Inter Partes - Foley & Lardner LLP

©2010 Foley & Lardner LLP • Attorney Advertising • Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome • Models used are not clients but may be representative of clients • 321 N. Clark Street, Suite 2800, Chicago, IL 60654 • 312.832.4500 

Safeguarding Your Critical Innovation in the 

United States and Beyond 

中美知识产权保护实务高层论坛 

— 在全球保护创新资产 

©2010 Foley & Lardner LLP 

June 24, 2010 

Dongguan, China 

©2010 Foley & Lardner LLP • Attorney Advertising • Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome • Models used are not 

clients but may be representative of clients • 321 N. Clark Street, Suite 2800, Chicago, IL 60654 • 312.832.4500 

2 

1


Current U.S. Patent Cases * 

目前美国专利案件 

Sharon R. Barner 白莎朗女士 

Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce and Deputy Director of the United States 

Patent and Trademark Office 美国商务部副部长、专利商标局副局长 

Prof. Harold C. Wegner 华格纳教授 

Former Director of the Intellectual Property Law Program, George Washington 

University Law School; partner, Foley & Lardner LLP. 

前乔治华盛顿大学法学院知识产权部主任、富理达律师事务所合伙人 

Current U.S. Patent Cases 





International Patent Exhaustion 

国际专利权权利用尽 

Venue Issues 

管辖地问题 

Damages and Injunctive Relief 

损害赔偿和禁令救济 



3 

4 

2



A patent right is “exhausted” when the patentee sells his 

patented product to a purchaser. 

当专利权人将其专利产品出售后,专利权“用尽”。 

Then, the purchaser is free to resell (or otherwise 

transfer) the thus-purchased product. 

此时,购买者可以自由地再次出售(或转移)其购买的 

产品。 




Does the patentee’s sale have to be in the same country to 

create “exhaustion”? 

专利权人的出售行为需要发生在相同的国家才会产生权利用 

尽? 

Thus, if a patentee has parallel patents in the United States 

and another country, , is the United States patent right 

“exhausted exhausted” when the patentee sells in the other country? country 

如果专利权人在美国和其他国家拥有平行的专利,当专利权 

人在其他国家出售产品时,美国的专利权是否也用尽? 

If “yes”, this would be “international patent exhaustion”. 

如果是,这就是国际专利权权利用尽。 




5 

6 

3



“International patent exhaustion” was strongly opposed by 

the Executive Branch of the United States in negotiations 

leading up to the TRIPS, while developing countries were 

equally adamant that there is (or should be) international 

patent exhaustion. 

在TRIPS的谈判中,美国政府坚决的反对 “国际专利权利用 

尽”,同时发展中国家坚持要求要有(或应该有)国际专利 

权权利用尽。 




The TRIPS treaty failed to reach any agreement on whether 

there is or should be international exhaustion. Instead, the 

TRIPS expressly states: 

TRIPS没有能够在是否要有国际专利权利用尽的问题上达成 

协议。取而代之,TRIP这样表述: 

“[S]ubject to the provisions of [TRIPS] Articles 3 [providing for 

national treatment] and 4 [providing most-favored-nation 

treatment,] nothing in this Agreement shall be used to 

address the issue of the exhaustion of intellectual property 

rights.” rights 

TRIPS, Article 6. 

取决于TRIPS第三条【提供国民待遇】和第四条【提供最惠 

国待遇】,该协议中的任何内容都不能用来说明知识产权的 

权利用尽问题。 

TRIPS 第六条 




7 

8 

4



The Supreme Court in has never yet considered the case of 

international patent exhaustion. 

最高法院至今从未考虑过国际专利权权利用尽的案件 

Boesch v. Graff, 133 U.S. 697 (1890), is incorrectly cited as 

denying international patent exhaustion. 

Boesch v. Graff, 133 U.S. 697 (1890)一案,错误的被当成否 

定国际专利权用尽而被引用。 




Boesch v. Graff has nothing to do with the patentee’s first sale of a 

product in a foreign country: 

Boesch v. Graff案与专利权人在外国第一次出售产品毫无关系。 

The patentee owned parallel patents for his stove component in both 

the United States and Germany. 

专利权人对其炉组件在美国和德国都拥有相应的专利。 

The patentee’s competitor sold the same stove component in 

Germany without a license because the competitor was making the 

stove component independent of the patent right (due to a “prior 

user right”). 

专利权人的竞争者在没有获得许可的情况下在德国出售相同的炉组 

件,因为其制造炉组件不受专利权的限制(由于在先使用权)。 




9 

10 

5



In Boesch v. Graff the sale of the stove component purchased 

from the patentee’s competitor was found to be an 

infringement of the United States patent. 

Boesch v. Graff案中,从专利权人竞争者处购来的炉组件被 

认定为侵犯美国专利权。 

But, this was not “international patent exhaustion” because 

the patentee never sold the patented stove component that 

was imported into the United States and sold. 

但是,这并不是“国际专利权权利用尽”,因为专利权人从未 

销售过此种进口到美国并被出售的炉组件。 




Jazz Photo Corp. v. Int‘l Trade Comm’n, 264 F.3d 1094 

(Fed.Cir.2001)(Newman, J.), is the first and therefore precedential 

Federal Circuit case on “international patent exhaustion”. 

Jazz Photo Corp. v. Int‘l Trade Comm’n, 264 F.3d 1094 

(Fed.Cir.2001)(Newman, J.)案,是第一个关于“国际专利权利用尽” 

的案件,也是联邦巡回法院的判例。 

Without any reasoning, the Court simply that “[t]o invoke the 

protection of the first sale doctrine [of exhaustion], the authorized 

first sale must have occurred under the United States patent.” Jazz 

Photo, 264 F.3d at 1105. 

没有任何推理,法院简单地说:“若要援引首次销售权利用尽保护 

原则,经授权的首次销售必须发生在美国专利产品上”。 Jazz 

Photo, 264 F.3d at 1105. 




11 

12 

6



The only support given by the Federal Circuit is a citation to 

Boesch v. Graff, 133 U.S. at 701-703, with a parenthetical 

statement of what it viewed as the holding: 

联邦巡回法院提出的唯一支持论据就是引用Boesch v. Graff, 

133 U.S. 案件,并给出了一个视为判决的附带说明: 

“[A] lawful foreign purchase does not obviate the need for 

license from the United States patentee before importation into 

and sale in the United States.” 

“合法的国外购买并不排除在将产品进口到美国并销售之前, 

需要获得许可。” 




But, of course, Boesch v. Graff had nothing to do with 

“international patent exhaustion. 

但是,当然Boesch v. Graff 案跟“国际专利权利用尽”没有任 

何关系。 

FujiFilm Corp. v. Benum, __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. 2010)(per 

curiam)(Michel, C.J., Mayer, Linn, JJ.), is the most recent 

Federal Circuit case following the Jazz Photo denial of 

international patent exhaustion because that case is binding 

precedent (unless overturned en banc). 

FujiFilm Corp. v. Benum, __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. 2010)(per 

curiam)(Michel, C.J., Mayer, Linn, JJ.)案,是最新的遵循Jazz 

Photo案确立的否认国际专利权利用尽的联邦巡回案件,因 

为该案件是有约束力的先例(除非整体被推翻)。 




13 

14 

7



The Supreme Court has never considered international patent 

exhaustion but has considered other IPR international 

exhaustion. 

最高法院从未考虑过国际专利权利用尽,但是已经考虑过其 

他知识产权的国际权利用尽。 

The October 2010 Term of the Court will consider international 

copyright exhaustion in Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Omega, S.A., 

Supreme Court No. 08-1423, opinion below, Omega S.A. v. 

Costco Wholesale Corp., 541 F.3d 982 (9th Cir. 2008)(Smith, 

Jr., J.), 

2010年10月期间,法院将在Costco Wholesale Corp. v. 

Omega, S.A., Supreme Court No. 08-1423, opinion below, 

Omega S.A. v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 541 F.3d 982 (9th Cir. 

2008)(Smith, Jr., J.),案中考虑国际著作权权利用尽。 




The Supreme Court in Costco may well provide clues as to its 

views on international exhaustion generally, i.e., including 

patents, when it decides the Costco case. 

在Costco案中,判决时最高法院可能会从总体上给出法院对 

国际权利用尽的方向,也包括专利。 




15 

16 

8



In Transcore, the Federal Circuit broadly interpreted the 

scope of exhaustion: “[T]he Supreme Court [in Quanta] 

reiterated unequivocally that ‘[t]he longstanding doctrine of 

patent exhaustion provides that the initial authorized sale of 

a patented item terminates all patent rights to that item[.]’” 

TransCore, LP v. Electronic Transaction Consultants Corp., 563 F.3d 1271, 1274 (2009)(Gajarsa, J.) (quoting Quanta 

Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 128 S.Ct. 2109, 2115, 2121 (2008))(emphasis added). 

在Transcore 案中,联邦巡回法院宽泛地解释了权利用尽的 

范围:“在Quanta案中,最高法院明确地重申‘长期以来的专 

利权权利用尽原则认为首次授权销售专利产品会终止该产品 

上的所有专利权。’” 

TransCore, LP v. Electronic Transaction Consultants Corp., 563 F.3d 1271, 1274 (2009)(Gajarsa, J.) (quoting Quanta 

Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 128 S.Ct. 2109, 2115, 2121 (2008))(emphasis added). 




A second appeal in the same Quanta case is expected which 

will deal with international patent exhaustion. “Quanta II” is 

the second part of the Quanta case. The District Court in 

Quanta II said that “yes”, there is international patent 

exhaustion. LG Electronics, Inc. v. Hitachi, Ltd., 2009 WL 

667232 (N.D.Cal. 2009)(Wilken, J.) 

Quanta案件很有可能有第二次的上诉,这可能会处理国际 

专利权权利用尽的问题。”Quanta II” 是Quanta案件的第二 

部分,地区法院在Quanta II案中认定了国际专利权权利用 

尽的存在。LG Electronics, Inc. v. Hitachi, Ltd., 2009 WL 

667232 (N.D.Cal. 2009)(Wilken, J.) 




17 

18 

9



The Federal Circuit – and then possibly the Supreme Court as 

well – will consider international patent exhaustion in a 

“Quanta II” appeal. 

联邦巡回法院——到时可能也会有最高法院——将会在 

“Quanta II”的上诉案中考虑国际专利权权利用尽。 


Venue 管辖地 

When must a court transfer a case from one court to a 

different court? 

什么情况下,一个法院必须将案件转移至另外法院? 

A patent suit is brought between a company from New York 

and an accused infringer from Shenzen in Texas? 

一家纽约的公司在德克萨斯提起专利诉讼,控告深圳公司侵 

权。 

When can a party force the court to transfer the case out of 

Texas? 

什么情况下,一方能够迫使法院将案件转移出德克萨斯? 




19 

20 

10


TS Tech is leading case to permit a transfer is the leading 

case to permit transfer. In re TS Tech United States Corp., 

551 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2010)(order)(Rader, J.). 

TS Tech案是允许案件转移的重要案例。TS Tech United 

States Corp., 551 F.3d 

TS Tech is helpful to transfer a case but only for very clear 

cases. cases 

TS Tech案对转移案件有所帮助,但是这仅是对于非常清楚 

地案件。 



The difficulty in transferring a case is demonstrated in the 

recent Apple case: 

近期的Apple案阐明了转移案件的难度: 

Thus, for example, in Apple, transfer was denied where 

accused infringers sought to transfer a case from Texas to 

Massachusetts, even though the patentee-plaintiff was a 

“Texan” only in the sense of having an address at his Texas 

lawyer’s law firm: 

因此,例如,在Apple案中,当被控侵权人试图将案件从德 

克萨斯转移至马塞诸塞州时,即使该专利权人-原告仅在其 

德克萨斯的律师事务所拥有一个地址,该转移就被拒绝。 




21 

22 

11


“[T]he [patentee-plaintiff] company's presence in Texas appears to 

be both recent and ephemeral – its office is apparently the office of 

its Texas litigation counsel[.] [Patentee] does not to have any 

employees in Texas. Nonetheless, the petitioners have not made a 

compelling showing that Massachusetts is a more convenient 

forum[.] …[T]he petitioners have failed to satisfy the demanding 

standard required to justify the issuance of a writ of mandamus.” 

In re Apple Inc., __ Fed. Appx. __ (Fed. Cir. 2010)(per curiam)(order) 

该专利权人-原告公司在德克萨斯是近期、临时存在的,该公司的 

办公室很明显是其德克萨斯诉讼律师的办公室。专利权人在德克 

萨斯没有任何雇员。然而,管辖权转移请求人未能提出让人信服 

的依据来说明马赛诸塞州是一个更加方便的管辖法院。管辖权转 

移请求人没有能够达到法院要求的标准来证明签发管辖权转移执 

行令的正确性。 

In re Apple Inc., __ Fed. Appx. __ (Fed. Cir. 2010)(per curiam)(order) 



The very difficult standard a party must meet to compel 

mandamus transfer is explained by Circuit Judge Linn in In re 

VTech Communs., Inc., 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 372 (Fed. Cir. 

2010)(Linn, J.)(order): 

巡回法官Linn在VTech Communs., Inc., 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 

372 (Fed. Cir. 2010)(Linn, J.)(order)案中,解释了一方要获得 

管辖权转移执行令必须要满足的苛刻的标准。 




23 

24 

12


“[M]andamus relief … is solely reserved for circumstances 

where the petitioner can demonstrate that the [denial] of 

transfer was a ‘clear’ abuse of discretion such that refusing 

transfer produced a ‘patently erroneous result.’ [In re 

Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 310 (5th Cir. 2008) 

(en banc)]. 

执行令救济,仅在请求人能够证明——拒绝转移案件是“清楚 

地”滥用自由裁量权,由此拒绝转移会导致一个“显然的错误 

结果”——的情况下才能够适用。[In re Volkswagen of Am., 

Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 310 (5th Cir. 2008) (en banc)]. 



“ “A suggestion that the district court abused its discretion, 

which might warrant reversal on a direct appeal, is not a 

sufficient showing for mandamus relief. Id. Unless it is clear that 

the facts and circumstances are without any basis for a 

judgment of discretion, we will not proceed further in a 

mandamus petition to examine the district court's decision. 

Volkswagen, 545 F.3d at 317 n.7 (citing McGraw-Edison Co. v. 

Van Pelt, 350 F.2d 361, 363 (8th Cir. 1965)). 

地区法院滥用自由裁量权的意见,在上诉中可能会导致案件撤 

销,不足以证明管辖权转移执行令救济的必要。除非能够清楚 

的表明该自由裁量的判决没有任何事实和情况为基础,我们不 

会继续针对一个执行令请求来审查地方法院的决定。 

Volkswagen, 545 F.3d at 317 n.7 (citing McGraw-Edison Co. v. 

Van Pelt, 350 F.2d 361, 363 (8th Cir. 1965)). 




25 

26 

13


“In other words, we will deny a petition ‘[i]f the facts and 

circumstances are rationally capable of providing reasons for what 

the district court has done.’ Volkswagen, 545 F.3d at 317 n.7; see 

also In re Cordis Corp., 769 F.2d 733, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (noting 

that ‘if a rational and substantial legal argument can be made in 

support of the rule in question, the case is not appropriate for 

mandamus’).” 

换句话说,我们将会拒绝一个请求,“如果事实和情况能够合理的 

提供出法院作出此决定的理由。 Volkswagen, 545 F.3d at 317 

n.7; see also In re Cordis Corp., 769 F.2d 733, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1985) 

(注意:如果能够作出合理且具体的法律论证来支持该决定,该 

案件不适用于管辖权转移执行令) 




Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd., is an expected petition for Supreme 

Court review that is due for filing by June 30, 2010. 

Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd.,案,诉状提交截止日期2010年6月 

30日前,一方可能提交诉状由最高法院审查。 

A decision whether to grant certiorari is expected to be made 

at the end of September with a decision on grant of certiorari 

at the beginning of the October 2010 Term of the Court. 

预计在九月末会做出是否同意再审的决定,并在法院的 

2010年10月期间同意再审。 




27 

28 

14



The Federal Circuit opinion that is basis for the petition is 

from the case i4i Ltd. v. Microsoft Corp., 589 F.3d 1246 (Fed. 

Cir. 2009)(Prost, J.), was vacated by the panel and reissued, 

598 F.3d 831 (Fed. Cir. 2010)(Prost, J.). 

诉状依据的联邦巡回法院的观点是来自i4i Ltd. v. Microsoft 

Corp., 589 F.3d 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2009)(Prost, J.), 案,该案被 

取消并重新颁布 598 F.3d 831 (Fed. Cir. 2010)(Prost, J.). 




Microsoft is expected to raise two different issues as the 

“Questions Presented” that are expected to mirror the first 

two issues raised in an unsuccessful petition for rehearing en 

banc at the Federal Circuit – (1) excessive damages; and (2) 

injunctive relief where there is no current (or expected future) 

marketplace competition by the patent owner : 

Microsoft预计会提出两个不同的问题作为“提出的问题”。预 

计这两个问题会反映在联邦巡回法院寻求复审时未能成功的 

请求:(1)过度的损害赔偿;(2)禁令救济——如果没有 

专利权人当前的(或预期将来的)商业竞争 




29 

30 

15



“ 1. [Excessive Damages] Whether a $ 290,000,000 

damages award – the largest ever sustained on appeal in a 

patent infringement case – can stand where …[t]he award 

rests on expert testimony that fails minimum standards of 

reliability and is unmoored to the real world….” 

“1. 【过度的损害赔偿】一个29亿美元的损害赔偿判决—— 

上诉维持的最高损害赔偿专利侵权案件——是否合理——该判 

决依据的专家证言不满足最低的可信度标准且偏离了真实的 

世界……” 




“2. [Injunctive Relief] Whether injunctive relief can be 

predicated solely on past harm?” 

“2. 【禁令】仅基于过去造成的损害是否能够判定禁令救济? 




31 

32 

16



Per Microsoft: “Injunctive relief is ‘unavailable’ absent a 

showing of ‘future injury.’ City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 

U.S. 95, 111 (1983)(emphasis added). Notwithstanding this 

settled rule, the decision here sustained an injunction based 

only on a showing of distant past harm.” City of Los Angeles 

v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 111 (1983)(emphasis added). 

根据Microsoft, “将来的损害”对于禁制令救济是“不可”缺少 

的。虽然存在这一设定的规则,此案件中仍然仅基于过去的 

损害维持了禁令。 




Microsoft argues that “[t]he decision squarely conflicts with … 

decisions of the Supreme Court … holding that even where a 

plaintiff has suffered past harm, the ‘irreparable injury [ ] 

requirement [ ] cannot be met where there is no showing of 

any real or immediate threat that the plaintiff will be wronged 

again’ in the future’” ( quoting Lyons, 461 U.S. at 111). 

Microsoft辩称“该决定与最高法院的判决相悖,认为即使原 

告过去遭受了侵害,如果没有任何真实或即刻的威胁表明原 

告“将再次被错误对待”,仍不能满足不能挽回的伤害的要求” 




33 

34 

17



Endnote 

This paper was prepared for a joint free flowing dialog 

between the Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce and Professor 

Wegner. The PowerPoints, here, were prepared solely by Prof. 

Wegner to present the issues as a backdrop for this joint 

presentation. The author is solely responsible for the contents 

which do not necessarily reflect the views of any colleague, 

organization or client thereof. 

尾注 

该报告为商务部副部长和华格纳教授之间的自由对话准备。华格 

纳教授独自准备了该讲演稿,旨为双方共同的发言提供背幕。作 

者独自对该文件的内容负责,所含内容不必要反映任何同事、组 

织或客户的观点意见。 


Questions & Answers 

提问与答疑 


Sharon R. Barner Harold C. Wegner 

Deputy Under 

Partner 

Secretary of 

Commerce for 

Intellectual Property 

and Deputy Director 

of the United States 

Patent and 

Trademark Office 

Foley & Lardner LLP 

3000 K Street N.W. 

Suite 600 

Washington, DC 20007 

Phone: (202) 672-5571 

Email: hwegner@foley.com 



35 

36 

18

Using Inter Partes Reexamination To Defend Against 

Infringement Suits 

利用双方当事人的复审制度进行 

专利侵权抗辩 



Matthew A. Smith 

Senior Counsel, Foley & Lardner LLP 

富理达律师事务所资深律师 

INTRODUCTION 

绪论 



1 

2 

1

Inter Partes Reexamination 

双方当事人的复审制度 

Inter partes reexamination is a U.S. Patent Office (USPTO) 

challenge to the validity of a patent 

双方当事人复审制度是在美国专利商标局挑战专利有效性的 

一种途径 

It is changing the nature of U.S. Patent litigation 

它可以和专利侵权诉讼平行进行 

It can proceed in parallel to infringement litigation 

它正在改变美国专利诉讼的性质 





REQUESTER (ACCUSED INFRINGER) ACTION 

PATENT OWNER ACTION 

USPTO ACTION 

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT ACTION 

蓝色代表请求方( 被控侵权方)的行为 

紫色代表专利权人的行为 

红色代表美国专利商标局的行为 

灰色代表美国联邦巡回上诉法院的行为 



3 

4 

2





REQUEST FILED 

请求的提出 



USPTO DECIDES REEXAMINATION YES/NO 

美国专利商标局决定是否进行复审 



5 

6 

3





USPTO ISSUES OFFICE ACTION 

REJECTING OR CONFIRMING CLAIMS 

美国专利商标局发出驳回或维持权利要 

求的审查意见通知书 



Rejection Rate, First OA 

第一次审查意见通知书中 

的驳回率 

Rejection Rate In First OA Per Examiner In Electronics / 

Software For Inter Partes Reexamination 

在电子或软件的双方当事人复审中,每个审查员在第一次审 

100% 

查意见通知书中作出驳回决定的概率 

80% 

60% 

40% 

20% 

0% 

1 6 11 16 21 26 31 

Examiner Code 

审查员编号 



7 

8 

4





PATENT OWNER RESPONDS TO OFFICE 

ACTION – CAN AMEND OR ADD CLAIMS 

专利权人答复审查意见通知书时--可以修改 

或增加权利要求 



REQUESTER COMMENTS ON PATENT 

OWNER RESPONSE 

请求人对专利权人的答复作出回复 



9 

10 

5





USPTO ISSUES ACTION CLOSING 

PROSECUTION 

美国专利商标局发出通知书结束该审查程序 



PATENT OWNER RESPONDS – LIMITED 

ABILITY TO AMEND CLAIMS 

专利权人的答复—限于修改权利要求书 



11 

12 

6





REQUESTER COMMENTS ON PATENT 

OWNER RESPONSE 

请求人对专利权人的答复作出回复 



USPTO ISSUES RIGHT OF APPEAL NOTICE 

美国专利商标局发出有权上诉的通知 



13 

14 

7





USPTO BOARD OF APPEALS 

美国专利商标局上诉委员会 



COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT 

美国联邦巡回上诉法院 



15 

16 

8



THREE POINTS OF REQUESTER INPUT BEFORE THE EXAMINER– 

REQUESTER ALWAYS HAS “LAST WORD” 

在审查过程中,请求人有三次机会进行陈诉---请求人任何时候 

都具有最后的“发言权” 



RESULTS 

结果 



17 

18 

9







50% of patents have all claims 

canceled 

50%的专利全部权利要求被删除 

*Taken from USPTO Inter Partes 

Rexamination Filing Data, Dec. 31, 2009 

上述数据来自2009年12月31日美国专利商 

标局公布的双方当事人复审申请数据 

*Taken from Matthew A. Smith, Inter Partes Reexamination 2d, West 2010 

上述数据来自『双方当事人复审』第2期 2010 Matthew A. Smith著西部出版社 



19 

20 

10



INTER PARTES REEXAMINATION CAN RUN PARALLEL TO INFRINGEMENT 

LITIGATION OR ITC INVESTIGATION 

双方当事人复审可以与侵权诉讼或美国国际贸易委员会调查平行进行 



PARALLEL LITIGATION OR ITC INVESTIGATION 

平行诉讼或美国国际贸易委员会(ITC)调查 



WHAT HAPPENS IF THERE ARE 

INCONSISTENT DECISIONS? 

如果不同的部门判决不一致怎么办? 



21 

22 

11



Translogic Tech v. Hitachi, Fed. Cir. 2007 

2007年联邦巡回上诉法院: Translogic Tech 诉Hitachi 




Dow Jones & Co. v. Ablaise Ltd, Fed. Cir. May 26, 2010 

2010年联巡回上诉法院: Dow Jones 诉Ablaise Ltd 


本法院在先前的判决中确认了复审委员会的决定 

即根据美国专利法103(a)的规定,‘666专利是 

显而易见的。 (联邦巡回上诉法院2007 

Translogic Tech, Inc, 504 F.3d 1249. 根据联邦巡 

回上诉法院在Translogic Tech, Inc案中的判决, 本 

法院撤销地区法院的决定并且要求地区法院驳回 

本案 

专利局对于权利要求的最终驳回将对‘737专利有效性造成致 

命破坏, 该驳回本身足以使本上诉未决,而可以确认联邦地 

区法院对’737专利无效性的判决。 

(虽然这是基于新颖性而非显而易见性)。 

然而,单方的复审程序尚未完全解决。 



23 

24 

12



EFFECT ON LITIGATION 

对于诉讼的影响 

Stay of Litigation 

中止诉讼 

A stay of patent infringement 

litigation is possible pending 

reexamination. 

可能中止专利侵权诉讼而等待复审 

(结果)。 

A stay must be ordered by the court, 

and depends highly on the judge. 

中止决定必须由法院发出,高度依 

赖于法官个人。 

A stay of an ITC investigation is also 

possible, but more difficult 

中止美国国际贸易委员会的调查也 

是有可能的,但是难度更大。 



District 

E.D. Tex. 

N.D. Cal. 

C.D. Cal. 

D.Del. 

N.D.Ga. 

S.D. Cal. 

S.D.Fl. 

S.D.N.Y. 

M.D.Fl. 

E.D. Va. 

N.D. Ill. 

Approx. Grant 

% 

20% 

60% 

35% 

30% 

85% 

85% 

70% 

40% 

80% 

50% 

85% 

地区 

德州东区法院 

加州北区法院 

加州中区法院 

特拉华州地区法院 

佐治亚州北区法院 

加州南区法院 

佛罗里达州南区法院 

纽约州南区法院 

佛罗里达州中区法院 

佛吉尼亚州东区法院 

伊利诺伊州北区法院 

大约批准率 

20% 

60% 

35% 

30% 

85% 

85% 

70% 

40% 

80% 

50% 

85% 

25 

26 

13

Use As Evidence 

作为证据使用 

Preliminary reexamination results can sometimes be used as 

evidence in infringement actions and ITC investigations 

初步复审结果有的时候可以作为证据在侵权诉讼和ITC调查 

中使用 

Can be used for claim construction – usually favorable to 

Requester 

可以用作对权利要求的解释—通常有利于请求人 

Can be used in injunction hearings 

可以在禁止令听证中使用 

Use for other things depends on the court 

派作其他用途,而这取决于法院 




Example: willful infringement: 

In Re: Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, N.D. 

Cal., May 14, 2010: 

“[T]his Court is unwilling to fashion a bright line rule that there 

cannot be willfulness whenever a patent is the subject of 

reexamination.” 

恶意侵权案例: 

2010年5月14日加州北区法院:关于Katz Interactive Call 

Processing 的专利诉讼: 

“本法院不愿意采纳这样一个明确的原则,即只要专利处于 

复审中,就不存在恶意“ 




27 

28 

14



Plumley v. Mocket, C.D. Cal., May 26, 2010: 

“While a substantial question of patentability raised by a 

reexamination request is not dispositive in a willfulness 

inquiry, it is certainly relevant.” 

2010年5月26日加州中区法院Plumley v. Mocket, 

“尽管在复审请求中提出的有关专利性的实质问题在恶意判 

定中并不起决定性作用,但是毫无疑问是相关的。” 


Conclusion 

结论 

In re Etter, Fed. Cir. 1984 (en banc, Nies, J. concurring): 

"With respect to claim construction, claims in litigation are to be “so 

construed, if possible, as to sustain their validity.”.... Claims in 

reexamination, on the other hand, “will be given their broadest 

reasonable interpretation.”...Thus, claims may be valid and 

infringed in court but invalid in the PTO and, a fortiori, not infringed. 

It is small solace to a patent owner in that situation that he may 

amend his claims in reexamination and secure narrower new 

claims. 1984年联邦巡回上诉法院在Etter案中如下判决:关于权 

利要求的解释,权利要求在诉讼中的解释是尽可能维持专利的有 

效性.”… 另一方面,权利要求在复审中的解释是“是给予最大范围 

的合理解释”。 




29 

30 

15

Conclusion 

结论 

Upon amendment, his claims are subject to complete examination and 

an infringer has the benefit of intervening rights to the extent afforded 

under 35 U.S.C. § 252 pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 307(b). Given this 

court's interpretation of proper reexamination procedure, the obvious 

strategy of an infringer would be to force the patentee back to the PTO 

where the patentee's presumptive advantage, as well as claim 

construction advantage, is eliminated." 

因此,权利要求有可能在法院看来是有效的并且侵权成立而在专利 

局看来是无效的而更加不存在侵权。在这种情况下,对专利权人来 

说是很小的安慰因为他可能得在复审中修改权利要求获得保护范围 

更小的新的权利要求。修改后的权利要求将进行全面地审查,而侵 

权人在某种程度上可以根据美国专利法307(b)受益于§ 252 规定的 

介入权。基于本法院对适当复审程序的解释,侵权人明显的策略是 

迫使专利权人回到专利局的程序中来,在专利局的程序当中,专利 

权人假定的优势以及对权利要求的解释优势将消失。 





Matthew A. Smith 

Senior Counsel 


3000 K Street N.W. 

Suite 600 

Washington, DC 20007 

Phone: (202) 295-4618 

Email: msmith@foley.com 



31 

32 

16



Defending Patent Infringement and 

Anti-Dumping Anti Dumping Claims in the ITC 

如何应对国际贸易委员会的专利侵权和 

反倾销诉求 

Steven J. Rizzi 

Partner, Foley & Lardner LLP 

富理达律师事务所合伙人 

International Trade Commission 

Section 337 IP Litigation 

国际贸易委员会 

337条款知识产权诉讼 

337条款知识产权诉讼 



1 

2 

1

Overview 

概要 

Background 

背景 

Elements of a Section 337 Case 

337案件的要素 

Proceedings in a Section 337 Case 

337案件的诉讼程序 

Trends & Statistics 

趋势&统计数据 

Differences Between the ITC and District Court Infringement 

Actions 

国际贸易仲裁委员会(ITC)和地区法院侵权诉讼间的区别 


Background 

背景 

The International Trade Commission (ITC) is a federal agency 

of the US government that investigates the impact of imports 

on U.S. industries and can take action against certain “unfair 

trade practices,” such as patent infringement. 

国际贸易仲裁委员会(ITC)是美国政府的联邦机构,负责 

调查进口对美国工业的影响,并可以针对“不公平贸易”,例 

如专利侵权,采取行动。 




3 

4 

2

Background (cont.) 

背景(续) 

The ITC administers a trade law, Section 337 of the Tariff Act 

of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337)(“Section 337”). Section 337 

provides that unfair methods of competition and unfair acts, 

such as patent infringement, the importation of infringing 

articles into the United States, their sale for importation, or 

sale within the United States after importation, are unlawful. 

ITC负责实施的一项贸易法案,即1930关税法案的337条款。 

根据337条款,不公平的竞争方法和不公平行为都是违法 

的,例如专利侵权、向美国进口侵权产品、为进口出售该产 

品、或进口后在美国出售该产品。 



背景(续) 

The International Trade Commission 


– Six Commissioners 

六名委员 

– Six Administrative Law Judges 

六名行政法官 

– Office of Unfair Import Investigations 

不正当进口调查办公室 

Includes Staff attorneys 

包括专职律师 




5 

6 

3


背景(续) 

The Parties 

参与方 

– Complainant-owner of IP rights 

投诉方——知识产权所有人 

– Respondents-manufacturers, importers, or distributors of 

imported products 

应诉方——制造商、进口商、或进口产品分销商 

– Investigative Staff Attorney 

调查专职律师 



背景(续) 

Investigation 

调查 

– The ITC is not a court, but 337 investigations are similar to 

patent infringement cases in federal district court. 

ITC并不是法院,但是337调查却与联邦地区法院的专利侵 

权案件的调查类似 

– Record consists of conferences, written submissions, and a 

hearing 

案件记录包括由一系列会议、书面陈述和一次听证会 




7 

8 

4


背景(续) 

– Each party has a right to fully investigate the facts through 

discovery, including interrogatories, depositions, requests 

for production of documents, and requests for admissions. 

每一方都有权通过发现程序全面调查事实,包括质询、 

证人证言、请求出示文件、请求自认 



The Commission has the authority to prescribe sanctions for 

abuse of discovery and abuse of process. 

委员会有权对滥用发现程序和程序滥用进行制裁。 




1) Domestic Industry 

国内工业 

Economic Prong 

经济方面 

Technical Prong 

技术方面 

2) Importation 

进口 

3) Infringement 

侵害 

4) Remedy 

救济 



9 

10 

5




1) Domestic Industry 

国内工业 

– Complainant must establish that a domestic industry for 

the accused products exists or is in the process of being 

established 

投诉方必须指明被控产品对应的国内工业是存在的,或 

该国内工业正在建设中 

– Demonstrated by: 

通过以下证明 

Significant investments in plant and equipment 

厂房和设备上的重大投资 






Significant employment of labor or capital 

重大的劳动力雇佣和资本 

Substantial investment in the exploitation of the 

intellectual property, including engineering, research 

and development or licensing 

在知识产权利用方面的重要投资,包括工程研发或许 

可 



11 

12 

6




2) Importation 

进口 

– Complainant must establish the importation into the 

United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within 

the United States after importation by the owner, 

importer, or consignee of the accused products. 



投诉方必须证明被控产品进口到美国,为进口而销售, 

或产品被所有人、进口商或收货商进口后在美国销售 




3) Infringement 

侵害 

– Complainant must establish infringement of a valid and 

enforceable U.S. patent. 

投诉方必须证明侵犯了有效、可执行的美国专利权 

– Can show direct infringement by: 

可以通过以下说明直接侵权: 

A product itself 产品本身 

A product made, produced, processed or mined under a 

patented process.产品由专利方法生产、制造、加工或开采 



13 

14 

7




3) Infringement (cont.) 

侵害 (续) 

– Can show indirect infringement by: 

可以通过以下说明间接侵权: 



Induced infringement, and 

诱导侵权 

Contributory infringement. 

共同侵权 




4) Remedy 

救济 

– No Monetary Damages are available 

没有金钱赔偿 

– If the ITC finds a violation of Section 337, it can impose 

several remedies: 

如果ITC发现违反了337条款,它可以给予以下几种救济: 

Exclusion Orders 

排除令 

Temporary Relief 

临时救济 

Cease & Desist Orders 

停止令 



15 

16 

8




4) Remedy (cont.) 

救济 (续) 

– Exclusion Orders: 排除令 



Limited Exclusion Order (default) - limited to persons determined to 

be violating Section 337 

有限排除令(默认)- 限定针对确定违反337条款的当事方 

General Exclusion Order- may extend to products of unnamed 

parties under certain exceptional circumstances 

普遍排除令 – 在某些特定情况下,可能会延伸到非当事方的产品 

Temporary Exclusion Order- excludes articles from entry except 

under bond on a temporary basis during an investigation 

临时排除令 – 在调查期间,除了临时情况的担保,禁止产品进入 




4) Remedy (cont.) 救济 (续) 

– The ITC can issue a general exclusion order only if: 

ITC可以发出普遍排除令,仅当: 

(1) it is “necessary to prevent circumvention of an exclusion order 

limited to products of named persons” or 

有必要为了防止出现规避针对特定人的产品的有限排除令 

(2) if “there is a pattern of violation of this section and it is difficult 

to identify the source of infringing products.” 

如果存在侵犯该条款的模式,且难以辨认侵权产品来源的 

– Exclusion of downstream products must be addressed by 

naming all parties or seeking a general exclusion order. 

排除所有下游产品必须通过列出所有当事方或获得一个普遍排 

除令的方式。 



17 

18 

9

Proceedings in a Section 337 Case: 

Pre-Filing Pre Filing & Institution 337案件的诉讼程序 


诉前和确立 

Pre-Filing 诉前 

– Detailed Complaint (much more detail than typical in 

district court infringement actions) 

详细的诉状(要比在地区法院侵权案件中的诉状详细的 

多) 

– Meet with ITC Staff 

会见ITC专职人员 

– Many strategic considerations to be made in preparing for 

and filing Complaint 

在准备和提交诉状时要考虑更多的战略性问题 

Complaint Filed 提交诉状 

Investigation Instituted 30 days later 30天后开始调查 






Fact Discovery 4-5 Months after Complaint 

提交诉状后的4-5个月是事实发现 

– Document Discovery 

文件发现程序 

– Interrogatories 

质询 

– Depositions 

证人证言 

– OUII Staff is involved 

委员会调查员(OUII)介入 

– Protective Order 

保护令 




19 

20 

10





Expert Discovery 5-7 Months after Complaint 

提交诉状后5-7个月是专家发现程序 

– Initial and Rebuttal Expert Reports 

专家报告及反驳意见 

– Expert Depositions 

专家证言 






Summary Determination Motions 

简易判决动议 

Pre-Hearing Submissions 

听证前陈词 

Hearing 7-9 Months after Service of Complaint 

诉状送达后7-9个月听证 

Post-Hearing Submissions 2 Months later 

2个月后进行听证后陈词 




21 

22 

11





ALJ issues Initial Determination 10-12 Months after Filing of 

Complaint 

行政法官在提交诉状10-12个月后发出初步判决 

– Detailed legal and factual analysis 

详细的法律和事实分析 

Review 审查 

– Parties may file Petitions for Review 

当事方可能提交诉求请求审查 

– Commission may elect to review 

委员会可能选择审查 

– Additional briefing on Review 

附加的审查摘要 






Commission issues a Final Determination before the target 

date-14-16 Months after filing of Complaint 

委员会在目标日期-提交诉状后的14-16个月-发布最终判决 

Parties may appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal 

Circuit 

当事方可以在联邦巡回法院上诉 




23 

24 

12





ITC issues an Exclusion Order 

ITC发布排除令 

Presidential Review Period (60-days) 

总统审核期间(60天) 

The U.S. Customs and Border Patrol posts an internal “Trade 

Alert” based on information from the ITC and creates 

instructions for its ports of entry regarding incoming 

shipments that require examination of goods subject to an 

exclusion order 

美国海关和边境巡逻队根据来自ITC的消息发布内部的“贸易 

警告”,针对需要根据排除令检验的来货向口岸发出指令 






If goods subject to exclusion arrive at a port of entry, CBP 

denies the goods entry and issues a notice of exclusion to 

the importer 

如果受到排除令限制的货物到达口岸,美国海关和巡逻队 

会拒绝货物入关并向进口商发出排除通知 




25 

26 

13

Tips and Strategies to use Section 337 

使用337 使用 337条款的技巧和策略 

条款的技巧和策略 

Establish a U.S. Industry 

确立美国工业 

– Manufacturing or licensing business in the U.S. 

在美国制造或许可的商业往来 

– Establish U.S. IP Rights 

确立美国知识产权 


Tips and Strategies to use Section 337 

使用337 使用 337条款的技巧和策略 

条款的技巧和策略 

Initiating an Investigation 

开始调查 

– Due diligence 

尽职调查 

– Work with counsel to prepare Complaint 

与律师合作准备诉状 

– Prepare files for discovery 

准备发现程序的文件 

– Locate experts 

确定专家 




27 

28 

14

Tips and Strategies to Defend Against 

Section 337 Complaint 针对337 针对 337条款条款 

诉讼的防御技巧和策略 

Avoiding an Investigation 

避免调查 

– Establish a patent portfolio to deter ITC actions and to 

exclude others 

构建专利组合来阻止国际贸易委员会的行动并排除他方 

– Understand competitors and IP landscape before 

developing new products 

在开发新产品前了解竞争对手和知识产权布局状况 

– Monitor ITC filings 

监控提交ITC的案件 


Tips and Strategies to Defend Against 

Section 337 Complaint 针对337 针对 337条款条款 

诉讼的防御技巧和策略 

After Complaint is filed 诉状提交后 

– Locate experts 确定专家 

– Gather documents 收集文件 

– Locate witnesses 确定证人 

– Meet with attorneys 会见律师 

– Assess cost of licensing versus litigating 

对比诉讼评估许可费用 

– Begin preparing defense as soon as possible 

尽快开始准备应诉辩护 

– Consider design-around options 

考虑绕开设计是否可行 




29 

30 

15


趋势和统计数据 

趋势统计数据 

The ITC continues to have a growing importance in the 

protection of intellectual property rights in cases involving 

foreign goods. 

ITC在涉及进口货物的知识产权保护上发挥着越来越重要的 

作用 

There has been a growing trend of Section 337 cases at the 

ITC since 2000 with the first drop since 2001 occurring in 

2009. 

337案件数量自2000年起保持着增长的趋势,除了2001年 

之后于2009年第一次小幅回落 





Section 337 cases instituted each year since 2000: 

自2000年来的337案件 




45 

40 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

17 

24 

17 

18 

26 

29 

33 

35 

41 

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

31 

31 

32 

16




Cases involving electronic components comprised the 

majority of cases In 2009: 

2009年涉及电子元件的案件占了案件的大部分比例 



Computer or 

Software System 

Chemical 

6% 

Electronic 

Components 

62% 



12% 

Mechanical 

Devices 

20% 




Foreign Respondents 

国外的应诉方 

– In 2009, the majority 

of foreign 

respondents were 

from China, Japan, 

and Taiwan 

2009年,绝大多数 

的国外应诉方来自中 

国、日本和台湾。 

18 

16 

14 

12 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

China 

Japan 

Taiwan 

Korea 

Germany 

Hong Kong 

European Countries 

Canada and Mexico 

33 

34 

17




Foreign Complainants 

国外的投诉方 

– In 2009 about one-third 

of the investigations 

involved complainants 

from foreign countries 

including Korea, Sweden, 

Austria, Singapore, and 

the Cayman Islands 

2009年,大概三分之一的 

337调查包含来自国外的 

投诉方,包括韩国、瑞典、 

奥地利、新加坡和开曼半 

岛 





Plaintiff Win Rates 

原告胜诉率 




18 

16 

14 

12 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

China 

Japan 

Taiwan 

Korea 

Germany 

Hong Kong 

– 58% of cases reaching a final determination are 

historically resolved in the complainant’s favor. 

最终判决的案件中,58%的案件对投诉方有利 

– Compared to 35% win rate in district court 

对比在地区法院的胜诉率为35% 

European Countries 

Canada and Mexico 

35 

36 

18




Historical outcomes of cases from 1972-2006: 

1972-2006年案件最终结果 


Settled 

46% 




Percentage 


80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

Violation 

Found 

No Violation 

Found 

Other 

2% 

Withdrawn 

11% 

Dispositions in Cases Since 2004 

Settlement Consent 

Order 

No Violation 

18% 



Violation 

23% 

Cases with Less than Five 

Respondents 

Cases with More than Ten 

Respondents 

Complaint 

Withdrawn 

Other 

37 

38 

19




Percentages 



100 

90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 




Remedies 

Cases with Less than Five 

Respondents 

Cases with More than Ten 

Respondents 

General Exclusion Order Limited Exclusion Order Cease & Desist Order 

Injunctive Relief 

禁令救济 

– In the ITC, 100% of the adjudicated cases in which a 

violation is found resulted in injunctive relief for the 

patentee. 

ITC案件中,百分之百的被宣判侵权的案件都为专利权人 

提供了禁令救济。 

– In district court, injunctive relief was awarded in only 79%. 

在地区法院,禁令救济仅占79%的比例。 



39 

40 

20




ITC litigants are less likely to settle: 

ITC诉讼的和解可能性较小 

– 68 percent of district court cases settle 

68%的地区法院案件和解 

– 42 percent of parties to ITC investigations settled 

42%的ITC调查案件和解 





ITC litigants are more likely to adjudicate disputes to an end 

ITC诉讼更容易会持续到最终的判决 

– ITC investigations were fully adjudicated (at trial or summary 

judgment) 44 percent of the time 

44%的ITC调查获得最终判决(在庭审或简易判决阶段) 

– 11 percent of district court cases are fully adjudicated 

11%的地区案件获得最终判决 

Stays in parallel litigation 

平行诉讼的中止 

– 60 percent of district court cases overlapping in time with an 

ITC counterpart were stayed. 

与ITC重复进行的地区法院案件中,有60%的案件中止 




41 

42 

21

Trends & Statistics: Appeals 

趋势和统计数据:上诉 

趋势统计数据:上诉 

ITC determinations 

appealable directly 

to the Federal 

Circuit Court of 

Appeals 

ITC判决可以直接上 

诉到联邦巡回上诉 

法院 





70.00% 

60.00% 

50.00% 

40.00% 

30.00% 

20.00% 

10.00% 

0.00% 

Trends & Statistics: Appeals 

趋势和统计数据:上诉 

趋势统计数据:上诉 

Since 2007, 20 appeals decided 

on the merits 

从2007年起,20件上诉案件在实体 

问题上进行了判决: 

–9 affirmed in total (45%) 

全部维持9件(45%) 

–9 affirmed in part, vacated or 

reversed in part, and 

remanded (45%) 

部分维持、部分改判、发回重申 

(45%) 

–3 reversed or vacated (15%) 

驳回3件(15%) 

–1 dismissed for lack of 

jurisdiction over appeal (5%) 

上诉阶段因无管辖权被撤销 

1件(5%) 

70.00% 

60.00% 

50.00% 

40.00% 

30.00% 

20.00% 

10.00% 

0.00% 

District Court Patent 

Infringement Appeals 

ITC Appeals 

Affirmed in full Affirmed in part Reversed/vacated in full 

43 

District Court Patent 

Infringement Appeals 

ITC Appeals 

Affirmed in full Affirmed in part Reversed/vacated in full 

44 

22

Comparison of ITC and District Court 

ITC和地区法院的区别 

ITC和地区法院的区别 

Often seen as alternative to a district court proceeding 

通常被视为除地区法院诉讼外的另一选择 

Parallel district court proceedings 

平行于地区法院诉讼程序 

– Counterclaims filed in the ITC are removed to district court 

在ITC中的提交的反诉申请被移至地区法院 

– Mandatory stay of district court litigation if requested by 

respondent in ITC Investigation involving same patents and 

claims 

如果地区法院和ITC涉及相同专利和请求,应被诉方请求,地 

区法院得中止案件 

– Discovery taken in one proceeding can be used in both actions 

在一个诉讼中进行的发现程序可以在两个案件中使用 


Differences Between the ITC and 

District Court Infringement Actions 

ITC和地区法院侵权诉讼间的区别 


Commencement of Action: 

开始 

– Participation of ITC Staff in preparation of Complaint 

ITC人员参与诉状的准备 

– Complaint must be more detailed including claim charts 

for all independent claims 

诉状必须更加详细,包括所有独立权利要求的对照表 

– In District Court: Notice pleading – minimal facts. 

在地区法院:起诉通知——最低限度的事实 




45 

46 

23





Timing 

时间 

– ITC investigations proceed on an extremely accelerated 

schedule: 

ITC调查进程非常迅速: 



Hearing (trial) typically occurs about 9 months after an 

investigation is instituted. 

听证(庭审)大概发生在调查开始后的9个月 

Final resolution 15-18 months after institution. 

最终结论会在开始后的15-18个月得出 





Timeline of Investigation and District Court Infringement Action 

Investigation Instituted 

Complaint Filed 

Complaint Filed 

ALJ's Final ID 

Target Date 

Remedial Orders Effective; 

Evidentiary Hearing 

Appeal 

-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 12 1314 15 16 1718 19 2021 22 2324 25 26 2728 29 3031 32 33 3435 36 

Hearing 



ITC Investigation 

Final Decision 

District Court 

47 

48 

24





Broad Jurisdiction 

宽泛的管辖权 

The ITC exercises in rem jurisdiction over the accused imports. 

ITC对被控进口产品具有对物管辖权 

– Personal jurisdiction over the accused respondents does not 

need to be established. 不需要具有对被诉方的对人管辖权 

– Allows a single action against multiple respondents in different 

jurisdictions. 允许在一个案件中对不同管辖权下的多个应诉方 

提起诉讼 

– Broad subpoena authority. 更广的传唤权利 

– Jurisdictional battles are avoided. 避开了管辖权的障碍 






Discovery 

发现程序 

– Shorter response times; fewer limits 

较短的答复时间;较少的限制 

Protective Orders 保护令 

– High degree of protection for confidential information; strictly 

enforced 

对秘密信息保护级别高;严格实施 

Commission Investigative Staff 委员会调查员 

– The ITC has its own investigative staff of attorneys in the Office 

of Unfair Import Investigation that participate as a party in the 

proceedings. 

ITC在不正当进口调查中拥有自己的调查专职律师,该专职律 

师作为一方参加诉讼 




49 

50 

25





No Jury 无陪审团 

– ITC investigations are conducted entirely by an Administrative 

Law Judge (ALJ). 

ITC调查整个由行政法官进行 

– The ALJ makes an Initial Determination after hearing all the 

evidence and argument. 

在所有证据和论述听证后,行政法官作出初步判决 

Highly specialized and experienced 

很专业化、经验丰富 

– The Initial Determination may be reviewed by the full 

Commission, which may adopt, reject, or modify it. 

初步裁决可能会被全体委员会审查,可能会采纳、拒绝或修改 



Overview of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Disputes 

反倾销和反补贴概述 



51 

52 

26

Antidumping or Dumping 

反倾销或倾销 

A U.S. industry files a petition alleging “dumped” imports of a 

thing (subject merchandise from a place (country or 

countries)) cause or threaten to cause “material injury” to the 

U.S. industry. 

美国工业提出控诉,主张来自某国进口产品的倾销对美国工 

业产生了实质性损害或实质性损害威胁。 

The filing begins an administrative law process. 

该控诉启动了行政法律程序 

The purpose of the filing is to reduce competition from the 

imported good by obtaining a ruling imposing additional 

duties, thus raising their cost. 

控诉的目的在于获得对进口产品施加额外关税的命令,来提 

高竞争者的成本从而降低其竞争力 


What is Dumping? 

什么是倾销 

A dumping case is an attempt by a U.S. industry to impose 

special tariffs on imports 

倾销案件是美国工业对进口商品施加额外税率的企图 

– Dumping is found when prices are below what is known as “normal 

value” – a measure of either the price that the subject merchandise is 

sold for in a foreign market, or some kind of calculation of the cost of 

producing the merchandise. 

当商品价格低于“正常价格”时,倾销成立——正常价格可以通过该 

产品在国外市场的销售价格确定或通过成本的加成计算。 

– In addition to dumping, the subject imports must cause “material 

injury” or the threat of material injury. Material injury is harm to the 

economic performance of the U.S. industry. 除了倾销,进口产品必须 

产生了实质性损害或实质性损害威胁。实质性损害是指对美国工业 

经济的损害。 




53 

54 

27

What is Dumping? 

什么是倾销 

– If dumping is found to be more than de minimis, and there is material 

injury or threat thereof, then an order will be placed on the subject 

merchandise requiring that U.S. Customs collect estimated duties equal 

to the found level of dumping. 

如果倾销不是可忽略不计的,并且存在实质性损害或实质性损害威 

胁,就会发布命令要求美国海关对涉案货物征收相当于倾销幅度的关 

税。 

China Cases Dominate Filings in Last Few Years 

过去几年中,中国案件占绝大部分 

– In 2001, there were 53 antidumping and countervailing duty cases 

filed. Seven involved China. 

2001年,53件反倾销反补贴税案件,其中涉及中国的 

有7件。 


Overview of Dumping Cases Against 

China 针对中国的反倾销案件 

– In 2009, there were 34 antidumping and countervailing duty cases 

filed. 22 involved China. 

2009年,34件反倾销反补贴税案件,其中涉及中国的有22件。 

– In 2009, only two of the products covered were not filed against 

producers in China. Every other product involved products made in 

China. 

2009年,所有涉案产品中仅有两种不是针对中国制造商。 

其他所有涉案产品均由中国制造。 

– Similar patterns are true going back to 2006 

2006年情况相仿。 

In nearly all cases, there are significant Chinese producers that receive margins 

over 50 percent, basically foreclosing access to the U.S. market 

几乎在全部案件中,都有重要的中国生产商受到超过50%倾销幅度的认定,这 

基本上阻止了其进入美国市场。 




55 

56 

28

AD Cases: The Agencies 

反倾销案件:政府机构 

Two U.S. Federal Agencies are involved in the investigation: 

两个美国联邦政府机构会介入调查 

– Department of Commerce (DOC) 

商务部(DOC) 

Measures amount, if any, of price discrimination, based upon 

collection of extensive sales, price, and cost information 根据收 

集到的多方面的销售、价格、 

成本信息确定可能存在的价格歧视的幅度 

– International Trade Commission (ITC) 

国际贸易委员会(ITC) 

Determines existence of material injury or threat thereof, based 

on information collected from both U.S. and foreign companies 

根据从美国和国外公司收集的信息,确定是否存在实质性损害 

或实质性损害威胁 


AD Cases: Period Examined 

反倾销案件:审查期间 

The Period of Investigation (“POI”) 

and the Collected Data Will 

Normally Cover One Year at the 

DOC, and Three Years at the ITC. 

The ITC Has Discretion to Use a 

Different POI, If Appropriate. 

调查期间和收集数据通常要在商务 

部持续一年,在国际贸易委员会持 

续3年。国际贸易委员会有自由裁 

量权在适当的情况下采用不同的调 

查期间。 




2010 

57 

58 

29

AD Cases: Timing of Events 

反倾销案件:时间顺序 

ITC 

Preliminary 

Decision 

国际贸易委员 

会初步决定 

Questionnaire 

issue 

发布问卷调查 

Questionnaire 

Responses due 

规定期限内收回卷 

调查 

Supplemental 

Questionnaire 

Issued发布补充问 

卷调查 

Supplemental 

Response Due 

规定期限内收回补 

充问卷调查 


DOC 

Preliminary 

Decision 

商务部初步决定 

Publication of F.R. Notice 

发布联邦公告通知 

Disclosure 

披露 

Ministerial Error Correction 

纠正内阁错误 

Suspension of Liquidation (if 

affirmative) 

暂停完税通关(若确定为倾销) 

Verification/Verification 

Reports Issued 

发布查证报告 

Case Briefs/Rebuttal Briefs 

案件简报/反驳简报 

Hearings 

听证 

AD Cases: The Schedule 

反倾销案件:进程 

Petition 

控诉 


DOC 

Final 

Decision 

商务部最终决定 

Publication of F.R. 

发布联邦公告 

Disclosure 

披露 

Ministerial Error 

Corrections 

纠正内阁错误 

Suspension of 

Liquidation 

(continues or lifted) 

暂停完税通关(继续 

或取消) 



ITC 

Final 

Decision 


会最终决定 

Antidumping Duty 

Order 

反倾销税命令 

Suspension of 

Liquidation 

(continues or lifted) 

暂停完税通关(继 

续或取消) 

Statutory Time Frame for Antidumping Duty Investigations 

(without extensions) 

反倾销调查的法定时间期限(未延长情况下) 

20 Days 

from 

Petition 

自控诉起 

20天 

Initiation 

启动 

45 Days 

from 

Petition 

自控诉起 

45天 

ITC Prelim. 

Determination 


会初步决定 

160 Days 

from 

Petition 

自控诉起 

160天 

DOC Prelim. 

Determination 

商务部 

初步决定 

75 Days 

from 

DOC Prelim. 

自商务部初步决定起 

75天 

DOC Final 

Determination 

商务部 

最终决定 

7 Days from 

ITC Final 

从国际贸易委员会 

最终决定起7天 

45 Days 

from 

DOC Final 

59 

自商务部最终决定起 

45天 

ITC Final 

Determination 


最终决定 

Order 

命令 

60 

30

AD Cases: Steps Along the Way (ITC) 

反倾销案件:步骤(国际贸易委员会) 

The ITC Proceeding Involves Two Separate Stages 

国际贸易委员会程序包含两个阶段 

At the preliminary stage, the ITC will issue questionnaires to develop information regarding 

whether there is a “reasonable indication” of injury, or threat thereof, and whether that injury is 

“by reason of” imports. It will also evaluate whether imports of the subject merchandise are 

“negligible” for any countries. 在初步阶段,国际贸易委员会发布调查问卷,收集信息来确定是否有合理迹象表明 

存在损害或损害威胁,且该损害是否由进口引起。同时还要评估,该货物进口对于本国来说是否是可以忽略不计的。 

– Parties will file comments for the ITC’s consideration and participate in a Staff Conference. 

当事方将对国家贸易委员会的考量发表意见,并参与工作人员会议 

At the final stage, the ITC issues new questionnaires covering an updated period. A Staff 

Report is prepared that compiles all the data. 在最终阶段,国际贸易委员会发布新的调查问卷,涵盖更新期 

间的情况。准备包含所有数据的工作人员报告。 

– Parties participate in a public hearing before the Commission, which will determine whether there is 

injury, or threat thereof, “by reason of” subject imports. 当事方参加委员会的公开听证,这将决定是否存在由 

进口引起的损害或损害威胁。 


AD Cases: Steps Along the Way (ITC) 

反倾销案件:步骤(国际贸易委员会) 

Factors Considered by the ITC 

国际贸易委员会考虑的因素 

Volume Analysis 进口量分析 

– Whether subject import volumes have increased significantly 产品的进口量是否明显增加 

– Whether subject imports are taking market share from the U.S. industry 

进口是否占据了美国工业的市场份额 

Pricing Analysis 价格分析 

– Underpricing by subject imports 进口产品抑价 

– Price suppression or depression 压低市场价格、价格受抑 

– Lost sales 销量降低 

Impact 影响 

– Analysis of financial performance of U.S. industry 分析对美国工业的经济的影响 

– Whether the U.S. industry is “vulnerable” to injury 美国工业是否容易受到损害 

– Whether the subject imports are the “cause” of any injury being suffered 

国内工业遭受损害是否由进口所致 




61 

62 

31

AD Cases: Steps Along the Way (DOC) 

反倾销案件:步骤(商务部) 

The DOC Proceeding Also Involves Two Separate Stages 

商务部程序同样包含两个阶段 

At the preliminary stage, the DOC issues questionnaires to the foreign producers/exporters 

and related U.S. importers soliciting information about corporate structure, U.S. and foreign 

market sales, and related expenses and cost information. 

在初步决定阶段,商务部向外国生产商/出口商和相关美国进口商发出调查问卷,征求有关公司 

结构、美国和外国市场销售和相关费用和成本信息。 

– If the DOC makes an affirmative preliminary determination, imports entering the United 

States following publication of the determination are subject to “suspension of 

liquidation” and must be accompanied by a bond or cash deposit. 若商务部作出了肯定 

的初步决定,在决定作出后进口到美国的货物就会“暂停完税通关”,且必须有担保或 

现金担保。 

– If it make a negative preliminary determination but an affirmative final determination, 

suspension of liquidation begins following publication of the final determination 若商务 

部作出了否定的初步决定却作出了肯定的的最终决定,暂停完税通关在发布最终判决 

后开始实施。 


AD Cases: Steps Along the Way (DOC) 

反倾销案件:步骤(商务部) 

The DOC Proceeding (continued) 

商务部程序(续) 

If it has not done so prior to its preliminary determination, the DOC conducts an on-site 

verification to evaluate the submissions.若在初步决定前未对提交资料进行评估,商务部进 

行实地查证来评估提交材料 

After the DOC publishes a verification report, parties may submit briefs and request a public 

hearing to dispute all or part of the preliminary determination. 商务部公布查证报告后,涉 

案方可提交简述并要求一个公开听证来解决初步决定中的全部或部分问题 

The DOC then issues its final determination. If the DOC’s final determination is negative, the 

investigation is ended; if it is affirmative, the case continues at the ITC. 商务部发 

布最终决定。若商务部的最终决定是否定的,调查结束;若肯定了倾销,案件继续到国际 

贸易委员会。 




63 

64 

32

AD Cases: Special DOC Rules for Non-Market Non Market 

Economies (includes China) 反倾销案件: 

非市场经济(包括中国)的特别规定 

– Actual costs of inputs for Chinese companies 

generally are not considered to be “market” prices, 

so DOC uses an alternative methodology. 

中国公司的实际生产原材料的成本价格不被认为是 

“市场”价格,因此商务部采取另外的方法计算。 

– Analysis based upon information provided by 

individual respondents regarding the various inputs 

to the subject merchandise, which are valued using 

“surrogate values” from a country that is considered 

to be at a comparable level of development (often 

India) 根据被控方提供的制造产品的原材料,通过相似 

发展水平的国家(常为印度)的“替代价值”来分析产品正 

常价格 

– This special “non-market economy” methodology can 

result in very high margins 该特定的“非市场经济”方法 

会计算出很高的倾销幅度 


AD Cases: Verification 

反倾销案件:查证 

The DOC Verification 

商务部查证 

The statute requires the DOC to verify all information relied upon in making a final determination 

in an antidumping duty investigation. 

法律规定商务部在反倾销税调查中,必须查证所有最终决定所依据的信息。 

The Petitioner cannot attend, but does get the right to comment on verification exhibits at the 

end of verification. 

请求人不能参与查证,但是有权对查证后的公示发表评论。 

The objectives of a verification: 查证的目的: 

– gain a better understanding of Respondents’ operations; 

更好的理解被控方的运作 

– verify the accuracy and completeness of the data submitted in the response; and 

查证提交的答复的正确性和完整性 

– verify the data submitted was prepared in accordance with law, regulation and DOC’s 

policies.查证提交的数据符合法律、法规和商务部政策的规定 




65 

66 

33

AD Cases: Final Determinations 

反倾销案件:最终决定 

Effect of Negative DOC Final Determination: 

商务部否定的最终决定: 

– Termination of investigation. 

终止调查 

Effect of Affirmative DOC Final Determination: 

商务部肯定的最终判决: 

– Company-specific estimated dumping margins 

对指定公司评估倾销幅度 

– ITC conducts final injury determination 

国际贸易委员会最终确定是否存在损害 


AD Cases: Orders 

反倾销案件:命令 

Effect Of An Order 

命令的效果 

Entries have to pay duties at the ad valorem rate calculated by the DOC 

入关需要根据商务部计算出的从价税率计算关税 

Individual companies in the future may have to participate in annual administrative 

reviews to recalculate the duty rate 

在将来,公司个体会参加年度行政审查来重新计算关税率 

Duties to be paid by the importer of record 

记录在案的进口商要支付关税 

Orders generally remain in place for many years, with limited ability to revoke them 

(generally as part of five-year sunset reviews) 

命令通常会多年有效,并少有可能被撤销(通常作为5年日落审查的一部分) 




67 

68 

34

Countervailing Duty Cases: 

The Proceedings 反补贴案件:程序 

DOC 

Conducts case similarly to AD case, but 

instead of calculating the dumping 

margin, the DOC calculates the degree of 

subsidization 

商务部 

类似反倾销案件,但不是计算反倾销幅 

度,而是计算补贴幅度 

ITC 

Conducts the same analysis as in a 

dumping case 


进行与反倾销案件相同的分析 


CVD Cases: DOC Determinations 

反补贴案件:商务部决定 

Elements of a Countervailable Subsidy 

反补贴的要素 

A “subsidy” is a financial contribution, provided directly or indirectly by a foreign 

government, which confers a “benefit” on a recipient. Includes grants, belowmarket 

loans, tax exemptions, export rebates, etc. 

补贴是外国政府直接或间接提供的经济援助,会使接受者受益。包括补助金、 

低于市场汇率的贷款、税务减免、出口补贴等。 

The subsidy must be provided to a “specific” enterprise or industry, or group of 

enterprises or industries 

补贴必须是提供给特定的公司或工业。 

Where a subsidy is provided, the DOC determines a subsidy rate for each producer 

提供补贴的情况下,商务部确定每个生产商的补贴率。 




69 

70 

35

CVD Cases: Administrative Procedures 

反补贴案件:行政程序 

Although the statute provides for quicker deadlines for CVD 

cases, in nearly all cases where simultaneous CVD and AD 

cases are filed the government ends up aligning the cases to 

follow the AD deadlines 

虽然法律为反补贴案件提供了快速解决期限,但是几乎所有 

与反倾销案件一起提交的反补贴案件中,反补贴案件都在反 

倾销案件的最终期限结案 

As with AD duties, CVD duties can vary greatly depending 

upon individual factual circumstances and degree of effort 

and cooperation put into place by individual companies 

同反倾销税一样,反补贴税可以根据个体实际情况和每个公 

司的努力和合作情况而有很大的差别。 





Steven J. Rizzi 

Partner 


90 Park Avenue 

Suite 600 

New York, NY 10016 

Phone: (202) 687-2329 

Email: srizzi@foley.com 



71 

72 

36

后金融危机时代企业如何打造提升 

中国品牌走向国际市场? 

中国品牌走向国际市场 


美国富理达律师事务所 

上海管理合伙人暨亚洲区负责人 

孙嘉鸿 (Catherine Catherine Sun) 律师 

演讲内容提要 

企业品牌的重要性 

商标的申请、使用、管理策略 

商标许可的运用 

海外收购当地企业、知名品牌 

网络下品牌扩张的新途径 




版权所有2009-2010 

用于教学目的,任何引用非商业使用 

1 

2 

1

什么是品牌? 

品牌是多元的知识产权的结合体,其标志是一种名 

称、术语、标记、符号或图案,或是它们的相互组 

合,用以识别企业提供给某个或某群消费者的产品 

或服务,并使之与竟争对手的产品或服务相区别。 

品牌的价值取决于社会公众评价和消费者认同。 

品牌是市场经济条件下企业核心价值之一 

– 直接进入市场交锋 

– 接受社会评价 

– 决定市场份额 


品牌的重要性 

构建品牌形象是踏入国际市场重要一步。 

企业自主创新、知识产权建设、营销都要落实到品 

牌建设上。 

品牌的价值是巨大的,又是脆弱的。从某种意义上 

讲,品牌是消费者对企业的信赖价值。 

品牌的培育依靠技术,质量、诚信、社会责任和更 

多 

每个中国企业必须对消费者信守承诺,否则,经营 

多年的品牌将付之东流,还会对国内其它品牌产生 

负面影响。(如,三鹿奶粉) 




3 

4 

2

财富500 财富 500强中国公司榜上有名 

强中国公司榜上有名 

9 

13 

15 

92 

99 

109 

125 

133 

145 

155 


133 

148 

132 

171 

159 

187 

223 

国家电网公司 

中国工商银行 

中国移动通信集团公司 

鸿海科技集团 

中国建设银行 

中国人寿保险(集团)公司 

中国银行 

中国农业银行 



16 

25 

24 

中国石油化工集团公司 

中国石油天然气集团公司 

2009年全球品牌价值排行榜 

2009年全球品牌价值排行榜 

排名 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 


2008年排 

名 

3 

4 

6 

8 

7 

5 

2 

11 

10 

谷歌Google 

微软Microsoft 

IBM 

麦当劳McDonald's 

苹果Apple 

中国移动China Mobile 

通用GE 

上述数据为:品牌和市场调查公司Millward 

Brown Optimor 发布 

1 

品牌名称 

可口可乐Coca-Cola 

沃达丰Vodafone 

万宝路Marlboro 

09品牌价值 

(百万美元) 

100,039 

76,249 

67,625 

66,622 

66,575 

63,113 

61,283 

59,793 

53,727 

49,460 

5 

6 

3

中国品牌现状 

世界上随处可见“Made in China”的标签,但却少有 

世界闻名的中国品牌。 

据Interbrand公司的调查报告 

– 中国产品给人以价格低廉的感觉,但是消费者同 

时也会产生产品质量和安全性的担忧。 

– 甚至,59%的参与调查人认为,在产品上标 

明”Made in China”会损害中国品牌。因此,只有 

全体中国企业共同努力改变现状,才能够创建出 

中国的世界名牌。 


中国品牌走向国际所面临的障碍 

上述数据来自Interbrand公司报告 




7 

8 

4

消费者关注=企业的品牌目标 

消费者关注企业的品牌目标 


商标的特点 


上述数据来源于Interbrand公司报告 

商标是品牌的重要载体之一,是用以区别所提 

供商品或服务的一种标记。 

– 显著性 

– 独占性 

– 地域性 

价值 

– 无形资产(可转让、许可、投资等) 

– 长期投入的积累 



9 

10 

5

商标的选择 

尽量选择独创性(柯达)、启发性商标(奔驰)商 

标;避免描述性、通用名称式商标 

选择易记、易读商标 

注意不同国家的文化、避免具有负面含义的外文商 

标 

– 孔雀牌(不易直译,因为英文中孔雀被视为自傲、 

自满、带来厄运) 

– 荷花牌(荷花在日本是死亡、不吉利的象征) 

– 芳芳牌(拼音“FANG”在英文中的意思为“毒牙”) 


商标申请的选择 

选择申请的商标 

– 商号 

– 家族商标、产品系列品牌 

– 防御商标 

选择商标申请国 

– 主要经营市场 

– 近3-5年内可能会进入的国家 

很多国家地区适用“先申请原则”,如果不提早进行注册, 

商标可能会被抢注。 

选择商标申请时间 

– 尽早申请(商标公开前) 

大多数国家在申请商标时不需要提供使用商标的证明 




11 

12 

6

商标清查检索 (clearance) clearance) 

商标设计阶段即开始初步检索 

– 法律部门尽早介入(公司法务部门或外部律师) 

– 保持设计部门和法律部门的充分沟通 

– 备选商标、注册国家 

针对可能出现的问题,事先做出风险分析、获得许 

可 

使用商标前,要注意进行全面商标清查,避免出现 

侵犯他人商标权行为。否则一旦确认侵权,不但前 

期投入付之东流,还将面临赔偿的诉讼。 

走向国际商标更名 

– 联想将其英文商标由Legend变更为Lenovo 

– Toyota 从Toyoda改为Toyota 


注册域外商标的途径 

分别在各个国家提出申请 

– 根据巴黎公约要求优先权(6个月) 

提出商标国际注册申请 

– 马德里协定成员国有效 

– 非成员国要另行单独申请 

针对不同国家采取不同的商标策略: 

– 先申请原则(日本、韩国、意大利等)——尽早 

申请注册,防止抢注 

– 先使用原则(美国、英国、加拿大,香港,新加 

坡等)——注意收集使用商标的证据,如果能够 

尽早申请仍应尽早申请 




13 

14 

7

我国企业内外商标申请差距悬殊 

截至2008年,通过马德里商标国际注册体系到中国申 

请注册的海外商标总量已达13万多件,而中国企业通 

过该体系到外国申请注册的商标总数还不到1万件。 

截至2009年6月30号,我国注册商标总量已达677万件 

,商标注册申请量连续7年位居世界第一。但我国企业 

通过马德里商标国际注册体系到国外申请注册商标总量 

仅8985件。 

截至2008年,来华注册商标的国家和地区已有130多 

个,累计注册商标53万多件。 


我国的马德里商标申请量 

申请量 

45000 

40000 

35000 

30000 

25000 

20000 

15000 

10000 

5000 

0 


23853 

马德里体系商标国际注册申请量中国的马德里商标申请量 



29459 

33565 

36471 

39945 

473 1015 1334 1328 1444 

2003(2%) 2004(3.4%) 2005(4%) 

年份 

2006(3.6%) 2007(3.6%) 

15 

16 

8

马德里商标申请 

优点 

– 成员国多 

截止2008年12月8日 ,马德里联盟共有84个成员国 

– 费用较低——官方申请费用 

中国商标局手续费280人民币 

基础注册费:653瑞士法郎(黑白商标图样)、903瑞士法郎 

(彩色商标图样)。超过三类以上,每类的附加注册费为100瑞 

士法郎。 

马德里成员国的指定注册费100瑞士法郎。协议书成员国指定费 

用不等。详见世界知识产权组织网站:www.wipo.int 

– 节省时间 

申请人只要拿到了国家工商总局商标局发出的受理通知书,就可 

以办理马德里商标国际注册的手续。 

– 手续简单 


马德里商标申请 

缺点 

– 马德里注册必须以获得授权或公告的基础注册 

为前提 

– 无法享受巴黎公约优先权 

– 五年内面临基础商标对其国际注册产生的重大 

影响。如果基础申请被驳回,为免受“中心打击” 

的影响,申请人可根据《议定书》第九条之五 

向被指定缔约方申请,将国际注册转为国家注 

册。 




17 

18 

9

商标在境外遭抢注 

据国家工商总局统计,国内有近15%的知名商标在 

国外遭遇抢注,涉及家电、服装、文化等多个行业。 

(如狗不理、同仁堂、五粮液、海信等) 

抢注中国商标的目的: 

– 阻止中国企业进入该国市场 

– 索取高额的商标转让费用 


商标抢注案例 

1999年博世-西门子公司在德国注册“HiSense”商标 

(大写S)。中国海信集团商标为“Hisense”。 

– 博世-西门子曾对该商标提出千万欧元的报价 

– 2004海信在中国市场给予博世-西门子压力 

– 2005年3月,双方和解。博世-西门子同意将在德 

国及欧盟所有地区注册的”HiSense”转让给海信集 

团。 




19 

20 

10

商标抢注案例 

2006年7月,王致和集团到德国注册商标时发现, 

王致和腐乳、调味品、销售服务三类商标被德国欧 

凯公司注册。在双方协商未果后,王致和集团在德 

国慕尼黑地方法院向欧凯公司提起诉讼,追讨其商 

标权。该案经两审后,2009年4月,慕尼黑高等法 

院对作出终审判决,判决欧凯公司不得擅自使用王 

致和商标,欧凯公司注销其恶意抢注的王致和商标。 

欧凯公司还在德国抢注了“洽洽瓜子”、“老干妈”、 

“白家粉丝”、“今麦郎”等中国知名商标。 


被抢注的后果 

商标具有地域性,被抢注企业不得在该国或地区使 

用此商标,否则构成侵权。 

解决办法 

– 高价回购 

– 放弃原商标、另创品牌 

– 通过法律途径撤销被抢注商标 

后果:增加成本、延缓其产品进入市场的时间、降 

低市场份额 




21 

22 

11

商标的使用 

突出使用商标(如:加粗、斜体) 

未获得注册商标权的商标——使用 TM 或 SM 

注册商标——使用® 

结合相关产品或服务使用商标 

采取一致的方式使用商标 

确保商标许可协议适当并可行 

阻止其他人的不当使用 

避免过分不当使用商标——淡化成“通用名称”,例 

如“阿司匹林”、“优盘”(华旗针对朗科公司第 

1509704号“优盘”商标提出撤销申请 )。 


商标的管理 

商标资产 

– 集中管理?分别管理? 

– 谁为新的商标权利人、申请人? 

– 合资企业的商标所有权归属? 

– 商标的许可 

– 潜在风险 

制定商标的使用政策 

监测商标抢注、商标侵权 




23 

24 

12

商标国际化途径 

逐步提升自我品牌国际形象、拓展海外市场 

商标许可协议 

– 提升品牌价值 

– 促进本公司核心领域外市场 

收购当地企业、知名品牌 

– 获得境外商标 

– 获得销售渠道 


商标许可对象的选择 

合作价值、优势 

企业声誉 

市场能力 

销售渠道 

财政状况 

未来价值 




25 

26 

13

商标许可协议的种类 

与第三方产品有关的商标许可 

代理销售合同 

品牌联合(Co-Branding) 

战略性伙伴、合作 


许可协议中的条款 

许可的商标权 

– 许可人权利、被许可产品 

– 许可种类(独占、排他、一般) 

许可地域范围 

商标的使用 

– 使用范围 

– 使用形式 

– 在产品和包装上的位置 

– 相关商标告知 

– 许可人权利、义务 

– 被许可人权利、义务 




27 

28 

14


产品质量控制 

– 检查 

– 批准 

– 不合格终止合同 

– 符合行业标准、地方法规等 

费用条款 

市场拓展 

被许可人担保——产品责任 



被许可人承诺与担保 

许可人承诺与担保 

合同终止权利 

违约责任 

税费 




29 

30 

15

品牌联合(Co 

品牌联合( Co-Branding Branding) 

品牌联合,指两个或者两个以上公司的品牌同时出 

现在一个产品上,这是一种伴随着市场激烈竞争而 

出现的新型品牌商业合作策略,并且被越来越多的 

使用。 

– 不同领域的联合:Nike + Ipod;国航知音卡为国 

航和中银(香港)信用卡公司联合 

– 同领域联合:浦发银行+Citi信用卡 

寻找联合品牌主要考虑:品牌、渠道、目标消费群 

对我国企业打开国外市场来说,在出口产品上打上 

自主品牌和外国经销商品牌,借助其知名度,逐渐 

使外国消费者认可自主品牌。 




优点在于合作双方互相利用对方品牌的优势,提高 

自己品牌的知名度,从而扩大销量额,同时节约了 

各自产品进入市场的时间和费用。 

缺点在于自我品牌可能受损、双方受益不均,或欲 

提升自我品牌却为他人作嫁衣。 

品牌联合协议所涉众多,较为复杂。 

– 涵盖品牌范围、市场策略、许可条款、费用、担 

保、保证、赔偿、保密条款等 




31 

32 

16



案例: 

– 2004年TCL与阿尔卡特成立合资公司。合资公司 

可以在成立起6年内免费使用阿尔卡特商标。后 

又签署了延长阿尔卡特商标使用权10年的协议, 

按照协议可继续使用阿尔卡特商标到2024年。 

– 2004年,联想收购IBM个人电脑业务,联想在 

一定期限内可根据协议使用IBM ThinkPad商标。 

– 2008年北京奥运会期间,作为奥运会的全球赞 

助商:联想与可口可乐双方联合发动名为“揭金 

盖,畅饮畅赢,欢享我的数码世界”的全国性促 

销活动。可口可乐在外包装上均印有联想的Logo 

和带有自身品牌标志以及标准色红色的联想笔记 


本电脑 

海外收购当地企业、知名品牌 

迅速获得国际通行证 

获得先进技术 

便于开发自我品牌市场 

获得成熟的销售渠道 

产品本地化 




33 

34 

17

收购并购中的问题 

交易意向书(Term Sheet)中要写明知识产权转移 

安排 

– 什么转让 

– 什么许可 

– 什么交叉许可 

– 第三方知识产权的安排 

尽职调查 

– 在签意向书前最好已做尽职调查 

– 尽快谈判要转让的知识产权 

– 注册知识产权列表 (scheduling registered IP) 

非注册商标 

– 描述非列表的知识产权 (describe unschedulable 

©2010 Foley & Lardner LLP IP) 

尽职调查商标问题列表 

List and copies of all trademarks and service marks (including logos, designs and slogans), (hereinafter collectively referred 

to as "Mark(s)") and trade names owned, exploited or planned to be owned or exploited by Target Company; all registrations 

and applications therefor; information including Mark, country/state, application and registration numbers, date(s) of 

application and registration, International and local classes (as applicable), and descriptions of goods/services in 

connection with which such Marks and/or services are used. 

Copies of promotional and marketing material, including all print and audiovisual advertisements, brochures, Internet web 

sites, and other marketing materials and promotional documents used by Target Company, and including those of third 

parties which evidence Target Company's use of its own and third party Marks and trade names. 

Copies of all Mark registrability, validity, and/or infringement searches opinions pertaining to third party Marks and trade 

names. 

Copies of all Mark registrability, validity, and/or infringement searches opinions requested by Target Company pertaining to 

Target Company Marks and trade names or otherwise pertaining to the business. 

Search in relevant jurisdiction(s) trademark, trade name and domain name registries in the name of Target Company and 

for all Target Company's Marks and trade names and for dominating and any potentially infringing Marks and trade names. 

Search on the Internet for use by third parties of all Marks and trade names. 

List and copies of all agreements pertaining to Target Company's exploitation of third party Marks and trade names; 

information regarding each, including specification of subject Mark(s) or trade name(s), and date of such agreement(s). 

List and copies of all agreements pertaining to third party exploitation of Target Company's Mark(s) and/or trade name(s); 

information regarding each, including specification of subject Mark(s) and/or trade name(s), and date of such 

agreement(s). 

All documents pertaining to disputes involving Target Company or third party Marks and trade names or otherwise 

pertaining to the business, including Mark and/or trade name involved, plaintiff party(ies), adverse party(ies), dates, 

locations and disposition or resolution of dispute. 




35 

36 

18

保证、担保和补偿 

知识产权(列表与非列表)正确、充分 

所有权 

– 独占、专有权利 

– 非专有权利 

无未决知识产权侵权 

诉讼风险和以往诉讼纠纷 

– 所有相关信息都已披露 

– 被收购方于第三方的许可协议是否有可能涉及到 

知识产权纠纷 

补偿总是有限的,做好尽职调查,充分了解并购知识 

产权的价值和风险是最关键的。 


收购并购中的问题 

知识产权谈判 

交易手段 

知识产权交易文件 

– 资产收购协议(Asset Purchase Agreement) 

– 主保密协议(Master Confidentiality Agreement) 

– 单独知识产权协议(Individual IP Agreement) 

– 过渡期服务协议(Transitional Service 

Agreement) 

– 人力资源协议(Human Resource Agreement) 

并购后知识产权整合 

知识产权登记 




37 

38 

19

针对破产企业商标收购 

美国破产法将商标排除在破产知识产权外。因此, 

在公司破产时,仍可以进行商标转让。 

此转让应为善意的 

放弃商标的风险 


案例 

– 破产清算阶段商标临时终止 

2004年,联想收购IBM个人电脑业务,获得PC业 

务和Think Pad商标使用权。 

2005年,维科集团收购日本著名毛毯品牌 

“KOYO”,全盘接收该品牌运营。 

2007年,宁波永发集团斥资190万欧元收购欧洲知 

名保险箱品牌“COFFRES-FORTS SOLON”和该品牌旗 

下的全部销售网络。 




39 

40 

20

案例 

2008年,雅戈尔以1.2亿美元收购了美国五大服装 

巨头之一KELL WOOD公司旗下男装业务——新马集 

团。获得Nautica、Perry Ellis等五个授权许可品牌; 

一个通达美国数百家百货公司在内的销售网点的销 

售渠道。 

2009年,浙江新杰克缝纫机股份有限公司在德国成 

功收购了两家裁床企业奔马和拓卡。全面接手原品 

牌和营销网络等无形资产。 


案例 

2009年,海尔集团与斐雪派克在达成认购协 

议,并在全球范围内共享双方市场资源、供 

应链资源,发展高端家电产品,为用户提供 

解决方案。此计划完成后,海尔将获得该公 

司20%的股份,成为该公司新的大股东。 




41 

42 

21

网络下品牌扩张的新途径 

注册商标域名 

– 选择含有商标名称的域名 

– 注册与其相同、相似域名 

– 注册不同后缀的域名(如:”.com”; “.com.cn”; 

“.net”) 

– 避免在域名中使用其他公司商标 

– 如果你的域名中含有其他公司商标,至少在网页 

中对此作出声明 

网络技术的使用 

– Meta Tag、关键词广告 


总结提问 

Catherine Sun (孙嘉鸿律师) 

美国富理达律师事务所 

上海管理合伙人亚太区负责人 

联系电话:021-6100-8900 

电邮:csun@foley.com 

网址:foley.com 




43 

44 

22

Patent Leadership: the Roles of 

China, the United States and the IP5 

专利领导: 

中国、美国和五局会议的角色 

“Safeguarding Your Critical Innovation in China, the United States and Beyond 

– a High-level Forum on China and U.S. IP Protection” 

“在中国、美国及更多地方保护你的重要创新- 

中美知识产权保护高层论坛” 

June 24, 2010 2010年6月24日 

Dongguan, China 中国,东莞 

Sharon Barner 白莎朗 

Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Deputy 

Director 

美国商务部知识产权事务副部长帮办兼美国专利商标局副局长 

USPTO 

Outline 

大纲 

• IP and economic growth 

知识产权和经济发展 

• USPTO office challenges – backlog and pendency 

美国专利商标局面临的挑战 – 案件的积压和审限 

• How USPTO is addressing these challenges 

美国专利商标局如何应对 

– Three-track option, Green Technology Pilot, Application 

Exchange Program, etc. 

三轨方案;绿色技术试点;申请交换项目等 

– Work Sharing工作分配 

• Patent Prosecution Highway专利审查高速公路 

• IP5 五局会议 

• Role of USPTO in domestic and international IP policy 

美国专利商标局在国内和国际知识产权政策中的角色 

• USPTO China team美国专利商标局中国团队 

1 

2

IP and Economic Growth – US Experience 

知识产权和经济发展 – 美国的经验 

• US businesses that rely most heavily on IP account for $5 trillion of 

GDP 

美国经济业务大量依赖于知识产权 --5万亿美元的国内生产总值 

– employing 18 million workers雇用了一千八百万工人 

– account for 50% of US exports占美国出口的 50% 

• Nexus between IP and economic development – the US experience 

知识产权和经济发展的关系 – 美国的经验 

– Deep economic recession in the 1970s 

上世纪70年代的经济衰退 

– US launched program in 1978 to review innovation process 

美国1978年启动了回顾创新过程的项目 

• Led to creation of CAFC导致了联邦巡回上诉法院 (CAFC)的创立 

• Important legislation including Bayh-Dole and Hatch-Waxman 

legislation重要的立法包括拜杜法案和Hatch-Waxman法案 

– Result: US reclaimed its place as the leader in every field of 

innovation 

结果: 美国在各个领域的革新处于世界领先地位 

Introduction to USPTO 

美国专利商标局介绍 

• Established in 1790 

成立于1790年 

• Office within the US Department of Commerce 

美国商务部下的单位 

• Located in Alexandria, VA, suburb of Washington, D.C. 

位于首都华盛顿郊区 

• 9700 employees as of February 2010 

2010年2月,共有9700名雇员 

• Fully fee funded since 1993 

自1993年资金全部到位 

3 

4

Applications 

40.0 

38.0 

36.0 

34.0 

32.0 

30.0 

28.0 

26.0 

24.0 

22.0 

10/31/2008 

770,000 

760,000 

750,000 

740,000 

730,000 

720,000 

710,000 

700,000 

690,000 

680,000 

11/30/2008 

USPTO Challenges: Backlog 

美国专利商标局面临的挑战:积压 

FY 2009 – FY 2010 (year-to-date) 

2009财年-2010财年(截至目前) 

Backlog 

USPTO Challenges: Pendency 

美国专利商标局面临的挑战:审限 

First Action Pendency and Total Pendency 

第一次审查意见通知书的审限及整体审限 

12/31/2008 

1/31/2009 

2/28/2009 

3/31/2009 

4/30/2009 

5/31/2009 

6/30/2009 

7/31/2009 

8/31/2009 

9/30/2009 

10/31/2009 

11/30/2009 

12/31/2009 

First Action Pendency Total Pendency 

2010 First Action Pendency Target (25.4 Months) 2010 Total Pendency Target (34.8 Months) 

1/31/2010 

2/28/2010 

3/31/2010 

4/30/2010 

5/31/2010 

5 

6

Pendency (months) 

36.0 

34.0 

32.0 

30.0 

28.0 

26.0 

24.0 

22.0 

20.0 

18.0 

16.0 

14.0 

12.0 

10.0 

1999 

USPTO Challenges: Pendency 

美国专利商标局面临的挑战:审限 

First Action Pendency and Total Pendency 

第一次审查意见通知书的审限及整体审限 (1999--now) 

2000 

Average First Action Pendency and Total 

Pendency 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

Fiscal Year 

2007 

2008 

2009 

5/31/2010 

Average Total Pendency Average First Action Pendency 

Addressing the Challenges 

应对挑战 

• Pre-first action interview program 

第一次审查意见通知书前的审查项目 

• Green technology pilot program 

绿色技术试点项目 

• Three-track option 

三轨方案 

• Re-engineering the count system 

改建计数系统 

• Application exchange program 

申请交换项目 

7 

8

Work Sharing 

工作分享 

• What is it: 

什么是工作分享: 

– Re-using the work of another office for duplicate 

applications to the extent possible 

针对重复申请,在可能的范围内使用其他专利局的工 

作成果 

• Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) 

专利审查高速公路 

• IP5 五局会议 

World-wide Patent Filings 

Utility/Invention Patent Applications (2000-2009) 

Number 

2000000 

1800000 

1600000 

1400000 

1200000 

1000000 

800000 

600000 

400000 

200000 

0 

Yearly Utility Patent Filings 2000-2009 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

Year 

US 

China 

World 

9 

10

PPH: Fast Track Examination of Applications 

专利审查高速公路: 

审查申请的快速路径 

• What is PPH? 

– When claims are determined to be allowable in the 

Office of First Filing (OFF), a corresponding 

application with corresponding claims filed in the 

Office of Second Filing (OSF) may be advanced out 

of turn 

• What is the Purpose of PPH? 

– OSF can utilize the search and examination results of 

the OFF thereby avoiding duplication of work and 

expediting the examination process in the OSF 

Current and Planned PPH Programs 

目前的和计划中的专利审查高速公路项目 

JPO (full production 2008)日本专利局 

KIPO (full production 2009)韩国专利局 

Australia (IPAU)澳大利亚知识产权局 

Canada (CIPO)加拿大知识产权局 

Denmark (DKPTO)丹麦专利商标局 

European Patent Office (EPO)欧洲专利局 

Finland (NBPR)芬兰专利局 

Germany (DPMA)德国专利局 

Singapore (IPOS)新加坡知识产权局 

United Kingdom (UK IPO)英国知识产权局 

Trilateral PCT-PPH (January 2010)三边 PCT- 

PPH 

Rospatent (in discussions)俄罗斯专利局 (讨论 

中) 

Hungary (in discussions)匈牙利(讨论中) 

Spain (in discussions) 西班牙 (讨论中) 

11 

12

DKPTO 

NBPR 

APO 

Jul. 2009 

GPTO 

ROSPATENT 

Nov. 2008 

Jul. 2008 

Apr. 2009 

Mar. 2008 

Oct. 2009 

Jul. 2009 

Apr. 2009 

A Snapshot of the Expanding PPH 

Network (May 2009) 扩大中的PPH网络(2009年5月) 

Aug. 2009 

HPO 

May 2009 

JPO 

Nov. 2009 

Mar. 2009 

Apr. 2007 

KIPO 

Oct. 2009 

Jul. 2007 

Jul. 2006 

Jul. 2009 

Jan. 2008 

Sep. 2007 

Feb. 2009 

IPOS 

UKIPO 

USPTO 

Oct. 2009 

Apr. 2008 

Sep. 2008 

Jan 2010 

Jan. 2008 

IP5: Cross Filing Applications 

2006 Cross filing Applications among IP5 Offices 

IP Australia 

CIPO 

EPO 

: full implementation 

: pilot implementation 

: under consideration 

13 

14

IP5 五局会议 

• Comprising the 5 largest patent offices: USPTO, EPO, JPO, KIPO, 

SIPO 

由最大的5家专利局组成: 美国专利商标局、欧洲专利局、日本专利局、 

韩国知识产权局、中国国家知识产权局 

• Established in May 2007 

成立于2007年5月 

• Focused on work sharing and information technology 

专注于工作分享和信息技术 

• Agreed to work on 10 Foundation Projects involving common work 

tools, such as common search databases, common search strategies, 

common application format, common recordation procedures 

同意致力于十项与共同工作业务有关的基础项目:如共同检索资料库、 

共同检索策略、共同申请表格、共同备案程序 

• Next large scale meeting in Japan 2011 

下一次大型会议将于2011年在日本举行 

Challenges: High Litigation Costs 

挑战:高诉讼费用 

• AIPLA survey shows upward trend in patent litigation costs 

美国知识产权法学会调查显示专利诉讼费用呈上升趋势 

– Single defendant in a case with only one patent at issue: 

一个案件仅涉及一项专利一个被告: 

• Costs through discovery phase在证据开示阶段的费用: 

– 2007 -- $1.6 million 160万美元 

– 2009 -- $1.8 million 180万美元 

• Total costs, including outside counsel, paralegals, experts, etc. 

总费用,包括外聘律师,法律助理,专家等: 

– 2007 -- $2.6 million 260万美元 

– 2009 -- $3.1 million 310万美元 

See: http://rpxcorp.com/blog/?tag=aipla 

15 

16

Challenges: High Litigation Costs 

挑战:高诉讼费用 

• AIPLA survey – continued 

美国知识产权法学会调查(续) 

– Litigation with greater than $25 million in damages 

at risk 赔偿额高于2500万美元的诉讼风险 

• Average legal costs through discovery 证据开示期间的 

平均法律费用: 

– 2007 -- $3.3 million 330万美元 

– 2009 -- $3.7 million 370万美元 

• All inclusive costs to conclusion 至结案时的总费用: 

– 2007 -- $5.5 million 550万美元 

– 2009 -- $6.2 million 620万美元 

Challenges: Non Practicing Entities 

挑战:非专利使用实体 

• What is a non practicing entity? 

什么是非专利使用实体? 

– Firms that obtain patents on technology they have 

developed, or invest money in buying patents from others. 

就其发展的技术获取专利或投资从他方买入专利的公司 

• Must look at the historic perspective 

必须从历史的角度来看 

– Thomas Edison was a non-practicing entity! 

托马斯爱迪生是非专利使用实体! 

• Non practicing entities have a place in our patent system and 

should continue to be able to practice their business model. 

非专利使用实体在我们的专利体系中有他们的一席之地,而且应 

该能够继续实践他们的商业模式 

17 

18

USPTO Office of External Affairs 

USPTO外部事务办公室 

• USPTO Director has three main duties: 

USPTO局长的三个主要职责: 

– Director of the USPTO – granting and issuing patents and 

registration of trademarks. 

美国专利商标局局长--授予及颁布专利、商标注册。 

– Director of the USPTO - the dissemination to the public of patent 

and TM information. 

美国专利商标局局长—向公众传播专利及商标信息。 

– Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property – provide 

advice to the President, through DOC, and other Federal agencies 

on national and international intellectual property policy issues. 

商务部副部长(知识产权事务)-- 就国内及国际知识产权政策通过 

商务部向总统提供建议,向其他联邦机构提供建议。 

OEA – What does it do? 

OEA (外部事务办公室)– 它做什么? 

• Develop, negotiate, and maintain multilateral systems for protection 

and enforcement of IP rights (e.g. treaties). 

发展、谈判、维系知识产权保护及执法的多边体系(如:国际条约) 

• Assist Department of State: management of U.S. membership in 

various international organizations, such as the World Intellectual 

Property Organization (WIPO). 

协助国务院:管理美国在各国际组织中的成员角色,如在国际知识产权 

组织(WIPO) 

• Provide advice, guidance and assistance on domestic and international 

intellectual property issues to U/S, DOC, USG agencies and the Hill. 

就海内外知识产权事务向副部长、商务部、美国政府组织及国会提供建 

议、指引以及协助 

19 

20

China Team 

中国团队 

• Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade (JCCT) IPR Working Group 

中美商贸联合委员会知识产权工作小组 

– USPTO Director is co-chair USPTO 

美国专利商标局局长是联合主席 

– Meets twice a year 

一年会谈两次 

• Bilateral relationships with SIPO, CTMO, NCAC 

与中国国家知识产权局、商标局、国家版权局的双边合作 

– MOUs and work plans 

合作备忘录及工作计划 

• Public Awareness/Outreach 

公众意识/拓展 

– China Road Shows 

在中国的路演 

– Outreach to congressional staffers and US government officials 

与国会工作人员和美国政府官员的外展接触 

China Team Accomplishments 

中国团队成就 

• Workshops on copyright piracy on the Internet 

互联网版权侵权研讨会 

• “How to File Patents” programs 

“如何申请专利”项目 

• Design patent protection seminar 

外观专利保护论坛 

• Patent examiner training programs and exchanges 

专利审查员培训项目及互换交流 

21 

22

THANK YOU 

www.uspto.gov 

23

Inter Partes - Foley & Lardner LLP

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?