Evidence in Chinese patent enforcement: Key differences with the US

Logo
Presented by

MIP

About this talk

Join Ude Lu, the chief IP counsel (US) of Purplevine IP, Helen Zhang, the litigation manager of Purplevine IP in Beijing, and Penny Sun, the brand protection manager of ABRO Industry, as they discuss evidence collection for patent enforcement in China and the US virtually with Managing IP on November 9 at 10am (US ET) / 3pm (UK) / 11pm (China). China has become one of the most litigious countries for patent enforcement. Foreign patentees may therefore face challenges when collecting evidence in China because, unlike in most European countries and the US, the plaintiff has the burden of proof in proving infringements. Foreign patentees should have well-planned patent enforcement strategies and be prepared for evidence collection when encountering lawsuits in China. The webinar will focus on the differences between the Chinese and US approaches to infringement litigation in the following areas: • The types of evidence required; • The factual evidence needed; and • Evidence regarding the claim amount. Join Purplevine IP’s experts as they compare evidence collection for patent litigation in China with the approach in the US.
Related topics:

More from this channel

Upcoming talks (0)
On-demand talks (23)
Subscribers (11612)
‘What keeps in-house counsel awake at night?’ is one way to summarise our editorial focus. We aim to track the strategies of in-house IP counsel within companies, big and small, by speaking directly to them about the day-to-day issues they face. Law firms need practical information that they can apply when advising their clients, and companies find value in benchmarking their strategies with those of their peers. This is why we have adopted this approach in our subscription-based service. Our content is not reactionary or news-focused, but informed and actionable. In this pursuit of in-house intelligence, we also publish several surveys each year that include exclusive data focusing on specific industry issues. These polls allow us to provide an accurate snapshot of how in-house counsel perceive and act on a given issue. Our other core objective is interviewing senior judges, whose insight is valuable for many IP stakeholders. We find that the judiciary are vital for giving counsel, private and in-house, highly useful information for when they are locked in litigation. We continue to speak regularly with IP offices too. Regardless of its specific intent, our coverage is global and encompasses (but is not limited to) the following areas: Copyright; Data; Designs; Patents; Trademarks; and Trade secrets