Foreign companies often have concerns regarding whether the
litigation process in an overseas venue will be efficiently handled
by the relevant courts. In China, given the large increase in
IP-related lawsuits in recent years, this is a reasonable concern.
In 2009, P.R.C. courts had concluded 6,262 cases with a yearly
increase of 31.89%. 1With such an upsurge in litigation,
the P.R.C. courts have faced a very significant challenge.
The recent upsurge in IP cases highlighted the need to create a
more efficient process to handle IP-related cases. Through various
reforms and improvements, the P.R.C courts have become more adept
in handling their ever-growing caseloads. As disclosed by Hon.
Justice Su Zelin, Vice President of the Supreme People's Court
of P.R.China 'the fulfillment of the following specific
contents of judicial reform have improved the judicial efficiency
significantly: enlarging the application scope of the summary
procedure to civil cases; widening the scope of mediation to cases
to dissolve problems timely and to enhance the trial efficiency;
optimizing the allot of judicial resources to improve the effective
of judicial expenditure security and to make full use of the
money". 2 In this regard, the improved efficiency
of the P.R.C courts has led to reducing the average time to process
a foreign-related lawsuit from 233days to 172 days (2006-2010).
The protection of intellectual property rights is no doubt a key
factor in the growth of the Chinese economy. In this regard,
foreign companies must feel confident that IP-related lawsuits in
the P.R.C. will be handled fairly and efficiently. The recent
improvements in the efficiency of the P.R.C. with regards to
adjudicating IP lawsuits point to an environment of improved
intellectual property rights protection, which benefits both
domestic and foreign companies alike.
This article enunciates the recent, much awaited, and landmark judgment delivered on September 16, 2016 by Hon'ble Delhi High Court throwing light on the important provisions of the Copyright Act, 1962.
Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion recently issued an office memorandum pursuant to receiving representations from various stakeholders for guidance with respect to the applicability of the provisions of Section 31D of the Copyright Act, 1957.
An Invention Disclosure Form is the documentation of the invention. This is a means to document particulars of your invention and submitting it to the patent attorney who is filing your patent application.
The Patents Act 1970, along with the Patents Rules 1972, came into force on 20th April 1972, replacing the Indian Patents and Designs Act 1911. The Patents Act was largely based on the recommendations of the Ayyangar Committee Report headed by Justice N. Rajagopala Ayyangar. One of the recommendations was the allowance of only process patents with regard to inventions relating to drugs, medicines, food and chemicals.
Some comments from our readers… “The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable” “I often find critical information not available elsewhere” “As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).