ADVERTISEMENTS

In the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) Asia of March 18, 2010, Andrew Browne and Jason Dean wrote an interesting article called 'Foreign businesses sour on China'.

IP Dragon was happy to see that patent law in China was on the front page and page 17 of the WSJ Asia. The authors of the article assert that China is getting more nationalistic in its business policies, therefore discriminatory toward foreign businesses. Messrs. Browne and Dean's concerns might be justified. However, when they use China's legislation on compulsory licensing and the remuneration for inventors, they do not give good examples of a China that is favouring its domestic entities.

Messrs. Browne and Dean wrote: "Patent rules imposed Feb. 1 threaten to increase costs in China for foreign innovators in industries such as pharmaceuticals, and let authorities force foreign drug companies to license production to local companies at state-set prices."

The first half of the sentence is not about compulsory licensing, because if that scenario manifests itself, the costs of production will not increase, but the profits will decrease. The authors probably mean with the first half of the sentence the 'statutory compensation rules', with which they deal later, see below.

The second part of the sentence is about compulsory licensing. Articles 48-57 Patent Law 2008 promulgate this right of emergency of the state. When a patentee has not exploited his patent within three years or when the act of the patentee is harming competition, the State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) can grant a compulsory license to exploit the patent. In case of a national emergency or any extraordinary state of affairs, SIPO can grant a compulsory license. The articles 73-75 Implementing Regulations 2010 give further rules for the grant of a compulsory license. China signed the Agreement on Trade-related Aspect of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) and Public Health (Doha Declaration) in 2001 and the Decision on the Interpretation of Paragraph 6 of the Doha Declaration in 2003 to establish legislative and administrative frameworks to allowing compulsory licensing for export purposes, in order to help other countries that lack the capabily to manufacture medicines.

"The new patent rules providing for what is called compulsory licensing are not unique to China. But China's pharmaceuticals industry is dominated by state-owned firms, and Western lawyers worry the rules will favor them."

Indeed, compulsory licensing is not unique to China. In fact, China never granted any compulsory licensing. But, I understand messrs. Browne and Dean's concern that it might be easier for SIPO to target a foreign patentee than a patentee that is a state-owned company. But since we have no data on this, it cannot be proven.

Then directly after that the authors write: "One provision requires companies to pay Chinese employees at least 2 % of profit derived from their inventions in China unless the employees explicitly waive that right.

I have some troubles with this sentence:

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.