Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property最新文献_第10页

Judicial judgment of ‘Malicious Incompatibility’: based on the study of Chinese judicial practice “恶意不相容”的司法判决:基于中国司法实践的研究

IF 0.4 4区社会学

Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property Pub Date : 2020-09-01 DOI: 10.4337/qmjip.2020.03.05

Zhe Wang, Yifan Lin, Yajing Zhou

引用次数: 0

Post-grant patent review in China: an empirical analysis 中国专利授权后审查的实证分析

IF 0.4 4区社会学

Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property Pub Date : 2020-09-01 DOI: 10.4337/qmjip.2020.03.04

Renjun Bian

{"title":"Post-grant patent review in China: an empirical analysis","authors":"Renjun Bian","doi":"10.4337/qmjip.2020.03.04","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4337/qmjip.2020.03.04","url":null,"abstract":"With a series of policies to stimulate innovation and patent activities, China has become a world leader in both patent applications and patent litigation. These major developments, together with the escalated US-China trade tensions, have made China an integral but controversial venue for international patent protection. The Chinese patent system, especially its detailed practice and cases, is in need of a comprehensive empirical study. This article analyzed 8766 Chinese patent invalidity cases decided between 2014 and 2016, which, together with my prior work on patent infringement lawsuits, offers a comprehensive picture on how the bifurcated patent system in China works. First, it found that only a small number, about 2.0 percent, of Chinese patents are ever subject to infringement or invalidity disputes, shedding light on the patent office's rational ignorance of a patent's validity at first place. Second, it found that the invalidity rate for invention patents in China (54.6%) was lower than in many other countries, such as the US (83.9%) and Germany (73%), indicating that the Chinese patent system is more pro-patentee than once believed. Third, it raised the question of Chinese patents’ quality based on various characteristics of these cases, including patent types and petitioners’ entity status.","PeriodicalId":42155,"journal":{"name":"Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property","volume":"10 1","pages":"339-375"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49087381","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 3

Patents and gender: a contextual analysis 专利与性别:语境分析

IF 0.4 4区社会学

Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property Pub Date : 2020-09-01 DOI: 10.4337/qmjip.2020.03.01

J. Lai

{"title":"Patents and gender: a contextual analysis","authors":"J. Lai","doi":"10.4337/qmjip.2020.03.01","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4337/qmjip.2020.03.01","url":null,"abstract":"Patent law is considered to be an objective law, dealing with the objective subject matter of the ‘technical arts’. Yet, empirical studies show that patenting rates around the world are gendered. This article analyses the roots of the gender patent gap, and how this correlates to the invention and innovation processes. It shows that the gendered nature of the patent-regulated knowledge governance system forces women into traditionally male spaces and fields in order to partake in the extant patent game. Yet, when they enter those spaces and fields, they often find themselves unwelcome and subject to institutional, structural or organizational biases, which impinge upon their ability to invent, patent and commercialize.\u0000\u0000This article re-frames the discourse around women inventors. It argues that we have to stop focusing on the ‘women in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM)’ narrative, because it is a distraction from the underlying problem that the Western knowledge governance system reflects the hegemonic powers at play. Instead, we need to re-think the knowledge governance system and the ecosystem it creates, in order to ensure egalitarian knowledge production and protection.","PeriodicalId":42155,"journal":{"name":"Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.4337/qmjip.2020.03.01","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43431541","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 3

The public interest and patent injunctions: Evalve v Edwards Lifescience [2020] EWHC 513 (Pat) 专利禁令与公共利益:valve v Edwards Lifescience [2020] EWHC 513 (Pat)

IF 0.4 4区社会学

Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property Pub Date : 2020-09-01 DOI: 10.4337/qmjip.2020.03.06

Phillip Johnson

引用次数: 0

Book review: Bhamati Viswanathan, Cultivating Copyright: How Creators and Creative Industries Can Harness Intellectual Property to Survive the Digital Age (Routledge, Abingdon, 2020) 242 pp. 书评：Bhamati Viswanathan，《培育版权：创作者和创意产业如何利用知识产权在数字时代生存》（Routledge，Abingdon，2020）242页。

IF 0.4 4区社会学

Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property Pub Date : 2020-09-01 DOI: 10.4337/qmjip.2020.03.07

Oğulcan Ekiz

引用次数: 0

The drivers of creativity and innovation in copyright discourse: a value chain analysis across cultural industries 版权话语中创造力和创新的驱动因素:跨文化产业的价值链分析

IF 0.4 4区社会学

Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property Pub Date : 2020-09-01 DOI: 10.4337/qmjip.2020.03.03

Ke Yu, C. Darch

{"title":"The drivers of creativity and innovation in copyright discourse: a value chain analysis across cultural industries","authors":"Ke Yu, C. Darch","doi":"10.4337/qmjip.2020.03.03","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4337/qmjip.2020.03.03","url":null,"abstract":"We build on the well-established critique, primarily in the US literature, of the following assumptions: (1) copyright protections serve to incentivise creativity; (2) copyright is designed with such incentivisation as its primary purpose; and (3) a standardized set of copyright protections should ideally be applicable to all forms of cultural production, across all situations in all countries. These assumptions lead to two fundamental conceptual flaws in much current copyright policy discourse: (1) it conflates concepts such as incentive, reward, and recognition; (2) it is nomothetic in character insofar as the existing structural and procedural diversity of the different cultural industries that it governs is inadequately acknowledged. Our critique in this article is not, therefore, a general one, but is limited to a specific theory of copyright, which pretends that copyright is an incentive to creativity while the evidence indicates that it is not. We highlight the importance of taking account of the whole ‘creativity value chain’ in the different industries with their various components – the creator, the copyright holder, the distributor, and the market. Drawing on case studies of three creative industries: literary writing, film, and fashion, we demonstrate that not only is there currently considerable heterogeneity among these industries, but that there has also been heterogeneity within each industry at different periods and in different contexts. We argue that this flexibility is a beneficial characteristic of the current functioning of copyright that should be defended against pressures in favour of harmonization.","PeriodicalId":42155,"journal":{"name":"Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property","volume":"10 1","pages":"321-338"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41516479","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

Trademark protection of single-colour trademarks: a study of the Chinese Louboutin case 单色商标的商标保护:中国Louboutin案研究

IF 0.4 4区社会学

Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property Pub Date : 2020-05-01 DOI: 10.4337/qmjip.2020.02.06

Yong Wan, Hongxuyang Lu

引用次数: 0

Brands make believe: ethical veganism and labelling in fashion 品牌虚构：道德素食主义与时尚标签

IF 0.4 4区社会学

Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property Pub Date : 2020-05-01 DOI: 10.4337/qmjip.2020.02.00

J. Gibson

引用次数: 2

Book review: Olasupo Owoeye, Intellectual Property and Access to Medicines in Africa: A Regional Framework for Access (Routledge, Abingdon 2019) 270 pp. 书评:Olasupo Owoeye，非洲的知识产权和药品获取:获取的区域框架(Routledge, Abingdon 2019) 270页。

IF 0.4 4区社会学

Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property Pub Date : 2020-05-01 DOI: 10.4337/qmjip.2020.02.08

T. A. Adekola

引用次数: 0

Jurisprudence of intellectual property in research: African, western and modern perspectives 研究中的知识产权法学：非洲、西方和现代视角

IF 0.4 4区社会学

Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property Pub Date : 2020-05-01 DOI: 10.4337/qmjip.2020.02.03

B. Mukoro, N. Nwafor, T. O. Umahi, G. Onuoha, B. Otunta

{"title":"Jurisprudence of intellectual property in research: African, western and modern perspectives","authors":"B. Mukoro, N. Nwafor, T. O. Umahi, G. Onuoha, B. Otunta","doi":"10.4337/qmjip.2020.02.03","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4337/qmjip.2020.02.03","url":null,"abstract":"There is disagreement about entitlement to, and the scope, of intellectual property rights over research knowledge. This article explores jurisprudential perspectives on ownership of research knowledge. It also features the conflict between African and western conceptions of intellectual property, and how this has affected the exploitation of indigenous knowledge with the resultant impact on traditional knowledge institutions. In modern times, the allocation of rights is relatively settled in such relationships as between employer and employee, the researcher and the funder. Between researcher and publisher, digital technology, which ensures wider circulation, has led to claims for a re-definition of the relationship under which the researcher traditionally licensed his copyright to the publisher. A similar re-definition is called for with respect to research subjects in certain research environments. In particular, the result of research conducted with user-generated data in multi-sided business models like social media sites is implicated. The research finds that there is no generic solution that will apply to all relationships but that laws should be tailored to each relationship pair, in line with the suggestions in this paper. African traditional knowledge is denied protection by criteria such as non-disclosure because of the African collectivist notion of person. While Africans are collectivist, westerners are individualistic. It is concluded that on closer inspection there are analogues in African and western notions of intellectual property that could be used to resolve seeming conflicts and protect traditional knowledge.","PeriodicalId":42155,"journal":{"name":"Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property","volume":"10 1","pages":"200-216"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2020-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45411703","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0