China IP,[Comprehensive Reports]

Tencent Requested for Invalidation of QR Code Patent
On November 9 , 2016, the Patent Reexamination Board of the State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) openly heard a request for invalidation of QR code and logo synthesis technology. The request involved an invention patent (ZL200610078994.4), named "A Synthetic System and Method of QR Code and Marking", the application of which was filed by YinHeLianDong Information Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. ("YinHeLianDong") on April 29, 2006, and authorized on September 15, 2010. The patent provides a system and a method for synthesizing QR code and logo, which can synthesize the QR code and the logo into a new QR code. By adjusting the size and position of the logo, the error rate of the new QR code is smaller than that of the correction rate, which does not affect the purpose of QR code interpretation. On July 14, 2016, Tencent believed that the patent does not comply with the Patent Law of the PRC and detailed rules of its implementation, so Tencent requested SIPO Patent Reexamination Board to invalidate all the involved patent claims.
WeChat Payment Trademark Triggers Multiple Cases
In November, Beijing Joiest Payment Services Limited ("Joiest") sued a number of companies that used "WeChat Payment" service suspected of trademark infringement. Currently, these cases are formally accepted by local courts. Joiest vs. KFC case is formally accepted by Yangpu District People's Court. On November 3, 2016, Nanjing Railway Transportation Court formally accepted Joiest vs. Suguo Supermarket case of trademark infringement. On November 9, 2016, Beijing Haidian District People's Court formally accepted Joiest vs. Qunar case of trademark infringement dispute, and was scheduled for hearing on December 6, 2016. On November 10, 2016, Guangzhou Haizhu District People's Court formally accepted Joiest vs. Guangzhou PARKnSHOP case of trademark infringement dispute. On November 17, 2016, Hangzhou Gongshu District People's Court formally accepted Joiest vs. Hangzhou Watson's case of trademark infringement dispute.
PPTV Acquires Rights for Premier League
Digital broadcaster PPTV, a unit of Chinese retail giant Suning Holdings Co, said it will further strengthen its leading position in sports events broadcasting, after it secured the copyright for live broadcasting the matches of the English Premier League. in June, Suning Commerce Group signed a deal worth 270 million euros ($306 million) to take a controlling stake in Italian cub Inter Milan.
Currently, PPTV is in the process of signing an exclusive three-year contract with the English Premier League to broadcast live its 2019 to 2022 seasons in the Chinese mainland and Macao. The deal is worth a reported value of over $600 million.
Huawei Targeted in Smartphone Patent Infringement Suit
Telecommunications company Huawei has been named in a patent infringement suit. Implicit, a US software company, filed its lawsuit (pdf) against Huawei at the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Eastern Division, on December 5. According to the suit, Huawei infringed the patents through its products including the Mate 9, Enjoy 6, Honor Holly 3 and Nova smartphones.
The software company argued that Huawei directly infringed its patents and used the patents without authorisation or licence. Implicit is asking for damages, pre-and post-judgment interest, costs, ongoing royalties for infringement, a permanent injunction against Huawei and a trial by jury.
Slam Dunk: Michael Jordan Victorious in China TM Dispute
Basketball legend Michael Jordan has emerged victorious in a trademark dispute heard by the Supreme People’s Court of China. In a judgment released on December 8, the court held that Chinese sportswear company Qiaodan Sports must stop using the characters for Jordan's name. Jordan had registered a trademark for the word ‘Jordan’ in 1993 in China, but Qiaodan Sports registered the terms ‘Qiaodan’, ‘Qiao Dan’ and the Chinese character translation of ‘Jordan’ in 1998.
Qiaodan Sports also registered the number ‘23’, Jordan’s former playing number, as a trademark in the same year. Jordan filed the lawsuit in February 2012 at the Shanghai No. 2 People’s Intermediate Court, alleging the use of his name and the number ‘23’ without his permission was an infringement.
Alibaba Acquired Japanese Video Copyright
Alibaba has signed a licensing agreement with a Japanese television agency, so that from the end of November 2016, a Japanese television station, Tokyo Broadcasting System, Inc. (TBS) will provide some of Alibaba's short film copyright, Alibaba will broadcast the films through its subsidiary Tudou, Youku and other sites. It is understood that the TBS has the resources of more than 50 award-winning film short films, including animated films, action films etc. Previously, Alibaba has entered the living room entertainment market, begun large-scale sale of network set-top boxes, occupying the consumer TV entertainment market space.
From this perspective, Alibaba also needs to get more and better video copyrights and attract more paid users in the future.
Hitachi Maxell Aims at Huawei in Patent Suit
Japan-based consumer electronics company Hitachi Maxell has brought a lawsuit against Huawei, a telecommunications manufacturer. The suit, filed at the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Texarkana Division, on November 18, claimed that a number of Huawei’s mobile phones infringed Hitachi’s patents. Huawei is alleged to have infringed six of Hitachi’s patents: US patent numbers 5,396,443; 7,509,139 etc.
Fusion 2, a mobile phone created by Huawei, has infringed the 443 patent which covers “information processing apparatus including arrangements for activation to and deactivation from a power-saving state”, according to the claim.During these meetings, Hitachi provided Huawei’s representatives with “detailed information” regarding Hitachi’s patents.

Member Message

Only our members can leave a message,so please register or login.

International IP Firms
Inquiry and Assessment

Article Search


People watch

Online Survey

In your opinion, which is the most important factor that influences IP pledge loan evaluation?

Control over several core technologies for one product by different right owners
Stability of ownership of the pledge
Ownership and effectiveness of the pledge