Draft 'Provisions on Regulating and Promoting Cross-border Data Transfers' Issued by the Cyberspace Administration of China Ease Existing Transfer Requirements

On 28 September, the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) released draft Provisions on Regulating and Promoting Cross-border Data Transfers ('the Provisions') for public feedback by 15 October. The Proposals considerably ease the restrictions on cross-border data transfer contained in previous legislation such as the Measures on the Security Assessment for Cross-border Data Transfer and Measures on the Standard Contracts of Cross-border Personal Information Transfer. They address some of the common compliance challenges being faced by businesses, providing a number of exemptions from, and clarification of, the existing transfer mechanisms.

The following cross-border transfers will be exempted from the transfer mechanism requirements:

  • transfers of data, other than 'personal information' or 'important data', that relates to international trade, academic cooperation, cross-border manufacturing and production.
  • transfers that are necessary for the conclusion or performance of an international contract to which the individual is a party (e.g. online travel bookings); human resource management; or in emergency situations involving an individual's life, health and property safety.
  • small-scale cross-border transfer of personal information – where it is estimated that the data to be transferred relates to less than 10,000 individuals within a year.
  • transfers that fall outside the negative list to be issued by Free Trade Zones.

The Provisions include the following clarifications:

  • data will not constitute 'important data' unless is has been explicitly defined as such by the relevant authority.
  • where the personal data to be transferred is estimated to relate to between 10,000 and 1 million individuals, a security assessment will not be needed, but a standard contract should entered into and filed with provincial CACs, or a personal information protection certification obtained.

The specific exemptions provided in the Provisions will significantly reduce the compliance burden for cross-border businesses. Data processors will, however, still be required to fulfill their basic data security protection obligations. It is important to note that even though the Provisions shall prevail in case any of any inconsistency between the Provisions and existing rules, such as the Measures on the Security Assessment for Cross-border Data Transfer and Measures on the Standard Contracts of Cross-border Personal Information Transfer, further details on harmonization of these rules may be provided by the CAC in the final version.

Source: Cyberspace Administration of China

http://www.cac.gov.cn/2023-09/28/c_1697558914242877.htm

国家网信办拟制定《规范和促进数据跨境流动规定》完善数据出境规则

日期：2023年9月28日

9月28日，国家网信办发布了《规范和促进数据跨境流动规定（征求意见稿）》（《规定》）。相较于之前已正式颁布施行的《数据出境安全评估办法》、《个人信息出境标准合同办法》等数据出境规范，《规定》对数据跨境流动给出了更为明确的定义，并对数据出境安全评估、个人信息出境标准合同以及个人信息保护认证的具体适用情形进行了进一步的细化，充分考虑企业在数据跨境流动合规工作中的普遍问题，针对特定场景制定了更为开放和宽松的豁免规则。

首先，《规定》明确了只有被相关部门、地区告知或公开发布的重要数据和境内收集产生的个人信息才需要通过申报数据出境安全评估、订立个人信息出境标准合同、通过个人信息保护认证的前置程序，强调排除了国际贸易、学术合作、跨国生产制造和市场营销等活动中产生的其他数据类型。

其次，《规定》还从三个方面列举了豁免数据出境前置程序的情形。第一，豁免基于特定合法性事由的个人信息出境场景，如为订立、履行个人为一方主体的合同、人力资源管理、紧急情况下保护自然人的生命健康和财产安全所必需的出境。第二，豁免较小规模的个人信息出境场景，相较于《数据出境安全评估办法》与《个人信息出境标准合同办法》规定的出境数据量门槛（如累计处理或出境个人信息达到一定量级），《规定》进一步明确了预计一年内出境个人信息少于1万人的，可以豁免数据出境前置程序；预计一年内出境个人信息在1万人以上、不满100万人的，可豁免数据出境安全评估，但应当订立标准合同并向省级网信部门备案或通过个人信息保护认证。第三，《规定》设计了自贸区负面清单机制，豁免向境外提供未被列入负面清单的数据的出境前置程序。

《规定》的意见反馈期限已于10月15日截止。这一版内容明确了许多数据出境合规实践中的疑难问题，如阐明了只有被有关部门明确标识为"重要数据"才须履行相应义务，这在各地区、行业的重要数据目录仍在拟定中的当下，无疑是为企业自行识别重要数据的义务松绑。同时，《规定》包含的豁免情形也减轻了企业开展跨境业务过程中的合规负担，令数据出境规则更为合理、完善，但《规定》并未免除数据处理者履行数据安全保护的基本义务。同时应当注意到的是，《规定》虽然明确了自身优先于《数据出境安全评估办法》、《个人信息出境标准合同办法》等旧规的效力地位，但在细节上如何衔接，仍须网信办在正式版中进行澄清。

来源：国家互联网信息办公室

http://www.cac.gov.cn/2023-09/28/c_1697558914242877.htm

CNIPA Releases Patent Licensing Data in 2022 and the Past Five Years

The China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) has released patent licensing data relating to agreements filed with the CNIPA in 2022 and the five preceding years. It aims to provide a reference for patent evaluation and pricing in the context of intellectual property licensing and other transactions, and in the determination of infringement compensation.

In total, 7781 patent licensing contracts were filed with the CNIPA during 2022, involving 17,967 patents, of which invention, utility model and design patents accounted for 49.4%, 42.9%, and 7.7% respectively. Each contract involved an average of 2.3 patents. Most licenses were fixed fee; there were 4531 of these, representing 58.2% of the total and valued at CNY 14.55 billion (approx. US$ 1.99 billion) with an average amount of CNY 3.21 million (approx. US$ 0.43 million) per contract and an average license period of 3.6 years. There were 334 royalty payment licenses with an average license period of 6.3 years and 2,916 gratuitous contracts, accounting for 4.3% and 37.5% respectively.

There were a total of 19,328 patent license contracts filed with the CNIPA from 1 January 2018 to December 31 2022, involving 52,183 patents, with invention, utility model and design patents accounting for 51%, 39.1%, and 9.9%, respectively. Each contract involved an average of 2.7 patents. Most licenses were fixed fee; there were 11,959 of these, representing 61.9% of the total and valued at CNY 39.98 billion (approx. US$ 5.46 billion) with an average amount of CNY 33.43 million (approx. US$ 4.57 million) per contract and an average license period of 3.9 years. There were 1,344 royalty payment licenses with an average license period of 8.2 years and 6,025 gratuitous contracts, accounting for 7% and 31.2% respectively.

Source: China National Intellectual Property Administration

https://www.cnipa.gov.cn/art/2023/9/21/art_75_187694.html

国知局公布2022 年度及近五年备案的专利实施许可合同有关数据

日期：2023-09-21

为贯彻落实中共中央、国务院印发的《知识产权强国建设纲要（2021-2035年）》决策部署，促进专利转化运用，国知局发布2022年度及2018-2022年专利实施许可合同的使用费相关数据，可作为知识产权许可、交易中评估定价及侵权赔偿数额的数据参考。

2022年专利实施许可统计数据来源于该年度国知局备案的专利实施许可合同，共计合同7781份，专利17967件，其中发明、实用新型、外观设计专利分别占比为49.4%、42.9%、7.7%，平均每份专利实施许可合同涉及2. 3件专利。从许可费支付方式来看，按固定或可折算金额支付的许可合同共计4531份，占比58.2%，合同金额总计145.5亿元，单份合同平均金额为321.0万元，平均许可期限3.6年；按提成支付的许可合同共计334份，占比4.3%，合同平均许可年限6.3年；无偿支付的许可合同共计2916份，占比37.5%。

2018-2022年专利实施许可统计数据亦来源自国知局备案的专利实施许可合同，共计合同19328份，专利52183件，其中发明、实用新型、外观设计专利分别占比51.0%、39.1%、9.9%，平均每份专利实施许可合同涉及2. 7件专利。从许可费支出方式来看，按固定或可折算金额支付的许可合同共计11959份，占比61.9%，合同金额总计399.8亿元，单份合同平均金额为334.3万元，平均许可年限3.9年；按提成支付的许可合同共计1344份，占比7.0%，合同平均许可年限8.2年；无偿支付的许可合同共计6025份，占比31.2%。

资料来源：国知局

新闻链接：https://www.cnipa.gov.cn/art/2023/9/21/art_75_187694.html

Huawei and Xiaomi Enter into a Global Patent Cross-Licensing Agreement

On 13 September 2023, Huawei and Xiaomi announced that they had entered into a global patent cross-licensing agreement, covering the field of communication technologies such as 5G. In January 2023, Huawei filed an administrative patent infringement action with the CNIPA against Xiaomi. The case involved four patents owned by Huawei, relating to the 4G/LTE technology, mobile photography, and mobile unlocking technology. Subsequently, Xiaomi initiated invalidation proceedings with the CNIPA regarding the four patents. In September 2023, the CNIPA upheld the validity of two of the patents, while the remaining two were still under review. The cross-licensing agreement that has been entered into between Huawei and Xiaomi may signal the end of their dispute.

Source: Securities Times

https://www.stcn.com/article/detail/978489.html

华为与小米达成全球专利交叉许可协议

日期：2023-09-13

2023年9月13日，华为和小米宣布达成全球专利交叉许可协议，该协议覆盖了包括5G在内的通信技术。2023年1月，华为就小米侵犯其所有四项专利权向国知局提出了专利侵权纠纷行政裁决请求，主要涉及4G/LTE技术、手机照相和解锁技术等。随后，小米就上述四项专利向国家知识产权局陆续提出了无效宣告请求。2023年9月，国知局裁决上述专利中其中两项维持有效，剩余两项专利无效宣告请求仍在审查中。此次达成协议，或意味着双方纠纷告一段落。

资料来源：证券时报

新闻链接：https://www.stcn.com/article/detail/978489.html

The Supreme Court: Chinese Courts Have Jurisdiction over Case Regarding Global Standard Essential Patent Licensing Fees, OPPO v Interdigital

The Supreme People's Court (SPC) has ruled that Chinese courts have jurisdiction over lawsuits regarding global standard essential patent licensing fees.

The patent dispute between OPPO and Interdigital began at the end of 2021, when Interdigital filed patent infringement lawsuits against OPPO, OnePlus, and Realme in the UK, India, and Germany. The patents involved in the lawsuits included 3G, 4G, 5G, and HEVC standard related patents, and injunctions were sought in all the lawsuits. In response, in January 2022, OPPO filed a lawsuit with the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court, requesting the Court to confirm the global license rates and other license terms relating to the standard essential patents (SEPs) that Interdigital either owns or has the right to license, in accordance with the FRAND principles. Interdigital raised an objection to the jurisdiction during the defense period, but it was rejected by the Court. Interdigital then appealed to the SPC, which upheld the first instance ruling and confirmed that Chinese courts have jurisdiction over the global patent fee dispute between the two parties.

According to the ruling, the licensed subject matter involved multiple Chinese patents and OPPO's manufacturing activities relating to exploitation of the patents took place in China. Chinese courts have jurisdiction over this case, whether as courts in the jurisdiction where the patent was granted, or exploited, or where the license agreement was negotiated, in accordance with the law. Although Interdigital had previously filed patent infringement lawsuits in multiple countries, including the UK, the evidence in the case was insufficient to prove that both parties had reached a consensus on the global license rates determined by the UK court. Therefore, Interdigital's appeal was rejected.

Source: (2023) Zuigaofa Zhiminxiazhong No. 282

最高法：中国法院对 OPPO诉Interdigital 全球标准必要专利许可费案具有管辖权

日期：2023-09-12

最高人民法院作出裁定，确认中国法院对全球标准必要专利许可费率诉讼具有管辖权。OPPO和Interdigital之间的专利纠纷始于2021年底，其时Interdigital在英国、印度和德国对OPPO、一加和Realme发起专利侵权诉讼，涉诉专利包括3G、4G、5G和HEVC标准相关专利，所有诉讼中均要求禁令。作为回应，2022年1月，OPPO向广州知识产权法院提起诉讼，请求确认Interdigital持有或有权作出许可的标准必要专利针对OPPO符合FRAND原则的全球许可条件。Interdigital在答辩期提出管辖权异议，被广州知识产权法院驳回。此番面对Interdigital的上诉，最高人民法院维持了一审裁定，确认中国法院对双方全球专利费率之争具有管辖权。根据裁定，许可标的涉及多项中国专利，OPPO方实施专利的制造行为发生在中国，故中国法院无论是作为专利权授予地法院还是专利实施地法院，亦或是许可磋商地法院，均对本案依法具有管辖权。虽然Interdigital此前已向英国等多国法院提起专利侵权诉讼，但在案证据不足一证明双方已就英国法院裁定全球费率达成合意，据此驳回了Interdigital的上诉。

资料来源：知产宝

新闻链接：(2023) 最高法知民辖终 282号

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.