It happened to Japan in the 1950s. Then it happened to Taiwan, and then Korea. Rapidly-developing countries started out relying on copying foreign technologies to drive their economies. But as growth increased and investments in education led the way to domestic innovation, each country found that a framework of strong intellectual property (IP) laws was necessary to sustain economic expansion. For many years, the relationship between China and the United States (as well as other Western countries) around IP has felt like pulling uphill on a very heavy wagon, as we tried to convince, cajole and threaten, often demanding reforms as part of trade negotiations. The relationship with China was further weighed down by the perception that the government was itself involved in misappropriation and that in general it was a proponent of weak IP protection. This past January, in the midst of a tariff war, China signed the “Phase One Agreement” that promised certain improvements in its trade secret regime in return for the United States dialing back some of the trade pressure.
Litigation
- CAFC Gives Google Second Shot at PTAB in Challenge of Communications Patents
- LG’s Recent Infringement Fight Against TCL Could Take Some Tips from DivX’s Approach
- In re Killian: Harvey the Rabbit Comes to the Federal Circuit
- California Court Holds Pinterest’s Display of User-Uploaded Works Near Ads are Protected by DMCA Safe Harbor
- Hirono and Tillis Give Vidal One Month to Answer Questions on Abuse of PTAB Process
Recent Posts
- USTR Needs to Step Up Trade Enforcement
- IP Practice Vlogs: Claiming Foreign Priority – An Overview of Patent Cooperation Treaty, Paris Convention and Patent Prosecution Highway Practice
- Other Barks & Bites for Friday, May 20: CAFC Remands No Case or Controversy Determination to Eastern Texas, Ninth Circuit Rules 2018 Farm Act Legalized Delta-8 THC Trademarks, and EU Commission Directs Member States to Codify Copyright Rules
- CAFC Gives Google Second Shot at PTAB in Challenge of Communications Patents
- Policy Shift Against SEP Rights Poses Risks for U.S. Innovation and Undermines Mandate of the ITC