Asian Journal of Innovation and Policy

Asian Society for Innovation and Policy (아시아기술혁신학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Legal Systems and Practice of Intellectual Property Protection in Japan and China: A Comparative Analysis

  • Cai, Wanli (Institute of Liberal Arts and Science, Toyohashi University of Technology)
  • Received : 2017.08.14
  • Accepted : 2018.03.09
  • Published : 2018.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This article focuses on the legal systems and practice of intellectual property protection in Japan and China, including the relating civil litigation and administrative litigation procedures. The challenge of balancing the relationship between an invalidation trial and an invalid defense during the process of civil patent infringement litigation is a common issue to be solved in both Japan and China. In addition, it is quite usual that the IP products are being imported and exported across the borders due to the expansion of international trade. Accordingly, one of the most symbolic and difficult issues is how to balance the development of international trade and IP protection in each country. In other words, there is a practical issue regarding whether a parallel import of patented products is acceptable to a country or not. The key to determining this issue depends on the judgment of international exhaustion.

Keywords

References

  1. Chinese Patent Law, Article 62(1), 69-1.
  2. Chris, X.L. (2003) A quit revolution: an overview of China's judicial reform, Asian- Pacific Law and Policy Journal, 4(2), 255-319.
  3. Daniel, C. (2011) Exhaustion of trademarks and parallel imports in China, Santa Clara Law Review, 51(4), 1283-1309.
  4. Gregory, L.G. (2001) Basic of International Intellectual Property Law, Transnational Publisher Inc., 1-2.
  5. Groups 3 of 2014 Patent Committee (2016) Trends in international harmonization of patent system, Patent, 1(69), 57-72.
  6. Japanese Code of Civil Procedure, Article 6(3), 92-2.
  7. Japanese Copyright Law, Article 113-5(2), 26-2.
  8. Japanese Law for Establishing the IP High Court, Article 2(1), 2(3).
  9. Japanese Patent Law, Article 104-3(1), 178.
  10. Makoto, I. (2017) The Guide to Study Law, Nippon Hyouronsya, 146-156.
  11. Nakamura, K. and Maseki, S. (2016) Resolution of international intellectual property disputes, Patent, 4(69), 112-128.
  12. SIPO Statistics Database (2017) Http://www.sipo.gov.cn/tjxx/
  13. Sumida, M. (2017) Intellectual Property Law, Yuhikaku, 489-494.
  14. Takabayashi, R. (2014) Patent Law, Yuhikaku, 100-108.
  15. The Intellectual Property High Court (2017) Home > about us > history, Http://www.ip.courts.go.jp/eng/aboutus/history/index.html.
  16. The Second Subcommittee (2016) The third international affairs committee, considerations when patent rights are worked in China, Intellectual Property Management, 66(11), 1423-1437.
  17. Wanli, C. (2015) Study of the Samsung v. Apple appeal case, Intellectual Property Management, 65(1), 14-27.
  18. WIPO Statistics Database (2017) Http://www.wipo.int/ipstats/en/
  19. Yugong, Q. and Wanli, C. (2016) Trends of the protection of intellectual property in China, Intellectual Property Law Annual Report 2016-2017, 199-214.
  20. Yugong, Q. and Wanli, C. (2017) Trends of the protection of intellectual property in China, Intellectual Property Law Annual Report 2017-2018, 217-232.
  21. Zhichao, Z., Lu, W. and Ryusuke, T. (2016) Strategic use of Chinese patent administrative protection system, Patent, 12(69), 82-89.