U.S. Tariffs and China’s IP System

The U.S. tariffs being implemented against various goods imported from China has raised a lot of questions around IP protection strategies.
            Historically, enforcing IP rights in China has been difficult, primarily due to a lack of recourse and structure for enforcing rights against infringers. However, in recent years there has been an initiative in China to revamp their IP system, and the result has made filings in China stronger for foreign filers.  
            So in view of recent tariffs, what makes sense for intellectual property strategies? The answer, is “it depends”.
            For companies in industries that are particularly competitive in China right now, such as artificial intelligence, it would be wise to build a portfolio of filings in China regardless of manufacturing location. This approach may prove helpful downstream to block direct competitors from using the same technology. Moreover, if your industry is particularly competitive in China, there may be a greater chance for your suppliers to come from China (especially for specialized parts). Thus, Chinese filings may also prove helpful for protecting your IP against potential suppliers, even if the final products are assembled outside of China.
            For companies which have R&D or manufacturing in China, building a portfolio of filings in China is critical. Even if a company does not intend to sell their goods in China and is solely using facilities in China for R&D or manufacturing, Chinese filings are critical to help preserve recourse against potential infringers. By filing in China, you are in a position to take advantage of China’s patent system and have improved chances of stopping potential infringers.
            However, in a situation where a company may be moving manufacturing from China to the U.S. in view of the new tariffs, there may be further considerations. For example, if a company manufactures their products in the U.S. and does not intend to sell their products in China, it could make sense to focus filings only within countries where the goods will be sold, with the knowledge that there will be no recourse for knock-offs made and sold in China. These U.S. based companies may have the ability to stop infringing goods from being imported into countries where they have protection without having to pay for filing Chinese patents.
          There are many factors that come into play when implementing an IP protection strategy, and companies may be pivoting their IP approach in view of the recent policy changes.

Popular posts from this blog

Surprising Uses for Oobleck

Image
Oobleck is a common name for a non-Newtonian fluid comprising cornstarch and water. Named after a substance humorously described in Dr. Seuss’s classic children’s story, Bartholomew and the Ooblek, the cornstarch and water concoction is frequently used in children’s science classes as a fun way to learn about fluid mechanics. You may have fond memories, yourself, of playing with oobleck as a youth. Oobleck behaves as a fluid when touched gently, but becomes hard as a solid when hit with great velocity. For example, a person could run across a swimming pool of oobleck without getting their feet wet. However, if a person stood still on the oobleck, then they would slowly sink. Because oobleck is a children’s plaything and because of its simple recipe (cornstarch and water), one may be surprised to learn that inventors have attempted to patent serious industrial uses for the material. As an example, one current patent application, US 2015/0016885 (now abandoned), is for a system of fi...
Read more

Dispensing with the Formalities: Ex Parte Quayle Actions

Image
Checking my email after work one day, I was greeted with some unfortunate news: the application I was prosecuting had received yet another Office action.   Frustrated, I couldn’t resist skimming the substance of the rejection.   After all, like any patent practitioner, I thought my arguments were pretty irrefutable.   The news only got worse… or so it appeared.   The Office action was something called an “ Ex Parte Quayle action.”   Having never received one of these actions, I started mentally preparing myself to pull out the MPEP and research some arcane rejection. To my surprise, I didn’t find myself knee-deep in case law the following day.   Ex Parte Quayle actions, while somewhat inconvenient, are far from insurmountable.   In short, an Ex Parte Quayle action or “Quayle action” is issued when an application has objections remaining as to formal matters, but is otherwise allowable.   Accordingly, the mailing of these actions close...
Read more

Adaptive Headlight IP

Image
The recent Infrastructure bill signed into law by President Biden affects many things, but one aspect that affects the automotive world is adaptive headlights.  As noted by Jalopnik puts it somewhat crudely, this means “our headlights will suck way less” (link to https://jalopnik.com/finally-our-headlights-will-suck-way-less-1848067412 ). But with this sudden change, adaptive headlights in the US may be in for a particular messy IP situation since many companies may have considered it was not necessary to protect their adaptive headlight innovations in the US because of the 50-year old rule preventing such technology. Recent patents in the field from applicants such as Lumileds and Arex indicate that smaller players and startups may be able to break into the market which is expected to explode in the next few years once the final rules are implemented.  For those in the industry that have typically avoided US patent filings in the adaptive headlamp area, they may want to r...
Read more