Beijing First Intermediate People's Court Handed Down Judgment on Two  Major Copyright Cases

(1)   Wang Meng, et. al. v. Beijing Online: The Latest development concerning online service providers' copyright liability in China. This is by far the most high-profile case of its kind, and  debates (sometimes highly charged) continue despite the court's final adjudication. See APLI Update, vol. 1. No. 1 (PDF, 260K) for a detailed introduction and analysis.

(2)   Microsoft (China) Ltd. v. Yadu Group: The on-going debate concerning the software end users' copyright liability and Microsoft's disastrous public relations in China -- are or should the Chinese consumers presumed to be thieves who like to pirate Microsoft's software products, as Bill Gates so argued in a widely publicized interview? See APLI Update, vol. 1. No. 2 (PDF, 100K) for a detailed introduction and analysis, including the development of another major software end user's copyright liability case, Pacific Unidata v. Avon Products (Guangzhou), Ltd. (the largest amount in a copyright dispute thus far in China).

    In addition, right before the Microsoft judgment, EMI, Sony Music, Universal Music, Warner Music, and China Record Company (Guangzhou), jointly and under the banner of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), brought suit against two Chinese web sites, "My Web" in Beijing and "Tekson" in Guangzhou, before the Beijing First Intermediate People's Court, challenging the legality of unauthorized reproduction of MP3 files. Recognizing the current law lacks clear guidance on the issue, the plaintiffs sue only $1 for nominal damage.  The real purpose, to infer from plaintiffs' claims, may be to seek a declaratory judgment on the scope of plaintiffs' rights.  If the outcome is indeed favorable to them, real court battles are almost certain to follow.  Stay tune.

    For further analysis and report on China's latest development in intellectual property protection, especially in light of its formal accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001, see Andy Y. Sun, Reforming the Protection of Intellectual Property: The Case of China and Taiwan in Light of WTO Accession,  Maryland Series in Contemporary Asian Studies, No. 4 –2001(165), University of Maryland School of Law (, 614K, copyright  © 2001-03, Andy Y. Sun). 

Revisiting Taiwan's Legal Status in the United States: The Impact of Taiwan Relations Act on Private Disputes , by Professor Andy Y. Sun, Executive Director, APLI; copyright ©1999-2003, Andy Y. Sun.

   1999 marks the 20th anniversary of the Taiwan Relations Act, the backbone of U.S.-Taiwan relations, and in many regards, a critical basis of the relations between the United States and the People's Republic of China as well (along with the "three communiqu廥"). In the past decade, several cases in the United States have once again created renewed interests and questions on Taiwan's status in the United States.  Despite what seems to be clear-cut language of the statute and a series of measures by the executive branch, courts are not exactly uniform in their views on the meanings of the law.  In fact, some of the decisions could potentially have very significant impact on almost every aspect of the Sino-American relations. This can only compound the problems now that the trilateral relations among Washington, D.C., Taipei and Beijing is getting more intricate by the day.  This article provides a thorough review of those highly controversial cases and examine what may be lying ahead for private parties bringing litigations in the United States that have anything to do with Taiwan (PDF file, size: approximately 386K). This article will be published on the Chinese Yearbook of International Law and Affairs, vol. 17 in spring, 2000.

From Pirate King to Jungle King: Transformation of Taiwan's Intellectual Property Protection , by Professor Andy Y. Sun, Executive Director, APLI; copyright © 1997-2003, Andy Y. Sun.

Since the early 1980s, the United States has constantly raised her concerns over Taiwan's intellectual property protection.  Regularly labeled Taiwan as one of the worst place for piracy and counterfeiting activities in the world, the United States has aggressively threatened Taiwan with sanctions under the so called "Special 301" clause of its own trade law.  Since November 1996, in recognition of Taiwan's progress in developing a comprehensive legal regime for intellectual property, the United States for the first time completely removed Taiwan from the Special 301 "hit" list.  This article addresses the reasons for reform of Taiwan's intellectual property laws and offers what may be the most comprehensive as well as critical overview of current legislation and enforcement.  The author cautions that outside pressure can have a deleterious effect on domestic efforts to change an intellectual property regime.  To counter local resentment and to help overcome domestic resistance, the pressuring country should be ready to invest a significant amount of time and money to support technical assistance, economic development, and education for its trading partner.  Finally, this article urges that Taiwan -- the seventh leading export market of the United States and the fifteenth largest economy in the world -- be permitted to take part in future multilateral discussions on global intellectual property protection.  This article also contains a detailed bibliography of studies/publications related to Taiwan's intellectual property since the early 1980s.   Click here to download full article (PDF file, size: approximately 481K). This article is also published on Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal, vol. 9, No. 1 (Autumn 1998), pp. 67-171. 

International Intellectual Property Dispute Settlement: Multilateral Process v. Unilateral Sanctions, by Professor Andy Y. Sun, Executive Director, APLI; copyright  ©1996-97, Andy Y. Sun.

This is one of the articles published in the book, Intellectual Property Protection in the Asian-Pacific Region: A Comparative Study, Occasional Papers/Reprint Series in Contemporary Asian Studies, No. 4 - 1996 (135), Paul C. B. Liu and Andy Y. Sun, Co-ed., University of Maryland School of Law (1996). This article examines what exactly is the so called "Special 301" investigative process under the U.S. trade law, how does it relate to the dispute settlement mechanism under the World Trade Organization (WTO) rules, as well as the challenges and possible solutions for the future global intellectual property/trade disputes, including, among other things, the interactions among WTO, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Asian-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum. Click here to view the summary and download (PDF file, 129 K).

The Doctrine of Equivalents after Warner-Jenkinson, by Professor Harold C. Wegner, Partner, Foley and Lardner and former Director, Intellectual Property Law Program, The George Washington University Law School; copyright  ©1997-98, Harold C. Wegner.

On March 3, 1997, by a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court had the opportunity to set a precedential opinion on the "doctrine of equivalents" in a patent dispute, first recognized by the same court in 1950 (Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co., 339 U.S. 605, 85 U.S.P.Q. 328 (1950)). In the present case, Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17,117 S.Ct. 1040, 41 U.S.P.Q.2d 1865 (1997), the Supreme Court reversed and remanded an en banc decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. After almost half of a century since Graver Tank, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to accept an invitation to disband the doctrine outright. On the other hand, however, the court also attempted to sharpen the boundaries of patent claims, tightening the "all element rule" and reforming the "prosecution history estoppel." Despite the court's effort, there are still many difficult challenges ahead for the patent holders, their competitors and the courts. This article provides a comprehensive review and discussion on the questions revolving the doctrine of equivalents. Click here to view the summary and download (PDF file, 240K).

Patent Harmonization on the Pacific Rim, by Professor Harold C. Wegner, Partner, Foley and Lardner and former Director, Intellectual Property Law Program, The George Washington University Law School; copyright  ©1995, Harold C. Wegner.

First presented at the Conference on IPR Issues for Industrial Development into the Next Century and the First Asia-Pacific Regional Conference of the International Law Association in Taipei, Taiwan, in May 1995, this paper considers patent harmonization from the perspective of the history of the patent systems of the world and with a view toward the future of patent laws, particularly the role that China will play in an ever smaller "global patent village". "Patent harmonization" today often refers to creation of a model system along the lines of Europe (and China and Japan) (i) including as a core element a mandatory system of first-to-file common to the "international" system (but not found in American law); (ii) a grace period (formerly in German law, but now a largely American feature); and a variety of lesser changes. This paper traces the origins of the modern patent laws, up through the introduction of the Chinese system. Click here to download (PDF file, 126K).

*This list is intended to serve as a starting point for those who wish to conduct international comparative researches on intellectual property and/or trade law issues. As many of these sites also provide extensive links to other sites, our list is not an attempt to duplicate their efforts, rather to compliment them. Special indications are made for sites that are bilingual, multilingual or in foreign language.

All materials contained in the Asia Pacific Legal Institute web site and pages are for research and reference only, and should not be used as legal authority for any other purposes. You should always consult and verify with the original authority for accuracy of any report or article published herein. Unless otherwise indicated, Asia Pacific Legal Institute owns and reserves all intellectual property rights of the published materials herein, text and graphics. Asia Pacific Legal Institute, APLI and its logo are all registered service marks in the United States of America.

On-Going
Projects

Note: You need to install
the AdobeR AcobatR
Readersoftware to view
and print downloadable
files in PDF (portable
data files) format.Please
click the above button
to download. (Acobat is a
registered trademark
and this software is a
courtesy freeware of
Adobe Systems, Inc.)