tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4665971923360779136.post4637904183121368769..comments2024-03-25T10:31:40.979+00:00Comments on Tufty the Cat: The Rise of Chinese IP?Tufty the Cathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09803006996232662500noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4665971923360779136.post-21184277548062754412017-03-24T09:52:13.986+00:002017-03-24T09:52:13.986+00:00As to motives for drafting and filing patent appli...As to motives for drafting and filing patent applications, there are many, and I think you can see them shift steadily and progressively, as you track east from San Francisco to Tokyo, passing through Europe on the way. Filers in Asia are not motivated by the quantum of damages awarded when sellers of successful products are deemed to have infringed wilfully. Instead they are motivated by more defensive considerations, such as:<br /><br />...fulfilling the terms of their Employee Inventor Law (which obliges them to file)<br /><br />...using the A publications to "keep clear" their technological path ahead<br /><br />...boosting their share price, as gullible investors suppose that more filings equals more future profits<br /><br />...having "something to trade", Trump-like, when they get sued in an English law jurisdiction.<br /><br />When China gets to parity with the west, in high technology, shall we recognise that from China's patent filings? I'm not sure. I imagine they will keep their Crown Jewels to themselves.<br /><br />Meanwhile, all those WO publications are a potent source of prior art under the AIA because you can rely on them for obviousness attacks, not just from their date of publication as under the EPC, but rather, all the way back to their priority date in China. The Americans didn't just switch over to First to File. No, they had to go one better, so chose First to File but with world-wide "54(39" unpublished prior filings anywhere in the world available for obviousness attacks, regardless whether it has entered the USA national phase.<br /><br />No wonder there are a lot of WO publications by Applicants from China.<br /><br /><br /> MaxDreinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4665971923360779136.post-27329173295667925912017-03-20T17:57:19.518+00:002017-03-20T17:57:19.518+00:00One indicator would be to look at the proportion o...One indicator would be to look at the proportion of EP regional phase entries from CN compared to the US. For PCT applications filed in 2015, there were 25,487 from China and 55,062 from the US. According to the EPO, in 2016 there were 7,150 EP applications originating from China (although this includes direct EP filings as well as regional phase entries), compared to 40,726 from the US. This indicates a much higher conversion rate from the US compared to China, which fits with the hypothesis that filing PCT applications is being encouraged in China, but these are not being following through as much.Tufty the Cathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09803006996232662500noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4665971923360779136.post-89983680370132769662017-03-20T09:35:20.489+00:002017-03-20T09:35:20.489+00:00Any idea of the average pendancy time at the EPO/U...Any idea of the average pendancy time at the EPO/USPTO to grant/refusal? <br /><br />As you say, there is a time lag, but without some info on the average time an application is pending, it is difficult to work out whether the relatively poor showing in rate of grant for Chinese originating applications is purely down to time delay, or whether (for whatever reason) the conversion rate of PCT->granted EP/US is lower. <br />Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17647766873516555245noreply@blogger.com