents affecting the production and operation costs without the approval of the State Council nor the basis of law or regulations; 4. The contents that affect the production and operation behaviors.

In this part, the Regulations also stipulate three exceptions for fair competition review, including the  protection of national security and development interests; the promotion of scientific and technological progressand the enhancement of national independent innovation capacity; and the realization of social and public interests such as energy conservation, environmental protection and disaster relief and assistance. However, these exceptions  only apply if there is no alternative with less impact on fair competition and a reasonable implementation period or termination conditions can be determined.

In terms of the  reviewing mechanism, the Regulations stipulate that the policies and measures to be issued by the people's government at or above the county level or submitted to the people's congress and its standing committee at the corresponding level for deliberation, shall be examined by the fair competition administration department of the people's government at the corresponding level together with the drafting unit at the drafting stage. Policies and measuresthat have not been examined for fair competition, or that do not conform to the provisions of the Regulations, shall not be issued.

In terms of supervision and guarantee, the Regulations stipulate that the market supervision and administration department shall establish  advanced mechanism of fair competition examination and spot check, organize spot checks on relevant policies and measures.  For those violate the provisions of the Regulations,  the market supervision and administration department shall urge the drafting units to make rectification. At the same time, any unit and individual may report the policies and measures that violate the Regulations to the market supervision and administration department. Upon receiving the report, the market supervision and administration department shall deal with it in time or transfer it to the relevant department for handling.

ZLWD Commentary：

CNIPA released the second edition of the work guide (hereinafter referred to as the  New Guide).  On the basis of the first edition of the work guide, newly revised contents are added  based on  the newly revised Implementation Details of the Patent Lawand the Patent Review Guide. The New Guide also further optimizes the intellectual property government service process, improves service efficiency, and ensures the transparency and convenience of intellectual property protection work. Specifically, the new guide in the patent part added "patent term compensation" and "drug patent period compensation", mainly for new drug  patents that have obtained marketing authorizations in China, the patent holder can request the patent administrative department under the State Council for the patent term compensation for the time taken for the new drug market review approvalwithin three months upon the obtaining of the new drug marketing authorizations.

CNIPA revised and issued the Guidelines for Handling Intellectual Property Government Services (Second Edition)

CNIPA released the second edition of the work guide (hereinafter referred to as the  New Guide).  On the basis of the first edition of the work guide, newly revised contents are added  based on  the newly revised Implementation Details of the Patent Lawand the Patent Review Guide. The New Guide also further optimizes the intellectual property government service process, improves service efficiency, and ensures the transparency and convenience of intellectual property protection work. Specifically, the new guide in the patent part added "patent term compensation" and "drug patent period compensation", mainly for new drug  patents that have obtained marketing authorizations in China, the patent holder can request the patent administrative department under the State Council for the patent term compensation for the time taken for the new drug market review approvalwithin three months upon the obtaining of the new drug marketing authorizations.The release of the New Guide highlights the Administration’s efforts in optimizing intellectual property government services and improving service efficiency. The new contents of "patent term compensation" and "drug patent term compensation", especially the provisions on the marketing  authorization of new drugs, reflect the  emphasis of the rights and interests of innovative drug research and development enterprises. This improvement not only enhances the strength of patent protection, but also improves the transparency and convenience of the  patent holders in receiving compensation.

ZLWD Commentary：

The Supreme People's Court Intellectual Property Court's refusal to support the software company's "phishing" rights defence demonstrated the importance it attaches to business integrity and legitimate rights defence. The company's use of free software to induce users to violate the terms of copyright labelling and then filing a large number of infringement lawsuits was found to be a dishonest business operation. The judgement of the Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme Court reasonably lowered the amount of compensation and guided the company to take proper ways to defend its rights. This ruling not only protects the legitimate rights and interests of users, but also sends a clear judicial signal, further safeguarding market order and judicial justice.

CNIPA revised the Implementation Measures for the Filing of National Intellectual Property Information Public Service Branches

Compared with the previous 2020 version, the revised version of the Implementation Measures for the Filing of National Intellectual Property Information Public Service Branches has detailed the previous version based on the 14th Five-Year Plan for National Intellectual Property Protection and Application and the 14th Five-Year Plan for Intellectual Property Public Service.

First of all, the revised version is more clear in the definition and qualification identification. For example, in Article 2, the definition of national intellectual property information public service outlets is expanded,   makes it clear that they are  important parts of the national and local intellectual property public service system. At the same time, the revised version of the article 5 provides more detailed provisions on the conditions that the service institutions should meet for filing, including the professional ability of the team members, working system, infrastructure, etc.

In the filing procedure, the revised version also has more detailed provisions. For example, in Article 9, it is clear that the validity period of the  filing is three years, and the reporting process for the change of important information is stipulated. In Article 12, the service content that the national intellectual property information public service outlets should be expanded, including intellectual property consulting services, information inquiry and retrieval services, publicity and training services, etc.

At the same time, the revised version also has systematic provisions on the service and guarantee provided by  the network. In Article 13, the content of  special services has been added, such as intellectual property information analysis services for key industries, intellectual property services for small, medium and micro enterprises, intellectual property database and tool platform development, etc. In Articles 14,15 and 16, more detailed provisions are made on the management and safeguard measures of outlets, including the formulation of business norms, ability improvement training, and the construction of communication platform, etc.

Finally, the revised version clarifies the handling measures and consequences of the violation of the filing provisions. In article 18 of the revised version, the handling measures of the service agencies that provide false materials or illegal activities are clarified, including the termination or cancellation of filing, and the restriction of not applying for filing within three years is stipulated.

ZLWD Commentary：

The revised version of the Implementation Measures for the Filing of National Intellectual Property Information Public Service outlets has significantly improved the standardization and professionalism of intellectual property public services through detailed definitions, qualification identification, filing procedures and service contents. The definition of  networks and qualifications have been clarified to ensure that service institutions have professional capabilities and  advanced facilities, and enhance the quality of services and government credibility. Detailed filing procedures and service content provisions will help to standardize the operation of  networks and improve service efficiency and transparency. In addition, the increase of  special service content reflects the  emphasis of key industriesand small, medium and micro enterprises, and provides strong support for the development of intellectual property information analysis and service platform development. Clear measures to deal with violations have strengthened the management and guarantee to ensure the seriousness and implementation ability of the system.

The State Administration of Market Regulation(National Anti-Monopoly  Bureau) issued the Annual Report on China's Anti-monopoly Law Enforcement (2023)

The report pointed out that in 2023, market regulators have achieved remarkable results in anti-monopoly law enforcement. A total of 16 cases of monopoly agreements, 11 cases of abuse of dominant market position, 797 cases of anti-monopoly cases with concentration of business operators, and 39 cases of abuse of administrative power to exclude and restrict competition.797 cases of concentration of business operators were concluded, of which 782 were approved unconditionally, and 4 were approved with additional restrictive conditions, involving multiple industries and fields. At the same time, the regulatory system is also gradually improving. In 2023, the revision of the Provisions of the State Council on Centralized Declaration Standards is completed; the five supporting regulations such as  Deter the Abuse of Administrative Powerto Eliminate and Limit Competition are updated simultaneously, and the Anti-monopoly and Anti-Unfair Competition Committee of the State Council also formulated the Anti-monopoly Guidelines on Industry Association to refine the identification standards for illegal acts and strengthen the anti-monopoly compliance construction of industry associations.

ZLWD Commentary：

China's Annual Report on Anti-monopoly Law Enforcement (2023) highlights the remarkable achievements achieved by the State Administration for Market Regulation in cracking down on monopoly behavior, and shows China's determination to strengthen market supervision and anti-monopoly law enforcement. The investigation and punishment of  multiple cases of monopoly agreements and abuse of dominant market position reflects the strengthening of law enforcement. The regulatory system is improved, a number of supporting regulations, as well as the anti-monopoly guidelines of industry associations are revised and issued,  which further refined the identification standards of illegal acts. These measures not only, improve the fair competition market environment, but also provide clear guidance for enterprises on  business complianceand help to build a healthy and orderly market ecology.

The Supreme People's Court issued the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues concerning the Application of the Law to the Trial of Monopoly Civil Disputes

The Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues concerning the Application of the Law to the Trial of Monopoly Civil Disputes (hereinafter referred to as the "Judicial Interpretation") consists of six parts and 51 articles. 

The first part covers procedural matters, including the definition of monopoly civil dispute cases, the mode of prosecution, case jurisdiction, combined trial, evidence identification, public interest litigation, suspension of litigation, etc. The second part stipulates the definition of the relevant market,including the principles and requirements of defining the relevant market, the burden of proof, analysis methods, consideration factors and other matters; The third part stipulates the cooperative behavior and agent, drug patent reverse payment agreement, algorithm agreement and cross-platform maximum benefit treatment in the horizontal monopoly agreement,  as well as the burden of proof and the identification of the anti-competitive effect and its exceptions of the vertical monopoly agreement,,the organizational assistance activities and exemption of monopoly agreements and so forth; The fourth part includes the definition of market dominance, the analysis and identification of various types of abuse of dominant market position and other matters; The fifth part stipulates the form of civil liability, determination of loss, effectiveness of  actions, extinctive prescription and other matters of monopoly civil dispute cases.

 It is worth noting that, in view of the horizontal monopoly agreement which has more difficulties in investigating and processing, the Judicial Interpretation specifically stipulates the four factors of "other cooperative behaviors" and the distribution rules of burden of proof. Specifically, the Judicial Interpretation puts forward two methods of judgment and proof rules: "1 + 2 + 4" or "1 + 3 + 4" among the four factors. 

The "1 + 2 + 4" proof rule means that as long as the plaintiff proves that the operator has a consistent market behavior  and that the intention contact, information exchange or transmission between the operators exist, and if the operators cannot make a reasonable explanation for the consistency of  their behavior, the people's court can determine that the horizontal monopoly agreement in the form of "other cooperative behavior" is established. 

The "1 + 3 + 4" certification rule means that as long as the plaintiff proves that the operator has the consistency of market behavior and the market structure, competition status and market changes of the relevant market, and the operator cannot make a reasonable explanation for the consistency of his behavior, the people's court can also determine the establishment of the horizontal monopoly agreement in the form of "other cooperative behavior".

The Judicial Interpretation has officially come into force on July 1,2024.

ZLWD Commentary：

Through the detailed legal framework and clear rules, the Judicial Interpretation has greatly enhanced the operability and transparency of monopoly civil dispute cases. In particular, the detailed consideration of factors and proof rules for the "other  cooperative behaviors" of horizontal monopoly agreements provide clear guidance for law enforcement and help to improve the efficiency and fairness of law enforcement. The introduction of this Judicial Interpretation not only fills the gap in legal practice, but also reflects China's firm position in strengthening market supervision and maintaining fair competition, which helps to create a more fair and just market environment.

Gansu Municipal Bureau of Supervision and Provincial Department of Justice jointly issued the Implementation Opinions on Deepening Collaborative Protection and Strengthening Legal Protection of Intellectual Property

"Implementation opinions" made clear 8 aspects of the work content. First,  to strengthen the legal system for intellectual property rights. Fully implement the newly revised Administrative Punishment Law and the Provisions on Administrative Punishment Hearing Procedures of Gansu Province, and improve the benchmark system of administrative discretion. Second,  to promote administrative adjudication on intellectual property rights infringement disputes. Jointly issued the Implementation Plan of Gansu Province to Strengthen the Administrative Adjudication of Patent Tort Disputes in the New Era, and established a working mechanism such as the separation of complicated and simple disputes and the rapid handling of patent infringement disputes. 

Third, to promote the resolution and social governance of intellectual property disputes andresolve intellectual property disputes properly. Fourth,  to share information and resources, strengthen professional capacity  establishing in intellectual property lawyers, arbitration, and notarization, explore ways to expand the field of public legal services, and encourage lawyers' associations, notary associations and other social organizations to provide public services such as intellectual property legal consultation, publicity, training, and mediation.

In addition, the guideline also calls for strengthening the technical support of appraisal institutions for intellectual property protection. Cultivating intellectual property appraisal institutions.Working together in the selection and recommendation of intellectual property appraisal institutions. At the same time, the role of notarial offices in intellectual property rights protection should be effectively played. The "one certificate completed within one time" policy will be fully implemented, and notarial matters with clear legal relations, clear facts and no disputes will be notarized at one time, so as to save the cost of intellectual property rights protection. In terms of deepening lawyers' legal services for intellectual property, the Implementation Opinions call for supporting the development of professional law firms in the field of intellectual property.

ZLWD Commentary：

The Implementation Opinions demonstrate the comprehensiveness and systematization of strengthening intellectual property protection. By strengthening the construction of legal system and improving the benchmark system of administrative discretion, it provides a solid legal foundation for intellectual property protection. The administrative adjudication of infringement disputes and the establishment of a rapid handling mechanism have improved the efficiency of law enforcement. 

The promotion of social co-governance and information resource sharing has further strengthened the social foundation and professional capacity of intellectual property protection. At the same time, it pays attention to the role of appraisal institutions, notarial institutions and lawyers' professional services, which effectively reduces the cost of rights protection and enhances the effectiveness of intellectual property rights protection. These measures have not only improved the level of intellectual property rights protection, but also provided strong support for the optimization of the innovation environment.

The Digital Economy Arbitration Center of the Beijing Arbitration Commission was officially established

Beijing Arbitration Commission and Beijing International Big Data Exchange, will be operated in the Management Service Center of the Data Pilot Zone (North Nantou Taihu Industrial Park). The Digital Economy Arbitration Center will provide support for the compliance realization of enterprise data value, the efficient matching of data supply and demand, and the professional handling of data disputes. 

In order to cooperate and support its operation, Beijing Arbitration Commission also set up a data arbitration working group, which is responsible for guiding the formulation of data arbitration rules, providing advice for the selection of data arbitrators, and guiding the construction and development of digital economy arbitration center. In addition, the construction of digital economy arbitration center is  a important measure to promote the construction of Beijing "two districts", help to use the advantages of Beijing in the field of digital economy and accumulation, attract cross-border data trading disputes to be resolved in Beijing, further promote the digital economy international rules raised by China globally through the ruling of professional institutions,  raise the international influenceof such rules.

ZLWD Commentary：

The establishment of the Digital Economy Arbitration Center of Beijing Arbitration Commission is an important measure of Beijing to promote the construction of "two districts", highlighting its frontier position in the field of digital economy. As a professional platform for handling data disputes, the center provides enterprises with compliance services to realizing data value and efficiently matching data supply and demand to solve complex disputes in data economy. By formulating rules and selecting arbitrators, the data arbitration team guarantees the professional operation of the center, which not only enhances the attractiveness of Beijing in the field of digital economy, but also promotes the influence of China's international digital economy rules to the world.

The Supreme People's Court has issued five recent typical cases of anti-monopoly in the people's court

The typical cases released this time aim to accurately understand the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues concerning the Application of the Law in the Trial of Monopoly Civil Dispute Cases, which hasthree characteristics including more comprehensive content (covering two major monopoly dispute causes including  monopoly agreement disputes and abuse of dominant market position dispute monopoly disputes), involving more extensive matters (involving the definition and function of general horizontal monopoly agreement and the shaft radiation monopoly agreemen, the intellectual property exercise of restricted competition effect,the anti-monopoly administrative penalty decision in subsequent civil compensation litigation proof and damage compensation issues) and involving cases which have a broader effect (related cases are widely concerned by the industry, the foreign cases also has certain international influence).

The release of the typical case also embodies the three judicial guidance, including strict regulation on monopoly agreements, to safeguard market competition vitality, to determine the exercise of intellectual property rights and abuse the boundaries of restricted competition in accordance with the law, encourage innovation and maintain the balance of fair competition, and improve the mechanism of administrative law enforcement and judicial cohesion, reveal synergy maintain order of fair competition.

The typical cases of this release are specific and are as follows:

"Automobile sales" following litigation of the vertical monopoly agreement: Miao and  Shangcar sales company, Shanghai Yi car sales and service company vertical monopoly agreement dispute: Supreme People's Court (2020) Supreme Court 1137 civil judgment

"Patent of lodecloratadine API" abuse of market position: Dispute between Yang Pharmaceutical Group, Guangzhou Hai Pharmaceutical Group Company, and Hefei Yi Medical Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. related to abuse of market position. Supreme People's Court (2020) Supreme Court No.1140 Civil Judgment

"Industrial lubricating oil"  hub and spoke conspiracy case: Horizontal monopoly agreement dispute between Hohhot City Hui Company and Shell (China) Company Supreme People's Court (2021) Supreme Court 1315 Civil Judgment

Case of abuse of dominant market position involving "rare earth permanent magnet material patent": Dispute over  abuse of dominant market position between a magnetic industry company in Ningbo and a Japanese metal company, Supreme People's Court (2021) No.1482

ZLWD Commentary：

"Traffic signal control machine" horizontal monopoly agreement case: Monopoly dispute between an information industry company of Anhuiand Anhui Zhong Technology Co., Ltd. Supreme People's Court (2024) Supreme Law Court No.455 civil Judgment

The five typical anti-monopoly cases issued by the Supreme People's Court are aimed at accurately understanding the Anti-monopoly Judicial Interpretation, which is comprehensive in content and has a extensive influence. The cases cover monopoly agreements and abuse of dominant market position disputes, involving horizontal monopoly, intellectual property exercise, administrative punishment and other issues, reflecting the judicial guidance of strict regulation of monopoly, balance of intellectual property and competition protection, and improving the connection between administration and justice.  These cases not only provide clear guidance for judicial practice, but also enhance the understanding and compliance of anti-monopoly laws and regulations, which help to maintain fair competition and market vitality.