Chinese private enterprises win multinational patent war again

Source: Internet
Author: User
Keywords Private enterprises patent
"It Times" reporter/Zhu Yu (comprehensive report) technology products in the U.S. market to enter the United States are not the normal competition of U.S. peers, accused of violating intellectual property rights in the United States courts, but it won not only in the race against American companies, but also for the first time the U.S. International Trade Commission, the US government department,  The Chinese private sector sued U.S. government agencies, a seemingly improbable event that ended in a triumph for Chinese companies. September 15, China's Wenzhou private enterprise technology in Beijing held a press conference said its own through judicial proceedings, sue the United States International Trade Commission (ITC), successfully overcome the ITC error ruling caused by trade barriers.  The win over technology is seen as the first case in which Chinese companies sued U.S. government agencies for unfair treatment of Chinese companies in the US market. In recent years, with the export of our products from low-end to high-end transfer, encountered by foreign competitors to use intellectual property litigation to implement the containment. 2004, the Tong Collar technology production of leakage protection circuit breaker began to sell to the United States, but also inevitably encountered the strong resistance of the U.S. counterparts. Since April 2004, the American electric Giant Leiden Corporation has launched a patent attack against it. After three years of litigation, the U.S. court issued a verdict to determine that the technology sold to the United States products do not violate the United States patent Leiden. After losing the lawsuit, Passisim, an industry ally, has sued four Chinese companies, such as technology, for patent infringement on the United States ' ITC, which wants to use lengthy lawsuits to bring down Chinese companies financially.  Eventually, the technology was forced to make a decision: to sue the ITC for unfair punishment.  First the technology is an export-oriented enterprise protected by intellectual property protection with High-tech patented technology, its predecessor is Zhejiang East Electric Co., Ltd., founded in 2001, the main market of products are the United States, Canada and other North American countries. In the U.S. market, the four companies led by Leiden have been in the monopoly position since the 80 's, and have applied for more than 70 patents, forming an insurmountable patent barrier for foreign companies.  The move comes after a more than 20-year period of 38 non-US companies in countries and regions such as Japan, South Korea and China's Taiwan have been driven out of the U.S. market by an IPR lawsuit. Because of the cost-performance advantage, the products of Qualcomm Technology broke through the blockade and monopoly of American enterprises, favored by American consumers and quickly grabbed the mainstream market.  This caused a panic in Leiden, the latter successively in 2004, 2005 in violation of its 558, 766 patents, the relevant dealers of the tong-collar technology has launched five patent infringement lawsuits.  Oddly, the lawsuit has not focused on the head-on confrontation with the technology, but has sued four key distributors in the U.S. market in local courts such as New Mexico, Florida State and California, respectively. Expert analysis and recognition in China, the move is aimed at forcing them to abandon cooperation with the technology of the United States by deterring the U.S. dealers, and has launched five lawsuits to increase litigation costs. In accordance with the United States, the five litigation in the hearing period will be between 1 million and 2 million dollars. There is also a high cost of legal and technical expertise within the technology of the five courts. At the end of the hearing procedure, the defendant's solicitor fee will be increased by about 10 times times.  This cost is likely to become the unbearable weight of the technology. However, if the technology abandons this enduring lawsuit, the cost will be a permanent loss of U.S. market share and a reputation for infringing intellectual property.  October 6, 2004, the tong-collar technology officially intervened in the New Mexico State District Court as the defendant in the lawsuit filed by the Leiden Company's patent litigation case.  The lawsuit has just begun, the reputation of the Qualcomm technology in the United States has been seriously affected, customers have postponed orders, stop buying and even return, economic losses, but through the collar even if the loss of money, but also to uphold the litigious attitude of positive response, quickly reversed the adverse situation. In order to reduce litigation costs, focus on litigation, and promote the case process, the technology requested the transfer of all cases to the Federal District Court of New Mexico State in the United States, and in the course of the proceedings did not allow the Leiden company under any pretext to prosecute the dealers, this won the court's consent. In the 3-year contest, on July 10, 2007, the New Mexico State court issued a verdict, "the determination of the company to manufacture sold to the United States GFCI (grounding, fault, leakage, protection of English abbreviation) products, do not violate the Leiden company 558 and 766 U.S. patents."  "Again the waves thought the lawsuit is over, the technology can be relieved, but things are not so simple." The lawsuit ended only after 36 days, the United States Leiden Industry Alliance Passisim Company on the basis of patent infringement, the technology and other four Chinese enterprises to sue the United States International Trade Commission, to request the Chinese products from the patent infringement "337" investigation, Patent infringement lawsuits were filed at the federal North District Court in New York. March 30, 2009, the United States International Trade Commission ruled that the Passisim company's 340 and 398 patents, and issued a limited injunction to the U.S. Customs, prohibit the use of technology and other Chinese manufacturers of the products involved in the import through the United States Customs.  Such a decision directly led to a four-fifths drop in sales of technology products. At this time, Chen Wushe, chairman of the Technology Board, understands that this is not a simple case of intellectual property lawsuits between companies and companies, but a marathon of American companies and government agencies trying to keep Chinese companies out of the US market in an attempt to monopolize the US market.  Zhang Ping, a professor at Peking University Law School, also points out that litigation is only a superficial phenomenon, and competing for market interests is essential. Now, Chen Wushe the words of the technical vice president of Leiden: "Chen XianLife, in the United States you are not a lawsuit, Leiden have plenty of money, we must use litigation to defeat the collar. It is reported that the "337" investigation of the costs of responding to the high, 5 million ~600 million is a potluck.  Many Chinese companies have been unable to withstand the huge costs of responding to lawsuits, disappearing into the U.S. Customs import directory. Tong-collar technology did not shrink, teeth stick to go on, and hired a super luxurious lawyer team. September 17, 2009, Qualcomm Technology to the United States Federal Circuit Court sued the United States ITC, after 345 days of confrontation, in the lawsuit paid tens of millions of dollars, Chen Wushe finally ushered in a victory. August 27, 2010, the U.S. Federal Circuit Court dismissed the United States ITC "337" investigation of China's leading technology infringement of the wrong ruling, to determine the products involved in the technology of the product does not infringe Passisim 340, 398 and any patent involved  The decree requires ITC to modify and lift the limited customs restraining order on the products under this judgment. Collective eruption as of May 2009, the United States launched a "337" survey of our country has reached 91, of which 76 were concentrated in 2002. China has been the most surveyed country for 6 consecutive years. Cheng, chief expert of Beijing's WTO Affairs center, said, "in the past, because most of our export products were concentrated in lower value-added areas, we encountered ' 337 ' survey ' Opportunities ' not much, in the future as our products gradually from the quantity of exports to quality exports, product core competitiveness and technological content to increase, the risk of investigation will be greatly increased. "At the same time, the US economy, which is so exhausted, has forced American companies to make a big fuss over irregular competition," he said. In July this year, the US manufacturing index reappeared, and the US has even lowered its growth forecasts: in the second quarter of this year, the US growth rate was only 2.4% per cent, significantly below the 3.5% per cent growth forecast, while unemployment still struggled at 10%. "The days of American companies are tough, and they are becoming clearer with their ' 337 ' investigation."  "Hao Tian Xin and law firm partner Jiangpeng said. There is a point of view that, based on the macroeconomic background of the United States, the legal dispute between the technology and Leiden has become a battle for the commanding heights of the industry, for enterprises, but also strategic heights of contention. "Some American enterprises will be ' 337 ' as a restriction of competition, monopoly market, curb our industrial upgrading and export of products, they rely on the advantages of intellectual property rights, the use of the Global Patent Library strategy to block many of our industrial chain in the bottom of the value chain."  "said Xia, deputy commissioner of Commerce's Fair Trade Bureau. Therefore, domestic enterprises must always keep a clear mind.  Some experts pointed out that, despite the existence of various patent barriers, but as long as Chinese enterprises in science and technology content, advanced products can be higher than competitors, there will be the ultimate occupation of the market guarantee. It is understood that the reason for the success of the technology in the lawsuit is that there are excellent technology, as well as the protection of intellectual property disputes for the rainy--20In the second half of 03, when the access technology is about to enter the U.S. market, the product will be sent to the U.S. law firm to do patent infringement analysis and identification, and has achieved a patent for the Leiden company six non-infringement lawyers evaluation instruments, so that the opponent inorganic can be multiplied.
Related Article

Beyond APAC's No.1 Cloud

19.6% IaaS Market Share in Asia Pacific - Gartner IT Service report, 2018

Learn more >

Apsara Conference 2019

The Rise of Data Intelligence, September 25th - 27th, Hangzhou, China

Learn more >

Alibaba Cloud Free Trial

Learn and experience the power of Alibaba Cloud with a free trial worth $300-1200 USD

Learn more >

Contact Us

The content source of this page is from Internet, which doesn't represent Alibaba Cloud's opinion; products and services mentioned on that page don't have any relationship with Alibaba Cloud. If the content of the page makes you feel confusing, please write us an email, we will handle the problem within 5 days after receiving your email.

If you find any instances of plagiarism from the community, please send an email to: and provide relevant evidence. A staff member will contact you within 5 working days.