Tencent participates in INTA’s 2024 Annual Meeting “Level Up Your Brand: Harnessing the Power of Video Games for Interactive Marketing and Consumer Engagement” panel at the Innovation Marketplace.

At this week’s International Trademark Association (INTA) 2024 Annual Meeting, INTA partner and Meeting sponsor Tencent joined thousands of attendees in celebrating the essential role of IP in creativity, commerce, and innovation. The company showcased how it combats intellectual property (IP) infringement across its platforms and works with global brands to create and deliver next-generation brand experiences in video games and other digital worlds.

In addition to contributing to panel discussions alongside IP experts during the Meeting, Tencent convened a workshop series highlighting the company’s efforts to protect IP through its Weixin Brand Protection Platform (BPP).

“At Tencent, intellectual property has long served as a core driver of our businesses, supporting the development, licensing, and distribution of some of the most popular video games, TV shows, movies, and music enjoyed around the world. It is an honor to support INTA’s Annual Meeting and the bringing together of the global IP community dedicated to the exchange of knowledge and best practices,” said Danny Marti, Tencent Head of Public Affairs and Global Policy. “The company’s IP journey has led Tencent to recently be recognized as the largest filer of trademark applications in the world, a recognition of our IP-intensive business models spanning across our technology and entertainment portfolios. IP provides the framework and incentives to develop and pursue commercial and other opportunities that enrich our lives and our communities. Tencent is committed to continuously improving IP frameworks and enhancing brand value in evolving digital worlds.”

During the five-day event, which was attended by more than 9,650 IP stakeholders from 136 countries, Tencent’s knowledge-sharing sessions included:

Level Up Your Brand: Harnessing the Power of Video Games for Interactive Marketing and Consumer Engagement

Rozita Tolouey, Tencent Head of Business Development & Partnerships, North America, and Jaymes Wu, Tencent Games Game Operations Manager, participated alongside Holly Upgren, Polaris Senior Associate Marketing Manager – Corporate Partnerships, and Alexandre Rudoni, Allen & Overy IP & Litigation Partner.

The panel, moderated by World Trademark Review Managing Editor Trevor Little, highlighted the ways brands and video game developers can successfully engage consumers by integrating IP in video games. Tolouey and Wu spoke about opportunities and emerging trends in the licensing of trademarks in video games; lessons learned and considerations for video game studios and brands seeking to promote in-game branding; and the evolution of consumer marketing from static ads to interactive and immersive entertainment experiences.

Weixin Brand Protection Workshops

Shuru Chen, Senior Legal Counsel, Tencent, and Ross Zhang, Tencent Legal Counsel, hosted six dynamic workshops on the Weixin Brand Protection Platform (BPP). During the workshops, Chen and Zhang summarized Tencent’s recent advances in protecting IP rights and safeguarding against illicit activity, including the advertising and sale of counterfeit goods on Weixin, Tencent’s unique multifaceted communication service serving more than a billion users and bridging private and public features like direct messaging, group chats, Official Accounts, and third-party Mini-Programs.

Chen and Zhang also spoke about Weixin’s use of innovative solutions, increased proactive measures, and enhanced enforcement tools to help minimize and deter prohibited activity across the platform’s private and public features. They shared the latest BPP enforcement data with an audience of trade association representatives, content creators, rightsholders, and policy experts, underscoring how effective Tencent’s approach to IP protection has been in reducing bad actors’ misuse of the platform and demonstrating why so many of the world’s leading brands choose to leverage Weixin as a vital channel for engaging directly with consumers. 

Anti-Counterfeiting Roundtable

Tencent joined leading brands, IP owners, experts, and government officials at INTA’s Anti-Counterfeiting Workshop. The discussion explored the complexities of anti-counterfeiting strategies; new opportunities for IP owners, governments, and enforcement agencies to collaborate across jurisdictions; the latest tools and techniques to help identify and track counterfeit goods online and offline; and proven IP enforcement measures in cases involving artificial intelligence and the metaverse.

[Far Left] Ross Zhang, Legal Counsel at Tencent, speaking at the Anti-Counterfeiting Roundtable.

[Center] Rozita Tolouey, Tencent Head of Business Development & Partnerships, North America (Left), and Jaymes Wu, Tencent Games Game Operations Manager (Right) participating in the “Level Up Your Brand: Harnessing the Power of Video Games for Interactive Marketing and Consumer Engagement” panel.

[Far Right] Shuru Chen, Senior Legal Counsel at Tencent, presenting at the Weixin Brand Protection Workshop.

Over the course of the Meeting, Tencent also welcomed attendees to an opening reception that included opportunities to learn how the company’s innovative digital platforms, including Weixin and WeChat, connect users to content and services, as well as about its global role as a creator, distributor, and licensor of high-quality entertainment for the hundreds of millions of people who use Tencent Video, Tencent Music, and Tencent Games.

Source: Tencent

Editor: IPR Daily - Camila

The International Trademark Association (INTA), headquartered in New York, is an international organization composed of brand owners and professionals dedicated to protecting trademarks and related intellectual property rights, aiming to enhance consumer trust, promote economic development and innovation, and build a better society through branding.

To get a sneak peek at the splendor of the INTA 2024 Annual Meeting in Atlanta, IPR Daily has invited Etienne Sanz de Acedo, CEO of INTA, to showcase the wonderful events of the INTA 2024 Annual Meeting to Chinese friends.

IPR Daily: The INTA 2024 Annual meeting is just around the corner. How are the preparations coming along?

Etienne: Firstly, we have just surpassed 9,200 total attendees, which is strong number. We're expecting probably close to 10,000 in total. I think preparation is going really well and everything is well prepared. We're in the final stages of refining the details. 

IPR Daily: What unique aspects does this year’s conference have compared to last year?

Etienne: We are continuing to use a two tracks for our educational programming: one called IP and Innovation and the other is the Business Track, which is in its second year and has been very well received. There are some new endeavors we are preparing: we're incorporating more workshops, including case law sessions covering US, China, India, and Europe. Additionally, there will be a full day dedicated to China – May 20 - featuring a significant representation from the Chinese judiciary, which is crucial. We're also introducing a China Enforcement Workshop.

From a social networking standpoint, we have expanded our Innovation Marketplace, the exhibition area, with over 150 exhibitors. Discussions will heavily focus on AI, technology, and IP. We've also introduced the "Game On Sports Arena" within the exhibition floor, offering opportunities for the playing of sports and networking, including soccer, volleyball, tennis, and pickleball courts. This setup is designed to facilitate member networking, client exchanges, and the sharing of best practices.

On the creative side, there will be a photography exhibition where INTA member volunteers can present the work. Sales from the exhibit will go to support the INTA Foundation’s good work. 

Last, but not least, we are developing a very nice new kind of merchandising project around a very cool design of a 2024 Annual Metting logo. We will offer this merchandise in the most environmentally friendly way, by printing it onsite at the point of purchase.

IPR Daily: After the 20th Anniversary celebration of INTA’s China Representative Office last year, what new initiatives and plans are being implemented to strengthen INTA’s collaboration with local administration? How will these initiatives help Chinese members better engage in INTA activities?

Etienne: I was deeply honored to participate in the 20^th anniversary celebration of our China Representative Office. It is worth noting that our China Representative Office was the first non-U.S-based representative office opened by INTA. It was initially in Shanghai before relocating to Beijing. 

We maintain and value a strong rapport with the Chinese authorities and members. Notably, two of our Chinese members serve on the Board of Directors, and numerous volunteers hold leadership positions throughout INTA’s active committees and project teams. 

Regarding interactions with Chinese authorities, we engage extensively with CNIPA, CCPIT, the Chinese Trademark Association, and the courts. During my recent visit to China, I had the privilege of meeting with the Beijing Specialized IP Court, an experience that left a lasting impression. 

Additionally, our meeting with the Shanghai High People's Court was highly productive. We routinely engage with the IP section of the Supreme People's Court on an annual basis. The evolving legislative landscape in China has been positively received, and we are humbled to contribute to its development. Moreover, the increasing quality of court decisions is noteworthy. 

At this year’s Annual Meeting, we are honored to once again welcome a strong delegation from China, particularly for the dedicated “China Day” on May 20th. While these delegations participate in the China Day activities during the Annual Meeting, our Chinese members will also actively engage in all Association activities throughout the Meeting’s duration.

IPR Daily: How will these initiatives help Chinese members better engage in INTA’s activities?

Etienne: As I mentioned, there's China Day, which includes the Chinese Enforcement Workshop, a session aimed at providing those outside China with insights into China's evolving IP landscape. It is also a useful session for Chinese members, as these sessions offer valuable updates from their own officials and judiciary. 

However, the real value lies in the broader opportunities for Chinese members, including corporate entities and law firms, to engage in educational sessions, committee work, and support for their clients' global expansion. INTA prioritizes assisting Chinese corporations in going global by equipping them with a comprehensive understanding of IP ecosystems across various jurisdictions, emphasizing concepts such as proper branding, brand licensing, and IP valuation. 

Moreover, INTA acknowledges the significance of cultural differences, advising Chinese corporations to adapt their strategies when entering Western markets. The INTA Annual Meeting serves as a platform to facilitate such knowledge exchanges and support its members in navigating global markets effectively.

IPR Daily: May 20th at the INTA Annual Meeting in Atlanta is designated as “INTA China Day.” Why was this arrangement made? What message does INTA hope to convey to Chinese members and the industry through this initiative?

Etienne: Absolutely, our message is, I hope, crystal clear. China holds immense significance as a jurisdiction and market for foreign companies. Equally vital is INTA's commitment to supporting Chinese corporations in their global endeavors and pursuits. 

As a global association representing IP brand owners and professionals, INTA values China's active participation and contribution to the rich tapestry of the IP community. Everything from our dedicated China Day to our continuous efforts over the years to connect, support, and communicate, underline INTA's steadfast focus on integrating China into its fabric, ensuring that Chinese entities are well-supported and engaged within the Association's initiatives and opportunities. My 11-year tenure at INTA reflects this ongoing dedication to making China an integral and valued part of INTA's global vision and strategy.

IPR Daily: As the Chinese market plays an increasingly important role in the global intellectual property field, will INTA consider holding its annual meeting in mainland China? What are INTA's strategic plans for the future in China?

Etienne: Planning INTA's annual meetings involves meticulous, advance preparation, especially considering the significant number of attendees involved. The pattern of hosting the annual meeting outside North America every third year demonstrates INTA's commitment to global engagement, with a focus on rotating between Europe, Asia, and occasionally the Middle East. 

While the possibility of hosting an annual meeting in China is not ruled out, current plans are already set for the upcoming years due to the extensive planning required well in advance. Nevertheless, INTA remains open to exploring new venues and opportunities for future annual meetings, including potential ones in China, as part of its ongoing commitment to global outreach and inclusivity.

IPR Daily: The previous questions focused on the annual meeting. Now, could you please introduce any significant achievements of INTA in promoting intellectual property protection and development over the past year?

Etienne: We are proud of the breadth and depth of INTA's initiatives and activities in recent years, particularly in 2023. The passage of resolutions like the model design law and resolutions on intermediate reliability demonstrates INTA's commitment to shaping legal frameworks that protect both brand owners and consumers. The production of reports and studies, such as managing an IP portfolio during economic and world crises as well as making IP more understandable to the public, underscores INTA's efforts to educate and inform stakeholders about the importance of intellectual property.

Furthermore, the 2024 Presidential Task Force is focused on IP and sustainability, and highlights INTA's focus on addressing contemporary issues like environmental sustainability within the IP landscape. The engagement in policy dialogues, filing of amicus briefs, and organizing judges’ workshops all contribute to fostering better laws and practices that uphold the integrity of intellectual property rights.

Overall, INTA's multifaceted approach reflects its dedication to advancing the interests of its members while promoting balanced and effective IP policies globally.

IPR Daily: Are all these activities and the report you mentioned earlier only open to INTA members or to the public?

Etienne: It's crucial for INTA to maintain openness and inclusivity. We focus these energies on providing resources to our members that are both meaningful and accessible to our global community. Encouraging Chinese corporations to actively participate and become members of INTA enables them to have a voice in shaping the organization's agenda and initiatives. 

The use of AI-powered translation solutions like Wordly at the Annual Meeting demonstrates INTA's commitment to expanding outreach and facilitating communication across languages, making the event more accessible and inclusive to a global audience. This reflects INTA's ongoing efforts to embrace technology and innovation to better serve its diverse membership base and stakeholders worldwide.

In addition, there are resources dedicated to educating and informing stakeholders outside of the INTA membership. Our Public Information Committee produces Fact Sheets, our 2023 Presidential Task Force: Unlocking IP, will offer a toolkit for our colleagues in the media to use to better and more accurately cover IP issues in the mainstream press. INTA takes its responsibility as the global organization representing the IP community to the world, as well as the source of benchmarking, best practices, and future-facing thought leadership as comprehensively as possible. 

IPR Daily: Do you think the rapid development of artificial intelligence will affect the international intellectual property industry? What are some important trends in the future development of the intellectual property industry?

Etienne: Absolutely, there are several significant challenges and trends in the realm of intellectual property that deserve attention. International harmonization, combating counterfeiting and piracy, brand protection, and understanding the economic value of IP are crucial topics. Additionally, exploring shifts in consumer behavior and their implications for IP is essential.

Regarding technology, blockchain, metaverse, and AI, they have all had a significant impact, with AI showing the most sustained growth. Quantum computing is also emerging as a potential game-changer in the IP landscape. 

Moreover, the increasing importance of trade secrets highlights the evolving nature of IP law and the need for enhanced protection measures in this area. These trends collectively shape the future of intellectual property and require ongoing analysis and adaptation within the legal and business communities.

IPR Daily: Thank you for your time. Do you have anything to add to our interview today?

Etienne: You're welcome! It's been a pleasure discussing these important topics with you. Encouraging Chinese members to attend the Annual Meeting is crucial for fostering international collaboration and staying informed about the latest trends in intellectual property. The opportunity to gain vital insights in just five days is invaluable, not only in understanding current developments but also in anticipating future trends. Active participation from Chinese corporations enriches the work of the association and strengthens global IP governance.

I want to express gratitude for the support and engagement of Chinese officials and authorities, which is essential for maintaining productive relationships and promoting mutual understanding within the international IP community. Their involvement is highly valued and contributes significantly to the success of INTA's endeavors.

Source: IPR Daily

Reporter: IPR Daily - Camila

Case 1: Qihoo & Qizhi vs. Jiangmin regarding Dispute over Infringement of Design Patent [Case Number: (2016) Jing 73 Min Chu No. 276]

1. Summary of Judgment

In the judgment of this case, Beijing Intellectual Property Court found:

1.1 Whether the alleged infringement constitutes a direct infringement of the asserted design patent 

1) The product displayed in the asserted patent is a computer, and the asserted patent is titled "Computer with a GUI", indicating that the asserted patent is a design for use on products such as computers. The wording "Computer" has a limiting effect on the protection scope of the asserted patent.

2) The Defendant's alleged infringing act is providing the alleged infringing software to users. Since the alleged infringing software does not fall within the category of the design product, as a result, even if the GUI of the alleged infringing software is identical or similar to that of the asserted patent, the alleged infringing software does not fall within the protection scope of the asserted patent, and Plaintiff's claim of design patent infringement cannot be established.

1.2 Whether the alleged infringement constitutes contributory infringement

The act carried out by users is merely downloading the alleged infringing software to their computers, without any manufacturing, offering to sell, or selling computers, etc. Although Plaintiff claims that there is a possibility that users sell or offer to sell computers with the alleged infringing software pre-installed, Plaintiff has not submitted evidence to prove this allegation. In this case, as there is no direct implementation of the asserted patent, even if the alleged infringing software is an intermediate of an infringing product as stated by Plaintiff, Defendant's act of providing the alleged infringing software cannot constitute contributory infringement. Accordingly, Plaintiff's corresponding claim cannot be established.

2. Result of Judgment 

The court dismissed all the claims of Plaintiff, Beijing Qihoo Technology Co., Ltd., and Qizhi Software (Beijing) Co., Ltd.

3. Impact of the Judgment

This judgment strictly applied the protection scope for design patents, emphasizing the limiting role of "product" in design patents. In the absence of "direct infringement", even if the GUI of the alleged infringing software is the same or similar to the GUI of the asserted patent, Defendant's act cannot constitute contributory infringement. 

After this judgment was made, it sparked lasting controversy. The public questioned the judicial protection strength of GUI design patents and, to some extent, also affected the enthusiasm of enterprises to apply for GUI patents.

Case 2: Kingsoft vs. TouchPal & Touchjoy regarding Dispute over Infringement of Design Patent. [Case Number: (2019) Hu 73 Min Chu No. 399] This case was selected as one of the top ten intellectual property protection cases by Shanghai courts in 2022.

1. Summary of Judgment 

In this judgment, Shanghai Intellectual Property Court found:

1) The asserted patent includes a dynamic GUI for mobile communication terminal products. Since the mobile terminal device itself is of a conventional design, the GUI part has a more significant impact on the overall visual effect. The dynamic GUI should consider both the overall style of the basic interface and the varying degrees of influence that its entire dynamic change process has on the overall visual effect. In this case, the GUI of some versions of the infringing software is quite similar to the GUI of the asserted design patent in terms of overall GUI design and dynamic change process, and there are no substantial differences between these two designs in terms of overall visual effect, constituting a similar interface design.

2) Products that include GUIs are provided by different entities, from hardware to underlying operating systems to application software, presenting the characteristics of "separation of software and hardware, and separation of software from software." ……However, the developers of the infringing application software, i.e., the two Defendants, although they did not directly manufacture and sell the infringing mobile phones themselves, the design of the infringing GUI is embedded in the infringing software through a programming language, and the entire dynamic process of the infringing GUI is inevitably presented on the mobile phone through routine operations compatible with the software. The developers of the infringing software are clearly aware of the occurrence of this specific GUI design effect and intend to pursue this consequence. Therefore, in the process of users using the software to present the appearance of the infringing mobile phone, the software plays an irreplaceable substantial role. Developing infringing software for production and business purposes is equivalent to manufacturing the most substantial part of a mobile phone with an infringing GUI, and the act of listing the infringing software for download is also equivalent to offering to sell and selling the most substantial part of a mobile phone product with an infringing GUI. In this case, it should be determined that the two Defendants' actions of manufacturing (developing), offering to sell, and selling the infringing software constitute an infringement of the asserted patent.

2. Result of Judgment

1) The two Defendants are ordered to cease infringement of the plaintiff's design patent rights;

2) The two defendants are jointly and severally liable to compensate the plaintiff for economic losses of CNY300,000 and reasonable expenses paid to stop the infringement amounting to CNY50,000.

3. Impact of the Judgment

This case has been deemed as a breakthrough case for the infringement of GUI design patents. Traditionally, design patents emphasize a specific industrial product as the carrier, and software does not fall within the category of design products defined by patent law, nor is it easy to constitute the same or similar kind of product as an electronic product, which poses a challenge for the enforcement of GUI design patents (see Case 1). This case explored the method of legal application in GUI design patent infringement cases, fully considered the characteristics of industrial products that include GUIs, respected the development rules of the industry in this field, determined that GUI software is an irreplaceable substantial component for generating GUIs, found that the act of developing and listing software that generates infringing GUIs constitutes patent infringement, and for the first time sorted out and analyzed the comparison rules for dynamic GUIs, which has important guiding significance for the trial of similar cases.

Case 3: Kingsoft vs. Mengjia regarding Infringement of Design Patent Dispute [Case Number: (2022) Hu Min Zhong No. 281]

1. Summary of Judgment

In the second-instance judgment of this case, Shanghai Higher People's Court found:

1. Protection Scope for the Asserted Patent

The title of the asserted design patent is "GUI for Mobile Communication Terminal," and the patent views depict a mobile phone with a dynamic GUI. The brief description of the asserted patent states: "The key points of the design of this product lie in the GUI on the screen; the mobile communication terminal is of existing design." Based on this, the protection scope of the asserted patent is the GUI for mobile communication terminals as shown in the patent views.

2. Method and Conclusion of Design Comparison

2.1 Comparison Method

1) The brief description of the asserted patent states: "The key points of the design of this product lie in the GUI on the screen; the mobile communication terminal is of existing design." Therefore, for the asserted patent, the mobile communication terminal shown in the patent views is generally of existing design. When comparing the designs, one should mainly consider the impact of the GUI on the overall visual effect.

2) The asserted patent depicts the design in the images as static and dynamic graphics of the GUI. When comparing the designs, one should follow the principle of "overall observation and comprehensive judgment," considering both the overall style of the basic interface and the entire or detailed dynamic change process, as well as taking into account the characteristics of the specific GUI and the different degrees of impact each interface and the dynamic change process of each interface have on the overall visual effect.

2.2 Comparison Conclusion

The alleged infringing GUI falls within the protection scope of the asserted design patent.

3. Whether the Appellant who developed and provided the software that could display the GUI upon operation should bear infringement liability

1) Products containing a GUI are generally provided by different entities, from hardware to the underlying operating system to application software, showing the characteristics of "separation of software and hardware, and separation of software from software." Therefore, for the implementation of a granted GUI design patent, one must judge in conjunction with the characteristics of the GUI itself. The court believes that applying the design of the GUI to a product in a manner substantially identical to manufacturing can be recognized as implementing the GUI design patent.

2) In this case, when the software is downloaded and installed on a mobile phone by a user, the alleged infringing GUI, which is similar to the design of the asserted patent, can be presented on the mobile phone after the user operates the software in the operating system. Therefore, the alleged infringing GUI is presented on the mobile phone with the joint participation of the hardware manufacturer, operating system developer, user, and software developer and provider. ……The hardware manufacturer, operating system developer, and user merely provide the environment or conditions for the alleged infringing GUI to be presented on the mobile phone, and their actions do not have a legal causal relationship with the damage to the patentee's rights. However, the Appellant developed and provided the software for users to download for free, which inevitably leads to the presentation of the alleged infringing interface on the mobile phone, resulting in the implementation of the asserted patent. This action has a legal causal relationship with the occurrence of patent infringement damage, and therefore, the Appellant should bear the corresponding infringement liability.

2. Result of Judgment 

1) Mengjia shall immediately cease infringement of Kingsoft's design patent for "GUI for Mobile Communication Terminal" (Patent No. ZL201830455426.5) from the effective date of the judgment;

2) Mengjia shall compensate Kingsoft for economic losses of CNY200,000 within ten days from the effective date of the judgment;

3) Mengjia shall compensate Kingsoft for reasonable expenses paid to stop the infringement amounting to CNY50,000 within ten days from the effective date of the judgment.

3. Impact of the Judgment

This case followed the judicial opinion of Case 2, and considered the characteristics of products containing GUIs, such as "separation of software and hardware, and separation of software from software," it further refined the method of comparison for GUI design patent infringement and the thought process for determining infringement. It weakened the limiting role of "product" on the protection scope for design patents and provided a referable set of rules for the judicial protection of GUI design patent infringement.

Conclusion:

From the above cases, it can be seen that Beijing Intellectual Property Court was relatively conservative in the early case of Qihoo and Qizhi vs. Jiangmin, which was unable to provide effective judicial protection for GUI design patents. However, Shanghai Intellectual Property Court made a bold breakthrough in the principles of infringement comparison and the determination of infringement liability for GUI design patents in the case of Kingsoft vs. TouchPal & Touchjoy, solving the long-standing challenges of GUI design patent protection. Shanghai Higher People's Court in the case of Kingsoft vs. Mengjia followed the approach of the Kingsoft vs. TouchPal & Touchjoy case and further refined the rules for similar cases.

It can be anticipated that after the Fourth Amendment to China Patent Law and the Amended Guidelines for Patent Examination came into effect, the judicial protection for GUI design patents in China will gradually be strengthened.

i (2016) Jing 73 Min Chu No. 276 Civil Judgment.

ii (2019) Hu 73 Min Chu No. 399 Civil Judgment.

iii Beijing Kingsoft Security Software Co., Ltd. vs. Shanghai TouchPal Information Technology Co., Ltd. and Shanghai Touchjoy Information Technology Co., Ltd. Infringement of Design Patent Rights Dispute Case — One of the Top Ten Cases of Intellectual Property Judicial Protection by Shanghai Courts in 2022, Author: Shanghai Higher People's Court.

iv (2022) Hu Min Zhong No.281 Civil Judgment.

Source: Nancy Qu, ChangTsi Law Firm

Editor: IPR Daily - Camila

The SPTO Strategic Plan 2021-2024 (hereinafter, PE 2021-2024) is the letter of introduction of the SPTO as a national and international industrial property organization, and provides the necessary action plan for the achievement of the five general objectives established in it, and thus allow the fulfillment of the Mission and the scope of the Vision of the office.

Our EP 2021-2024 is designed for the SPTO to contribute to the sustainable economic development and technological progress of Spanish society, promoting innovation, creativity and knowledge in the public and private sectors, through a strategic and intelligent use of Industrial Property. All this, being a useful and proactive office, close to users, with committed specialists, excellent in its operation, at the forefront of services and technology, as well as open to cooperation and internationally recognized.

Our EP 2021-2024 has been developed collaboratively, with the participation of all SPTO departments and the contributions of stakeholders and the general public, which have made it possible to obtain a Plan that strengthens the organization, allowing it to take advantage of the opportunities of the environment, preparing it to face difficulties and unforeseen events, and always ensuring the quality of its services.

The Plan has focused on the following 5 general objectives which, in turn, are broken down into 14 strategies and, these strategies, in a total of 51 projects:

• Objective 1. Promote a strategic use of Industrial Property (3 strategies and 13 projects).

• Objective 2. Promote research, development and technology transfer (3 strategies and 8 projects).

• Objective 3. Contribute to the multilevel international governance of Industrial Property (2 strategies and 7 projects).

• Objective 4. Promote the fight against counterfeiting and the violation of Industrial Property rights (2 strategies and 8 projects).

• Objective 5. Moving towards a more people-centred, sustainable, digital, innovative, transparent and effective SPTO (4 strategies and 15 projects).

The EP 2021-2024 will be implemented through the corresponding Annual Operational Plans (POA), where the projects and specific activities that will be executed in the current year will be collected, and the specific results or effects to be achieved.

• SPTO Strategic Plan 2021-2024

• SPTO Strategic Plan 2021-2024

• Strategic Plan Video

• Mission, Vision and Values of the SPTO

• Year 2021:

Annual Operating Plan (POA) 2021

1st POA Monitoring Report 2021

2nd Monitoring Report of the POA 2021

3rd POA Monitoring Report 2021-Final Report

• Year 2022:

Annual Operating Plan (POA) 2022

Source: oepm.es

Editor: IPR Daily-Selly

Classic American denim brand Levi Strauss believes that tabs on Yves Saint Laurent jean pockets look too similar to its own. Levi’s is suing the American branch of Yves Saint Laurent over alleged trademark infringement.

Anyone who is even remotely familiar with the Levi’s brand would recognize the small red or white tabs stitched into the right seam of the jeans’ back pocket with the brand name embroidered into it as an iconic feature of the brand’s style.

In its lawsuit, filed within the Northern District of California, Levi’s has requested an injunction to prevent YSL from producing and selling denim with the pocket tabs in question. If the court were to rule in favor of Levi’s, that would mean that the denim brand has a trademark on all tabs sewn onto jeans.

Levi’s has claimed that YSL is profiting from sales of a denim feature it had made popular, and is therefore “causing incalculable and irreparable damage to Levi’s goodwill and diluting the capacity of its tab trademark to differentiation Levi’s products from others.” However, it is important to note that Levi’s and YLS operate in very different sectors of the denim market. Levi’s targets a broader consumer base with a price range that averages between 50 to 150 dollars for a pair of quality denim, while YSL caters to the luxury market with pricing of a pair of jeans typically between 300 and 600 dollars.

Most trademark infringement cases argue that the infringing party is taking sales from the accusing party; yet the consumers who frequent each brand in this case would seldom shop from the other brand. Still, Levi’s accused YSL of having “wantonness, malice, and conscious indifference to the rights and welfares of [Levi’s].”

Source: FASHIONUNITED

Editor: Dora

Dunhill

It also said the ruling is a “landmark victory in China for any global brand” and “demonstrates the country’s progress in IP protection,” as well as its own “unequivocal resolve” in tackling infringement.

The brand has been awarded CNY10 million ($1.47 million) after the Foshan Intermediate People’s Court, Guangdong Province, ruled that lower-priced menswear brand Danhuoli was guilty of both trademark infringement and unfair competition practice. This is “significantly larger than the average ruling in trademark infringement cases in China,” Dunhill said.

“In a rare move for Chinese courts, the judge also deemed that the individual responsible for the company was personally liable for the infringement, giving extra teeth to the court’s decision and strengthening China’s growing reputation for intellectual property protection,” it added.

The case centred around Danhuoli’s imitation of the ‘long tail mark’ of Alfred Dunhill’s logo. The Chinese company had originally registered the Danhuoli trademark in plain font, but had for several years used the mark in a manner “bearing striking similarities to Alfred Dunhill’s signature elongated lettering and black and white colour palette,” it said.

Dunhill added that “the budget clothes company had also established a shadow company named Dunhill Group in Hong Kong, to manage corporate business activities for the brand. Alfred Dunhill had previously been successful in shutting down the shadow company in Hong Kong, however, it had continued to trade across the Chinese mainland.”

Source: FashionNetwork

Editor: Dora

On June 26 2017 the State Intellectual Property Office of China (SIPO) announced the latest Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) programme developments – namely:

the relaxation of the PPH requirements regarding some contents in the Patent Cooperation Treaty international work products; and

the introduction of a new PPH pilot programme between China and Egypt.

These changes came into effect on July 1 2017, making the PPH programmes more convenient and allowing applicants to accelerate the examination of corresponding Chinese patent applications.

Relaxing PPH requirements

The SIPO has revised its examination requirements of observations and opinions described in Box VIII of the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) international work products in the PCT-PPH Programme.

Previously, if there was a written opinion described in Box VIII of the latest international work products (namely, the written opinion of the International Searching Authority, and the written opinion of the International Preliminary Examining Authority or the International Preliminary Examination Report) which forms the basis of a PCT-PPH request, the application would not be eligible for accelerating an examination procedure via the PCT-PPH pilot programme.

As of July 1 2017 an applicant may submit a PCT-PPH request to the SIPO, where the written opinion described in Box VIII:

does not relate to the claims that correspond to those in the Chinese application for PPH; or

relates only to the defect(s) existing either in the description or drawings.

An applicant may submit a PPH request with the SIPO and indicate briefly why the application complies with the form-filing requirements regarding Box VIII in item 3 (Explanation on Special Items), under Section E (Additional Notes) of the Request for Participation in the PPH Pilot Programme.

Where the applicant fails to give an explanation or the examiner finds that the application does not fall under either of the two circumstances after examination, the request will be rejected.

SIPO-EGYPO pilot programme

The SIPO has signed new bilateral PPH agreements with the Egyptian Patent Office (EGYPO). This two-year programme commenced on July 1 2017 and will end on June 30 2019.

Under the SIPO-EGYPO PPH pilot programme, a substantive examination can be accelerated before the SIPO on the basis of a national work product from the EGYPO.

Source: Lexology

Editor: Camila

“The companies had previously agreed that this would settle the royalty payment obligations for the royalty-bearing smartphone patent license from Nokia Technologies announced in June 2015,” said Nokia.

“While details of the arbitration award and license agreement remain confidential, Nokia will follow its existing practices for disclosing patent licensing revenue in its quarterly announcements and expects that revenue for the agreement will be recognized in the third quarter of 2017, including an element of non-recurring catch-up revenue, with additional revenues expected during the term of the agreement.”

Maria Varsellona, chief legal officer at Nokia, said: “The use of independent arbitration to resolve differences in patent cases is a recognized best practice.

“We believe that this award confirms the quality of Nokia’s patent portfolio.

“We continue to see potential for additional licensing opportunities in the mobile communications market and beyond.”

Source: IP Strategy News

Editor: Camila

At the workshop, the authority representatives from three countries discussed and exchanged views on infrastructure of IP commercialization, regional IP registration system and national IP strategy implementation, etc.

Shen Changyu delivered a speech on behalf of China. He indicated that SIPO of China kept improving the effectiveness of IP protection by coordinating and promoting the protection work in a strict, large-scale, fast and uniform manner. In terms of IP application, SIPO further promoted the overall utilization of IP for the support of real economy by establishing various mechanisms, platforms and facilitating the industries. China valued IP international communication and cooperation and was willing to actively get involved in the three-party cooperation on IP matters, in particular, by expanding the cooperation scope and strengthening the cooperation effectiveness.

At the meeting of heads of three IP authorities, they reviewed their cooperation over the past year, summarized the cooperation achievements and proposed new options for their cooperation.

Source: ipraction.gov.cn

Editor: Camila

Kyoto University’s Office of Society-Academia Collaboration for Innovation (SACI) goal is to advance university education and research in innovation to improve society.

As a part of these efforts SACI and Unified Patents are co-hosting the Kyoto University Intellectual Property Strategy Conference 2017 (IPSC 2017).

Sessions at IPSC 2017 will involve panelists from leading companies and academia discussing:

·         How IP strategy is essential for success in emerging businesses

·         The value of corporate-academia cooperation in accelerating innovation

·         How to secure and benefit from high-quality IP

·         Lessons on successfully fostering start-ups and entrepreneur in Asia.

Over 200 panelists and attendees will network and exchange opinions on these and other topics. They will be represented by global innovation leaders in R&D, IP, legal, finance from corporations and academia.

When: Thursday, May 18, 2017 9:30 am

Where: Kyoto University International Science Innovation Building F5, Symposium Hall

Admission: Free

Capacity: 250

Attendees: Corporate IP, R&D finance professionals. Academic and research institutional professionals. No service providers except for sponsor and its guests

For the full agenda, please see here. 

More details of the speakers, please see here.

If you want to sponsor this conference, please contact us (email: ipsc2017@saci.kyoto-u.ac.jp).

Source & Editor: Camila (camila@iprdaily.com)

After hiring an outside team leader for its Smart Home Appliance task force, it is still hiring many people for planning and operation. Not only does increase in number of employees strengthen planning and development but Samsung Electronics is also going to push for expansion of outer partnership.

According to an industry on the 14th, Samsung Electronics is hiring employees who have experiences in Smart Home Appliance IoT field.
People who are going to be hired by Samsung Electronics will work for Smart Home Appliance task force that is established inside of Samsung Electronics’ Home Appliance Business Department. 

In early last month, Samsung Electronics hired Department Head Koo Seong-ki of IBM Global Solution Business Headquarters as the team leader (director) of Smart Home Appliance task force and is currently hiring members for this task force that will be composed of about 20 employees. However it is heard that Samsung Electronics does not have any plan of promoting this task force to a business team as of right now.
Samsung Electronics is hiring people for variety of fields such as establishment of plans and strategies, product planning, service (IoT application) operation, data analysis, and API planning operation.

Especially the fact that Samsung Electronics is looking to hire people for service operation and API planning operation is drawing attention as this indicates that it is looking for outside experts in order to work with outside companies. Samsung Electronics also included information to qualification of job application that it is preferring people who have experiences in internet service and communication/cable industries and this indicates that Samsung Electronics is looking for people who have hands-on experience. 

“Trend of current Smart Home Appliance industry is based on connection of different kind of devices.” said a representative for Samsung Electronics. “This is why we are trying to hire outside experts that can carry out such functions and support, which must be done by Samsung Electronics, according to this trend.”

Looking at these movements done by Samsung Electronics, one can see that speed of Smart Home Appliance Business will speed up starting from next year. Samsung Electronics applied IoT function to part of its products such as family hub refrigerators, air conditioners, ovens, and robot vacuum cleaners. In a long term, it has plans of implementing hyper-connected society by connecting every product to IoT. Samsung Electronics also announced previously that it has a plan of applying voice-recognition technology to IoT household appliances.

Department Manager Yun, Boo-geun of Samsung Electronics CE (Consumer Electronics) Sector presented his vision of connecting every product to IoT by 2020 and providing innovated services to consumers through data analysis.

“Products that are out on markets are monitored through internet and controlled by other devices and IoT will analyze data through this connection and provide services.” said CEO Yun at IFA that was held in Germany this year. “Life and death situation for a company will depend on who will lead changes in paradigm based on leadership in IoT.”

Staff Reporter Kwon, Keonho | wingh1@etnews.com 

BY LEE KANGWOOK

From | iPnomics

Editor | Judy

Nintendo Creative Fellow Shigeru MiyamotoPHOTO | ALAMY

THIS IS A HISTORIC day: You can finally play Super Mario on your iPhone.

Super Mario Run lets you control Nintendo’s iconic plumber with just one smartphone-friendly input; he runs automatically across the screen, and you’ve just got to jump.

We caught up with Nintendo’s Creative Fellow Shigeru Miyamoto, who created Super Mario Bros. in 1985 and has remained intimately involved with the series. He shared a few surprising things about the latest entry in the storied series, and a bit about the upcoming Nintendo Switch and Universal Studios’ “Super Nintendo Land.”

The one-button Mario started a decade ago with the Wii.

Although this is the first Super Mario game in which the hero runs automatically, it’s not a new idea. “On Wii, we experimented specifically with a game where you only press the A button on the Wii Remote to make Mario jump,” Miyamoto says. It didn’t go anywhere, he says, because it wasn’t suited to the console. “We felt, well, we have a plus-control pad, and we have an analog stick, we don’t need to just force people to play with only one button,” he says. “Also, we looked at taking that idea and applying it in a rhythm-style music game where you try to have Mario jump in rhythm. We felt that, yeah, this could make a fun game, but there’s not really a need for it to be a Mario game.”

The idea for Super Mario Run came from Mariospeedruns on YouTube.

“When you look at videos of super players who are very good Super Mario Bros. players, they tend to run all the way through the course without ever stopping,” Miyamoto says. “Our feeling was that by having this iPhone game in which Mario runs automatically and all you do is jump, we would actually have quite a bit of leeway to be able to create something that’s simple and easy for anyone to play, but still has some of that challenge and skill that super players desire.”

Inexperienced Mario players often inch forward timidly. By forcing them to hustle along, Miyamoto hopes even beginners enjoy the feeling of an exhilarating speedrun with some wicked maneuvers. “We had the idea of layering in the ability to do different styles of jump, but having those styles of jump be controlled not through a combination of controls but through special blocks that enable Mario to do special jumps at certain times in the level,” he says. “By taking that approach, it would give even beginner players an opportunity to get a taste for what’s fun about the more skilled style of Mario play.”

Miyamoto hasn’t been so intimately involved in a Mario game since 2007.

Although it’s been about five years since Miyamoto said he’s retiring, he continues working with the development team in a role he described as quite similar to director. “When we’re taking new steps like this—certainly with Super Mario Galaxy, that was a new step, and this being our first step into mobile, this is also a new step—that I get more directly involved.” Super Mario Galaxy, a 2007 title for Wii, was the last Mario title in which he was involved “in terms of me actually directly looking at all of the level designs.”

Don’t mistake Mario Run for a “small” game.

Granted, Miyamoto’s definition of retiring simply meant stepping away from supervising blockbuster projects to focus on designing smaller, experimental ones. Clearly, that did not apply to Mario Run. “I’ve been involved from early on all the way through,” he says. “It’s actually become quite a big team.” Three development teams worked on the game’s three features in parallel: the main game, the multiplayer Toad Rally, and the Farmville-esque Kingdom Builder. “It’s turned into quite a big project,” Miyamoto says.

Super Mario Run and the Universal Studios partnership with Nintendo share similar goals.

Beyond its move into mobile and the forthcoming Nintendo Switch console, the company is slowly unveiling a partnership with Universal Studios to open Nintendo-themed attractions at all three Universal theme parks. “That’s a very big project in scope, and has a very large budget,” Miyamoto says. It’s part of an effort to attract a broader audience. He says the NES Classic and Pokemon Go highlights two markets the company is after: Adults who grew up playing Nintendo but haven’t bought a game system in ages, and kids who come to Nintendo through mobile devices. “We’re really looking at the opportunity to reach both of those audiences; reconnect with older ones and establish new connections with younger ones,” Miyamoto says.

Nintendo still envisions the Nintendo Switch as a family gaming machine.

Watch the trailer for Switch, which lets you play the same games on a TV or a tablet, and you may get the impression Nintendo designed it for funemployed millennials who want to play Zelda in the park. Not so, Miyamoto says. “We have always felt that a Nintendo system is best designed to be enjoyed in the living room by the family in front of the TV,” Miyamoto says. Although Switch and Nintendo’s discovery of smartphone gaming represent a shift away from that ideal, it reflects an understanding that “the way that people use the television set has changed,” he says, and shouldn’t be considered an abandonment of the big screen.

Sorry, but Miyamoto doesn’t want the original Super Mario Bros. on your phone.

“Why doesn’t Nintendo just put the original Mario on my phone?” isn’t something I’d typically ask Miyamoto, but I hear it so often that I wanted to hear his reaction. He laughed, and said, “I don’t want to do anything that boring. We’ve been making Mario games for a long time, and Mario’s evolved with every new platform.

“For me, it wouldn’t be interesting work to just take the existing Super Mario Bros. game, put it on an iPhone, (and) emulate a plus control pad. That’s not very fun creatively. We’re more interested in looking at how we can be creative with Mario, and design for iPhone in a way that takes advantage of the uniquenesses of that device and the uniquenesses of that input and the features that that device has. For us, that is much more rewarding creative work.”

He’s got one more thing to say about that. “If we did put Super Mario Bros. on the iPhone, (people) would say, ‘Wow, this is well-done, but are you actually going to expect me to pay money for it? Why isn’t this free?’,” he says. “We try to create products that have value that people are willing to pay for.”

From | WIRED

BY | CHRIS KOHLER

Editor | Judy

• AUTHOR: CHRIS KOHLER.

Innovators in China powered global patent applications to a new record in 2015, filing more than a million applications for the first time ever within a single year amid rising worldwide demand for intellectual property rights that undergird economic activity.

Videos: Press conference Video (watch on YouTube) | Report highlights from WIPO DG Gurry Video (watch on YouTube) and Chief Economist Carsten Fink Video (watch on YouTube)

In total, innovators around the world lodged some 2.9 million patent applications in 2015, representing a 7.8% increase over 2014 and the sixth straight year of rising demand for patent protection, according to WIPO’s annual World Intellectual Property Indicators (WIPI) report. Trademark applications jumped by 15.3% to about 6 million in 2015, as worldwide industrial design applications grew by 2.3% to 872,800.

While Chinese innovators filed the most patent applications (1,010,406) in 2015, followed by those from the United States of America (526,296) and Japan (454,285), they are comparatively home-focused: Innovators based in China filed 42,154 applications for patents outside their own borders, while U.S.-based innovators were the most outward-looking, with 237,961 patent applications filed abroad.

Infographic: 2015 IP filings

View animated version of the infographic

Download PDF

Highlights

Video: A one-minute tour of key IP filing trends in 2015 - Watch on YouTube

“As policy-makers seek to invigorate growth around the world, it is encouraging to report that intellectual property filing activity saw healthy progression in 2015,” said WIPO Director GeneralFrancis Gurry. “While China continues to drive global increases, IP use grew in most countries in 2015, reflecting its increasing importance in a globalized knowledge economy.”

Patents

In total, innovators filed some 2.9 million patent applications worldwide in 2015, up 7.8% from 2014, higher than the 4.5% growth rate in 2014. Resident filings, where innovators filed for protection in their home economy, accounted for around two-thirds of the 2015 total.

China’s patent office received 1,101,864 filings in 2015, making it the first office to receive more than a million applications in a single year – including both filings from residents in China as well as from overseas innovators seeking patent protection inside China. This totaled almost as many applications as the next three offices combined: the U.S. (589,410), Japan (318,721) and the Republic of Korea (213,694).

Together with the European Patent Office (EPO; 160,028), the top five offices accounted for a combined share of 82.5% of global filings. Among the top five offices, China (+18.7%) had the fastest growth, followed by the EPO (+4.8%), the U.S. (+1.8%) and the Republic of Korea (+1.6%). In contrast, Japan’s patent office saw a 2.2% decrease. This continues a downward trend that started in 2005 and mainly reflects decline in resident filings.   

U.S. applicants filed the most applications abroad (237,961), marking a 6% increase, followed by those from Japan, which decreased 2.3 % to 195,446, and Germany, which saw a 3.6% drop to 101,892.  

Though innovators based in China filed comparatively fewer overseas applications (42,154), that figure has risen steadily over the past two decades and now nearly equals the total of France (46,581).

Computer technology (7.9% of the total) saw the highest percentage of published patent applications worldwide, followed by electrical machinery (7.3%) and digital communication (4.9%).

Around 1.24 million patents were granted worldwide in 2015, up 5.2% on 2014 and the fastest growth rate since 2012. This was due mainly to an increase of grants in China, which issued 359,316 patents in 2015 to surpass the U.S. (298,407) as the largest patent issuing office.

An estimated 10.6 million patents were in force around the globe in 2015. About a quarter of these were in the US (24.9% of the total), followed by 18.3% in Japan and 13.9% in China. 

Trademarks

An estimated 6 million trademark applications covering 8.4 million classes were filed globally in 2015.¹Largely driven by China, applications increased by 15.3%, which represents the highest growth since 2000. Around 78% of global filing activity can be attributed to resident applicants that filed for protection in their own country.

China – with a class count of 2.83 million – saw by far the highest trademark filing activity in 2015. It was followed by the U.S. (517,297), the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO; 366,383), Japan (345,070) and India (289,843). Among the top 20 offices, Japan (+43%), Italy (+32.6%), China (+27.4%), India (+21.9%) and the Republic of Korea (+13.9%) reported double-digit growth in 2015.

Around 4.4 million trademark registrations covering 6.2 million classes were recorded worldwide in 2015. This was a 26.6% increase on 2014 and the fastest growth in over 15 years.

Industrial Designs

Global industrial design applications filed in 2015 grew by 2.3%, rebounding from a sharp decrease recorded in 2014 when there was a large drop-off in filings in China. Designers across the world filed 872,800 applications containing 1.1 million designs.² Growth was mainly due to increases in applications filed in China, the Republic of Korea and the U.S.   

China’s office received applications containing 569,059 designs, accounting for half of the world total. It was followed by the EUIPO (98,162), and the offices of the Republic of Korea (72,458), Germany (56,499) and Turkey (45,852). Among them, the Republic of Korea (+5.9%) and China (+0.8%) saw growth, while Germany (-7.5%), Turkey (-6%) and the EUIPO (-0.1%) saw lower filing activity in 2015 than in 2014. 

Designs related to furnishings accounted for 9.4% of all filings, followed by those related to clothing (8.3%) and to packages and containers (7%).

The total number of industrial designs registered worldwide increased by 21.3% in 2015, mainly due to strong growth in registrations in China.

From | WIPO

Editor | Judy

In China, trade secret is mainly protected by "Unti-unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China" and "Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China". Article 10 of the "Unti-unfair Competition Law" prescribes the situations of infringing on the trade secret, and also gives a definition to the trade secret: the technical information and operational information which is not known to the public, which is capable of bringing economic benefits to the owners of the rights, which has practical applicability and the owners of the rights have taken measures to keep secret. Accordingly, there are three main constitutive elements for the trade secret: secrecy (not known to the public), economic value (economic benefits and practical applicability) and protecting measures (measures to keep secret).

In judicial practice, the court reviews the trade secret case sequentially on the following factual issues: constitutive elements of the trade secret, act of infringement, and liability of infringement. 

1) constitutive elements of the trade secret

Constitutive elements of the trade secret is the crucial and difficult points of the court review, and the court hearing is focused on the secrecy and protecting measures of the information at issue.

1.1) secrecy 

As the secrecy "not known to the public" is a negative fact, it is very difficult for the plaintiff to testify, and thus in practice, the court usually appropriately lowers the standards of proof. The burden of proof is regarded as fulfilled, if the plaintiff proves the information at issue differs from and improves the public information, and if the conclusion of judicial evaluation and expert witness support the establishment of the trade secret. On the other hand, the defendant may prove the information at issue is known to the public as defense.

1.2) protecting measures

Hearing on protecting measures is to examine whether there are measures to keep secret (such as whether a confidential contract is signed) and whether the measures are appropriate (whether there are only general confidentiality clauses), so as to determine the intention of the right holder to protect the trade secret, the recognition of the defendant on the information and the subjective malice of the infringer.

1.3) economic value

Both parties usually do not have many disputes on this point.

1.4) others

In addition, the plaintiff should point out the protection scope of the trade secret (i.e., the trade secret points), and usually it should be specified to the concrete information of the technical solution for a technical information, and name and contact information of the customer, prices, transaction habits, terms of payment and so on for operational information. Furthermore, the plaintiff should provide evidences such as technical drawings, original records and contract signed to prove the ownership of the trade secret.

2) act of infringement

After proving the establishment of the trade secret, the hearing will turn to the act of infringement. In practice, the burden of proof for the plaintiff is adjusted to further reduce the burden on testification, and the commonly used rule is as follows: "substantially identical + contact - lawful origin".

The plaintiff firstly proves the accused information is identical or substantially identical to the trade secret, and the defendant has contacted the trade secret. Then, after the plaintiff fulfills the testification, the burden of proof will be shifted to the defendant to prove the lawful origin of the accused information.

The lawful origin of the accused information includes transfer, inheritance, reverse engineering, independent research and so on. The latter two are unique for the trade secret cases. Reverse engineering requires the legitimacy of act; otherwise, the defense will hardly be accepted. When independent research is used as defense, the defendant has to prove the information made from independent research is formed before the trade secret of the plaintiff; otherwise, the defendant will take the consequences of failure on burden of proof due to unclear facts.

3) liability of infringement

There are mainly three kinds of liabilities of infringement: refrain from infringement, and the defendant should keep the trade secret non-disclosed until it is known to the public; compensation, considering the actual losses suffered by the right holder because of the infringement, profits the infringer has earned from the infringement, and statutory damages (referring to statutory damages prescribed in the Patent Law) in sequence; and criminal liability, depending on the actual losses caused to the right holder because of the infringement, the infringer will be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of no more than 3 years for 500,000 RMB losses or more and fixed-term imprisonment of not less than 3 years but not more than 7 years for 2,500,000 RMB losses or more.

In summary, the protection of the trade secret mainly depends on the self-protection of the right holder. Rational protecting measures and preservation of evidences are vital to win the litigation.

Author|Dr. Ke MOU

Resource| Liu Shen & Associates

Editor|Judy

Innovation and creative endeavors are indispensable elements that drive economic growth and sustain the competitive edge of the U.S. economy. The last century recorded unprecedented improvements in the health, economic well-being, and overall quality of life for the entire U.S. population.1 As the world leader in innovation, U.S. companies have relied on intellectual prop- erty (IP) as one of the leading tools with which such advances were promoted and realized. Pat- ents, trademarks, and copyrights are the principal means for establishing ownership rights to the creations, inventions, and brands that can be used to generate tangible economic benefits to their owner.

In 2012, the Department of Commerce issued a report titled Intellectual Property and the U.S. Economy: Industries in Focus (hereafter, the 2012 report). The report identified the industries that rely most heavily on patents, trademarks, or copyrights as IP-intensive and estimated their

contribution to the U.S. economy. It generated considerable interest and energized other agencies and organizations to produce similar studies investigating the use and impact of IP across coun- tries, industries, and firms.

This report builds on the 2012 version by providing an update on the impact of IP on our econo- my and a fresh look at the approach used to measure those results. The update continues to focus on measuring the intensity of IP use, and its persistent relationship to economic indicators such as employment, wages, and value added. While our methodology does not permit us to attribute those differences to IP alone, the results provide a useful benchmark. Furthermore, this and other studies together make clear that IP is a major part of a robust and growing economy.

Accordingly, in an effort to provide a more comprehensive analysis, this report also incorporates findings from other studies that target similar research questions but apply different methodol- ogies. Overall, we find that IP-intensive industries continue to be an important and integral part of the U.S. economy and account for more jobs and a larger share of U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) in 2014 compared to what we observed for 2010, the latest figure available for the 2012 report. We discuss these and other results in more detail below.

Principal Findings

• IP-intensive industries continue to be a major, integral and growing part of the U.S. economy.

• This report identifies 81 industries (from among 313 total) as IP-intensive. These IP-inten- sive industries directly accounted for 27.9 million jobs in 2014, up 0.8 million from 2010.

• Trademark-intensive industries are the largest in number and contribute the most employ- ment with 23.7 million jobs in 2014 (up from 22.6 million in 2010). Copyright-intensive industries supplied 5.6 million jobs (compared to 5.1 million in 2010) followed by patent-intensive industries with 3.9 million jobs (3.8 million in 2010).

• While jobs in IP-intensive industries increased between 2010 and 2014, non-IP-intensive jobs grew at a slightly faster pace. Consequently, the proportion of total employment in IP-intensive industries declined slightly to 18.2 percent (from 18.8 percent in 2010).

• In contrast, the value added by IP-intensive industries increased substantially in both total amount and GDP share between 2010 and 2014. IP-intensive industries accounted for $6.6 trillion in value added in 2014, up more than $1.5 trillion (30 percent) from $5.06 trillion in 2010. Accordingly, the share of total U.S. GDP attributable to IP-intensive in- dustries increased from 34.8 percent in 2010 to 38.2 percent in 2014.

• While IP-intensive industries directly accounted for 27.9 million jobs either on their pay- rolls or under contract in 2014, they also indirectly supported 17.6 million more supply chain jobs throughout the economy. In total, IP-intensive industries directly and indirectly supported 45.5 million jobs, about 30 percent of all employment.

• Private wage and salary workers in IP-intensive industries continue to earn significantly more than those in non-IP-intensive industries. In 2014, workers in IP-intensive indus- tries earned an average weekly wage of $1,312, 46 percent higher than the $896 average weekly wages in non-IP-intensive industries in the private sector. This wage premium has largely grown over time from 22 percent in 1990 to 42 percent in 2010 and 46 percent in 2014. Patent- and copyright-intensive industries have seen particularly fast wage growth in recent years, with the wage premium reaching 74 percent and 90 percent, respectively, in 2014.

• The educational gap between workers in IP-intensive and other industries observed in 2010 virtually disappeared by 2015. The share of workers in IP-intensive industries with a bachelor's degree or higher fell from 42.4 percent in 2010 to 39.8 percent in 2015, whereas that percentage increased from 34.2 percent to 38.9 percent for workers in non-IP-inten- sive industries.

• Revenue specific to the licensing of IP rights totaled $115.2 billion in 2012, with 28 indus- tries deriving revenues from licensing.

• Total merchandise exports of IP-intensive industries increased to $842 billion in 2014 from $775 billion in 2010. However, because non-IP-intensive industries' exports in- creased at a faster pace, the share of total merchandise exports from IP-intensive indus- tries declined to 52 percent in 2014 from 60 percent in 2010.

• Exports of service-providing IP-intensive industries totaled about $81 billion in 2012 and accounted for approximately 12.3 percent of total U.S. private services exported in 2012.

• 1 Gordon 2016

Attachment	Size
Intellectual Property and the U.S. Economy: 2016 Update	3.99 MB

From｜ESA

Editor|Judy

BEIJING, 8 December 2016 – China’s most innovative companies in 2016 have been identified in the 2016 Top 100 Chinese Innovators report launched today by Clarivate Analytics, formerly the Intellectual Property & Science business of Thomson Reuters. The inaugural report focuses on China’s 100 most innovative enterprises, which cross 23 different industries. Most companies are from the automotive, domestic appliances and electric power generation and supply sectors.

This report created by Clarivate Analytics is based on rigorous analysis of four main criteria comprising patent volume, patent-grant success rate, invention influence (as evidenced by citations to an organization’s patents over the most recent five years) and global reach – essentially the ration of inventions filed for protection in countries outside China versus the total volume for that period. The analysis covers companies in mainland China only and excludes Hong Kong and Macao.

 Here are some of the report’s key findings:  

• China’s most innovative companies span 23 different fields and industries, ranging from Primary Metals and Electricity, to Telecom Services and Media Internet. Automotive is the most innovative industry with automakers who invest R&D in not only traditional family cars, commercial and engineering vehicles, but also technologies for the future such as eco-friendly vehicles and self-driving cars. These innovative automakers include large state-owned-enterprises (SOEs) such as Dongfeng Motor Corporation and Beijing Automotive Group Co., Ltd., as well as rising private enterprises including BYD and Great Wall Motors.

• The Domestic Appliances and Electrical Equipment and Electric Power Generation and Supply sectors follow closely behind the automobile industry with eight companies each on the list. Chinese domestic appliance manufacturers include household names Midea, Haier, Gree and TCL. In the electric power industry, most of the corporations are SOEs with advantages in capital and human resources, leading to high innovation capability. The remaining two private enterprises, Trina Solar and Hanergy Holding Group Ltd., are rising stars in the market.

• There are five Media Internet companies in the list. Baidu, Alibaba and Tencent, the three industry giants collectively known in China as “BAT”, are all leading companies in terms of global reach, and they represent the Chinese internet to the world. The internet has been instrumental in bridging communication across borders and Chinese Media Internet companies are expected to build on this momentum and continue to innovate.

• Only 15 of the total 31 provinces of China are represented in the list, indicating that innovative Chinese companies are concentrated in the eastern region of the country, largely north China, east China and mid-south China. A total of 43 companies, or almost half of the top 100 Chinese innovators listed are headquartered in Beijing, China’s capital, clearly the innovation forerunner in mainland China. The municipal government had fully implemented the “Science & Technology Beijing” strategy as early as the “12th FYP” or “12th Five-Year Plans” period of Beijing. By utilizing the Zhong Guan Cun National Demonstration Zone for Independent Innovation, the government provided institutional and policy guidance for core elements of innovation such as talent, capital and technology, and created the mechanism to encourage and sustain innovation. One can see that policy support and healthy economic conditions in China play a key role in the innovation development of domestic enterprises.

• Globalization analysis clearly shows that mainland Chinese enterprises are inclined to focus on protecting innovation in the domestic market. Notable exceptions to this include Huawei with filings across 16 countries and Alibaba with filings across 11 international regions. The influence metric measures the external influence of an organization’s innovation. The top 20 companies ranked according to this metric are from 14 different industries including traditional industries such as Construction and Petroleum and Chemical Products. However, no clear trend has emerged yet despite the presence of organizations from 14 of the 23 industry sectors in this Top 20 list.

The 13th FYP adopted by China on Mar 15, 2016 defined innovation as one of the Five Concepts of Development. The Chinese government has also stated clearly its intent to “strengthen the main body of innovation, lead innovation development and foster world-class innovative enterprises” in its National Strategic Framework for Innovation-Driven Development.

“As the world’s second largest economy after the US and the largest commodity exporter, China is now transforming itself from ‘the world’s factory’ to becoming an innovation leader committed to rejuvenating the global economy. China’s national globalization strategy will become the new modus operandi for domestic enterprises, making independent technological innovation the decisive factor for competitiveness,” said Linda Guo, managing director of China for Clarivate Analytics. “The Top 100 Chinese Innovators 2016 have not only demonstrated their dedication to constant innovation, but also the inherent potential of Chinese enterprises to become more competitive internationally. At Clarivate, we have a long tradition of helping our customers accelerate the pace of innovation with our trusted insights and analytics.”

The report used patent information and data collected from the Derwent World Patents Index and Derwent Patents Citation Index between 2011 and 2015. The report is available for download here.

Note: A merger plan between Wuhan Iron and Stell (Group) Corp. and Baosteel was announced in September 2016 and was recently approved by government authorities. However, no such condition existed during the period covered by the data used in the report so the two entities were viewed as seperate

From | ipscience.thomsonreuters.com

Editor | Judy

China's highest court has ruled in favor of former basketball star Michael Jordan in a long-running trademark case relating to a local sportswear firm using the Chinese version of his name, overturning earlier rulings against the athlete.

The ruling is a rare bit of good news for a foreign brand in China, where companies, including iPhone maker Apple Inc and shoe brand New Balance, have often come out on the losing side in trademark disputes.

The former Chicago Bulls player sued Qiaodan Sports in 2012, saying the company located in southern Fujian province had built its business around his Chinese name and famous jersey number "23" without his permission.

In 2015 a court ruled in favor of Qiaodan Sports over the trademark dispute, a ruling which was then upheld by the Beijing Municipal High People's Court. After that ruling Jordan's legal team said they would take the case to China's top court.

The Chinese characters for Jordan's name read as "Qiaodan" in basketball-mad China, which also has a homegrown superstar in former Houston Rockets player Yao Ming.

On Thursday, China's Supreme People's Court overturned earlier rulings in favor of Qiaodan Sports using the characters for Jordan's Chinese name, although it upheld a ruling allowing the firm to use the Romanized version "Qiaodan".

It added the Chinese firm's actions had displayed "malicious intent" by registering trademarks for Jordan's Chinese name.

"I am happy that the Supreme People's Court has recognized the right to protect my name through its ruling in the trademark cases," Jordan said in a statement sent to Reuters.

"Chinese consumers deserve to know that Qiaodan Sports and its products have no connection to me."

The Chinese firm said in a statement on its verified microblog that it respected the court's judgment and would, according to law, carry out proper protection on the firm's products and their intellectual property rights.

Reuters could not immediately reach the company for further comment.

Jordan, who has a net worth of $1.24 billion according to Forbes, is the majority owner of the Charlotte Hornets basketball team and has a lucrative endorsement contract with Nike Inc, which makes Air Jordan shoes.

A separate naming rights case is still to be heard.

(Reporting by Adam Jourdan and SHANGHAI newsroom; Editing by Muralikumar Anantharaman)

By Adam Jourdan | SHANGHAI

From | reuters.com

Editor | Judy

HMD Global and FIH Mobile on Thursday announced that they had completed their buyout of Nokia assets from Microsoft which opens a way for return of Nokia branded smartphones to the market. As expected, HMD and FIH will keep selling Nokia-branded feature phones in developing countries but will add a range of android-based smartphones and tablets to the lineup in 2017. The two companies hope that relationships with operators as well as manufacturing assets (Foxconn) will be instrumental for making their endeavor a success.

As reported earlier this year, HMD Global and FIH Mobile, a subsidiary of Hon Hai/Foxconn Technology Group (we will call the company “Foxconn” for simplicity), paid Microsoft approximately $350 million in cash for various Nokia-related assets. Under the terms of the agreement, HMD got exclusive rights to use the Nokia brand on mobile phones and tablets globally (except Japan) for the next 10 years, standard essential cellular patent licenses, software for feature phones and some other intellectual property. Meanwhile, Foxconn got a manufacturing facility in Hanoi, Vietnam, which is used to manufacture Nokia-branded devices along with customer contracts, critical supply agreements, sales and distribution assets (in fact, these will be owned by a subsidiary of FIH called TNS and HMD will have rights to acquire TNS over the next ten years) and so on. HMD and Foxconn will jointly develop, manufacture and sell Nokia-branded devices, whereas Nokia will participate in development and will receive royalties covering both brand and IP rights from HMD for sales of every Nokia-branded product. The three companies are poised to work together because they critically depend on assets owned by each other.

In its announcement on Thursday, HMD reaffirmed plans to introduce a range of Android-based smartphones and tablets in 2017. The company’s announcement was short on details, but it confirmed that the devices will be jointly developed with Foxconn under supervision of Nokia (which intends to control certain aspects of design, performance, and feature-set of the devices), who has know-hows not only in high-volume manufacturing but also in device engineering. Given the short amount of time that HMD, Foxconn and Nokia had to design their new devices, expect the latter to use already known hardware platforms, but add certain elements for differentiation. We do know that Nokia has developed its own UI for Android called Z Launcher, hence it is logical to expect the company to expand the project for Nokia-branded smartphones. Meanwhile, since a lot of important Nokia IP (e.g., PureView imaging, ClearBlack display, etc.) remains at Microsoft, three companies will have to either develop certain technologies from scratch or use off-the-shelf solutions. Such approach has pros and cons: on the one hand, it is hard to create a unique device based on popular platforms; on the other hand, it is possible to build a device in a relatively short amount of time. Hence, expect HMD Foxconn and Nokia to reveal their first smartphone already in the first half of 2017.

Right now, the core business of HMD and Foxconn is Nokia-branded feature phones that are popular primarily in developing countries. On Thursday, HMD also announced the Nokia 216 handset with a 2.4” display running the Nokia 30-series software that will be inexpensive but will still provide basic “smart” functionality like Internet browsing and multimedia playback. Even though sales of such phones are rapidly decreasing, there are still hundreds of millions of such devices sold every year. HMD naturally hopes that it will be able to replace feature phones with inexpensive smartphones and thus will capture a sizeable chunk of the market. As such, expect HMD to focus on not only advanced models for the U.S. and Europe, but also on affordable smartphones for countries like India and Russia, where the brand is particularly strong and where reasonably priced phones are popular. From a market share point of view, inexpensive models are more important than the flagship devices. Nonetheless, Xiaomi and some other makers clearly demonstrated how fine flagship devices affect brand recognition, hence, they are crucial for success.

Wrapping things up, the deal between Microsoft, HMD Global and FIH Mobile is now closed and Nokia-branded smartphones (and tablets) are on their way back to the market. It is unlikely that we will hear about them anything at CES, but HMD Global will be present at MWC 2017 and this is where the firm will likely showcase at least some of the upcoming products or at least their key features.

by Anton Shilov on December 2, 2016 5:00 PM EST

From | Anandtech

Editor | Judy

Purportedly, representing the American Business community in China since 22^nd April 1991, the Chinese American Chamber of Commerce, who like to call themselves the American Chamber of Commerce in China, have on occasion been parties to fraud and deception.

In this article we will reveal some things about the American Chamber of Commerce in China and we will let you decide their fitness to represent the American Business community in China.

Once Upon a Time in Beijing

In 1996, an entity called the American Club of Beijing was incorporated in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.  People often referred to it as the American Club. This entity was filed as a 501(c) company in the USA, which means that it did not operate for a profit. In fact, it was founded much earlier as an unincorporated association and dates back to 1979, shortly after diplomatic relations between the USA and China were established.

The American Club of Beijing mostly comprised of American business people, American Diplomats and their spouses. The purpose of the American Club of Beijing was to perform charitable, cultural, social and educational events for the American Community. From time to time the American Club of Beijing would organise trips to orphanages, and introductions to Chinese culture.

In 2008, James Zimmerman, then President of the American Chamber of Commerce in China instructed James Haynes of Tee & Howe to contact Edward Lehman of the American Club of Beijing, with a view to buying some trademarks that the American Club of Beijing owned in China. Both James Haynes and James Zimmerman are qualified as lawyers in the USA. The trademarks consisted of the word AmCham in various styles. The trademarks were registered by the American Club of Beijing under the name “American Club.”

On 9^th January 2009, Lehman telephone Haynes to warn him that the American Chamber of Commerce in China was infringing on his intellectual property rights.  Lehman warned Haynes to advise his client to stop the infringement or further legal action would follow.

On 14^th January 2009, Zimmerman requested a meeting between Lehman and Haynes. The meeting was to discuss the transfer of the AmCham trademarks. At this point we ask you:

·         If Zimmerman asked for a meeting to transfer the AmCham trademarks, did Zimmerman know the trademarks belonged to the American Club of Beijing?

·         Furthermore, did Zimmerman know that Lehman represented the American Club of Beijing?

·         Did Haynes know the answers to these questions?

On 16^th January 2009, Haynes sent an email to Lehman thanking him for purportedly agreeing to transfer the trademarks. He even went as far as to draw formal assignment papers to effect the transfer of the trademarks.

On January 19^th 2009, Haynes emailed Lehman once more to advise him that the American Chamber of Commerce in China was taking steps to cancel the trademarks of the American Club of Beijing. He then went on to say that Zimmerman had told him in an email dated 16^th December 2008, that Lehman had agreed to make a transfer of the trademarks. Finally and most damning for the reputation of the then leadership in the American Chamber of Commerce in China is that they had scheduled meetings to discuss the issue of the trademarks.

·         Do you think that the whole of the American Chamber of Commerce in China was aware of the proposed transaction to purchase the trademarks from the American Club of Beijing?

·         Is it logical to presume that Zimmerman was aware of all the main facts surrounding the trademarks?

·         Is it logical to presume that Haynes was aware of all the main facts surrounding the trademarks?

On 18^th March 2009, the General Legal Counsel to the American Chamber of Commerce in China, Nathan Bush, contacted Lehman. Bush wanted to know if Lehman could meet with him and John Watkins, the then Chairman of the American Chamber of Commerce in China to discuss the transfer of the trademarks from the American Club of Beijing to the American Chamber of Commerce in China.

·         Why did the American Chamber of Commerce in China want to obtain the trademarks and why did Lehman not want to transfer them on behalf of the American Club of Beijing  of Beijing?

We may not have all the answers, but we do have some. We can refer to an email dated 30^th March from Lehman to Bush and Watkins, in their roles as officials of the American Chamber of Commerce in China.  In that email Lehman mentions other American Chamber of Commerce in Chinas of Commerce in China, which are grass root organisations. Lehman infers that by transferring the licence, he would be affecting the sovereignty of those other American Chamber of Commerce in Chinas of Commerce. To resolve matters, Lehman offered the American Chamber of Commerce in China a non-exclusive licence to use the trademarks, with some minor preconditions.

·         Did Lehman make a fair offer?

·         Did the American Chamber of Commerce in China have any pre-existing right to the trademarks?

·         Could Lehman have asked for money in exchange for a licence? Did he?

Meanwhile Back in the USA

In or around 1980, a lady inherited an unincorporated business going by the name American Club. Her name was Carole E. Bowers. By 2009, she was rather elderly and is unknown to have left Pennsylvania, let alone the United States.

The American Club had been founded in the 1940s by Bower’s mother. It was a correspondence American Club of Beijing that had been started by family and friends.

On 19^th May 1980, Bowers registered the unincorporated business with the Pennsylvania Department of State Corporations Bureau. For the whole history of the business it was operated as a sole proprietorship.

·         Does the name of the business remind you of anything?

The name should remind you of an entity operating in Beijing, discussed earlier. Haynes had discovered this and decided to take advantage of the situation. In particular, he took advantage of the fact that the American Club of Beijing had registered the trademarks under the name “American Club” and so he went to the American Club to ask Bowers to transfer the trademarks.

Now, Bowers had never been to China. The registered addresses of the American Club and the American Club of Beijing were different; their employees were different; and their very legal natures were different – one entity was a corporation and the other was unincorporated. This situation involves some very basic issues of fact and company law.

·         Had Haynes been corresponding with Lehman?

·         Had Haynes previously drafted a trademark assignment with the American Club’s details on it?

·         Was it reasonable to assume that Bowers and Lehman were part of the same entity?

On 10^th April 2009, Haynes visited Bowers. Haynes, who is a qualified lawyer in Texas, asked Bowers to sign a transfer document for the trademarks. He offered her $1,000 for her to sign the transfer and she – a little old lady of limited means, who had never been to China – accepted.

·         Did Haynes know Lehman and Bowers?

·         Had Haynes been in contact with Lehman for many months before 10^th April 2009?

·         Did Haynes know that the American Club of Beijing and the American Club were different entities with similar names?

·         Did Haynes get Bowers to transfer property that did not belong to her?

·         Did Haynes, as a lawyer, know the difference between the American Club of Beijing and the American Club?

·          Is Haynes acting in an honest way?

Now before we move on, we must not forget that Haynes was simply an agent; an agent of the American Chamber of Commerce in China. Which, the emails we have seen suggest, was greatly under the influence of Zimmerman. Various officials and board members of the American Chamber of Commerce in China had contacted Haynes and Lehman on several occasions in an attempt to move forward a deal regarding the transfer of the AmCham trademarks, but Zimmerman as President and President Emeritus had a particular hand in matters. Haynes was acting for the American Chamber of Commerce in China and on their behalf and he was under a duty to report to them.

·         Do we think that the American Chamber of Commerce in China knew about what he did?

·         Where do we think the $1000 paid to Carole bowers came from?

·         Is it likely that if various board members and officials of the American Chamber of Commerce in China were aware of the situation involving Bowers, that Zimmerman was unaware?

Back to Beijing

Once Haynes got back to Beijing, he arranged by way of Tee & Howe for the transfer of the trademarks from the American Club of Beijing to the American Chamber of Commerce in China. The American Club of Beijing lost its trademarks due to a former quirk in the Chinese trademark registration system.

On or about April 2010, Lehman discovered that the trademarks of the American Club of Beijing had been transferred to the American Club. On 13^th May 2011, a lawsuit was filed at the Beijing First Intermediate Court by the American Club of Beijing. During this lawsuit, Lehman discovered how Haynes was able to effect the transfer of the trademarks.

Eventually, to defeat the claims of the American Club of Beijing, the American Chamber of Commerce in China through its then President Michael Barbalas arranged for the cancellation of the AmCham trademarks, through Tee & Howe. By destroying the original subject matter and re-registering “fresh” trademarks the American Chamber of Commerce in China was hoping to make their problems go away. However, litigation is still ongoing.

On 11^th September 2014, a lawsuit was filed by Lehman on Behalf of the American Club of Beijing in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Interestingly, the court said:

“Neither Bowers, nor her registered fictitious name “American American Club of Beijing ,” nor any entity owned or controlled by her ever applied for or was awarded any “AmCham” marks whatsoever.

Haynes and the American Chamber of Commerce in China of Commerce in the People’s Republic of China subsequently used the documents signed by Bowers to perpetrate a fraud upon the Chinese Trademark Office and to steal the marks…”

So, now we leave you with some final questions:

·         What should happen to the trademarks obtained by fraud?

·         Should they stay with the fraudster or should they be returned to Lehman?

·         Are the officials of the American Chamber of Commerce in China criminals?

·         What should be done with Haynes?

·         What should be done with Zimmerman?

Ironic Fact

The American Chamber of Commerce in China has an IPR forum that:

“advocates for a fair and strong pro-IP environment within China and provides members with information on intellectual property related issues and regulations. The forum does this through events and meetings.”

From | LEHMAN LEE & XU

Editro | Judy

By MONICA DAVEY, JULIE BOSMAN and STEVE EDERDEC. 2, 2016

LANSING, Mich. — President-elect Donald J. Trump and his allies have filed separate legal challenges in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin in a suddenly robust effort to stop the presidential election recount efforts there.

None of the challenges immediately derailed the recounts in those states, but they promised to complicate them with more legal wrangling by Mr. Trump, groups supportive of him, state officials and Jill Stein, the Green Party presidential candidate. Ms. Stein initiated the recounts and a successful fund-raising drive after suggesting that voting machines were susceptible to hacking.

On Friday, Mr. Trump filed a lawsuit in the Michigan Court of Appeals in an attempt to block the recount there, which had not yet begun. “If the Bureau of Elections moves forward with the recount, it will waste the State’s scarce resources, create a logistical nightmare for counties across the State, and assure that Michigan’s Electoral College voters will not be counted,” the filing said.

Bill Schuette, Michigan’s attorney general, filed a separate lawsuit in a bid to halt the recount, saying that it put the state’s voters at risk of “paying millions and potentially losing their voice in the Electoral College in the process.”

In his court filing, Mr. Schuette, a Republican who is widely mentioned as a possible candidate for governor in 2018, said, “This court cannot allow a dilatory and frivolous request for a recount by an aggrieved party to silence all Michigan votes for president.’’

In Wisconsin, a lawsuit against the state Elections Commission was filed Thursday in Federal District Court by the Great America PAC, the Stop Hillary PAC and Ronald R. Johnson, a Wisconsin resident. The lawsuit said that the recount could “unjustifiably cast doubt” on Mr. Trump’s victory in that state.

The plaintiffs argued that the recount, which began across the state’s 72 counties on Thursday morning, should be halted immediately, in part because there was a substantial chance that it cannot be accurately completed by mid-December. Results must be certified before the Electoral College meets on Dec. 19. In 2011, a statewide recount took close to a month.

A federal judge said Friday that he would not halt the recount, but allowed the lawsuit to proceed.

Lawyers for Mr. Trump and his allies are also seeking to halt legal proceedings by Ms. Stein to contest the statewide election results in Pennsylvania.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign has participated only lightly, paying for lawyers to be present at recount sites. Still, the recounts have generated excitement among some of her supporters, hoping that the small margins in the three traditionally Democratic states might swing to Mrs. Clinton in a recount.

But Edward B. Foley, director of the Election Law Project at Ohio State University’s Moritz College of Law, said there was no comparison between this recount and the 2000 Florida impasse between George W. Bush and Al Gore. Then, he said, “it was quite plausible that Gore might prevail in a recount.’’

The chance that these state recounts could reverse the outcome of the 2016 election, Mr. Foley said, was “essentially zero or infinitesimal.”

Ms. Stein, in a statement, said the challenges to the recounts were an effort to put “party politics above country.”

“Trump’s desperate attempts to silence voter demands for recounts raise a simple question: Why is Donald Trump afraid of these recounts?” she said.

In Michigan, where the recount is still pending, the Board of State Canvassers on Friday heard a formal objection from Mr. Trump and his campaign to plans to recount that state’s 4.8 million votes.

Lawyers for Mr. Trump told the state board, which is made up of two Democrats and two Republicans, that it should not allow a new count, describing it as needless, too expensive and not required under Michigan law. Ms. Stein, who got 51,463 votes in Michigan, hardly met the state’s standard as an “aggrieved” party, the lawyers argued.

But a lawyer for Ms. Stein, Mark Brewer, said Mr. Trump’s campaign was making a “desperate attempt” to avoid a recount. Of the three states where recounts are contemplated, Michigan had the smallest gap between Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton: 10,704 votes.

“I would remind everybody that the original source of the allegation that this election was rigged was Mr. Trump,” Mr. Brewer, a former chairman of Michigan’s Democratic Party, told the board.

In the end, after several tense exchanges over the practical value and cost of a recount, the Board of State Canvassers split, 2 to 2, along party lines, meaning the recount objection failed.

Barring a court order in Mr. Schuette’s case or some other legal development, Michigan, which has not seen a statewide recount in half a century, could begin a hand recount by Wednesday.

In Pennsylvania, Ms. Stein’s recount campaign is operating along dual tracks, with its challenge of the statewide results proceeding along with petitions to recount specific voting districts.

Lawrence J. Tabas, general counsel of the Republican Party of Pennsylvania, said in an interview on Friday that Ms. Stein’s lawyers had fallen short of demonstrating that there was fraud or illegal action in the Nov. 8 election.

“They know they have no claim,” he said. “This action by Jill Stein and her supporters — I couldn’t even call it a Hail Mary pass, because that would be insulting to the Hail Mary pass,” said Mr. Tabas, who along with other lawyers, submitted a lengthy court brief on Thursday.

On Friday afternoon in Philadelphia, teams of observers were monitoring election workers as they rechecked counts on electronic voting machines used in 75 precincts, a small fraction of the nearly 1,700 across the city.

The groups — which included representatives from each of the parties and candidates — quietly made their way from machine to machine in a dimly lit warehouse in North Philadelphia where the city stores its 4,000 machines. Philadelphia has been using the machines, which record votes on cartridges, since the early 2000s.

The review mirrored the steps that automatically take places after elections, said Al Schmidt, a city commissioner and a Republican, who said he did not expect the vote tally to change.

“We are doing the exact same thing that we did during the computation process,” he said. “We are just doing it once again.”

Rich Garella, 50, a Stein supporter who petitioned for the recount and was serving as a monitor on Friday, said the effort felt worthwhile, but he had hoped that election officials would approve a more rigorous forensic audit of the machines, which Ms. Stein had requested.

“We as voters don’t really understand how these machines work,” Mr. Garella said. “We don’t understand how they are programmed.”

He predicted that one result of the recount effort, at least in Philadelphia, could be to shed light on the unseen part of the voting system.

“What we may end up showing from this is just that we are not being allowed to see how our election works and to see that our votes are being counted properly,” he said.

EDITOR | Judy

FROM | The New York Times