For a long time, China has been perceived as the Far West of intellectual property and its reputation associated with non-compliance with patents. It is true that it had no law in this area until 1984, favoring the imitation of foreign technologies to their protection. This image is obsolete today. In recent years, Beijing has deeply reformed its legal and strategic framework for patents and brands.
The year 2024 marked a turning point. With more than 46 % of patent deposits, the country has risen in the world’s first place. This evolution is based on concrete measures. China modernized its laws to align them with international standards as soon as it entered the World Trade Organization in 2001. It created its First specialized courts In intellectual property in 2014. They now form a network of 21 bodies dedicated to disputes and are based on a modern computer tool that links deposits and judicial disputes.
The new patent law, which entered into force in 2021, introduced measures in favor of innovation, for example an extension up to five years of the duration of patents on drugs – a concept inspired by the American Hatch -Waxman. In addition, the principle of good faith was enshrined in Chinese intellectual property law in 2024, in order to block the fraudulent or abusive deposits of patents and brands.
Chinese courts more active
From now on, the courts of the country apply the law in a more impartial manner and foreign complainants obtain the case as often as Chinese companies in litigation. Besides, only 26 % Member companies of the US Chamber of Commerce in China believe that the application of intellectual property rights constitutes an obstacle to their investments, compared to 55 % in 2006. The book Silicon Triangle: The United States, Taiwan, China, and Global Semiconductor Security (Hoover Institution Press, 2023) reports that American companies, when they have the choice of jurisdiction, now prefer to bring their trials in China rather than in the United States because they more easily obtain protective measures-which prevent the sale of the disputed product.
In April 2024, the national intellectual property administration of China joined the “Highway Patecution” initiative. This promotes the cooperation of the five main intellectual property offices in the world, which are located in China, the United States, Europe, Japan and the Republic of Korea.
This turn contrasts with the progressive weakening of the American system. In the United States, legal decisions like eBay vs. Mercexchange In 2006 greatly reduced the dissuasive scope of patents, removing the automatic taking of protective measurements against counterfeiters. The America Invents Act of 2011 Created the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), a very controversial commission of appeal in terms of patents, which invalidated more than 80 % of the files examined.
An American frame too relaxed
Between 2010 and 2014, a series of judgments of the Supreme Court, including the so -called decisions Alice and Mayohas drastically reduced the field of patentable inventions. It is now excluded from it all that is considered to be a law of nature or an abstract idea. Whole sectors – software, medical diagnostics, commercial methods, etc. – have become more difficult to protect. Hundreds of patents already delivered have even been canceled retroactively on this basis.
Some see in this softening the action of the giants of consumer technology, such as manufacturers of cars or mobile phones, where only one product is often associated with thousands of patents which are as many risks of prosecution agitated by patent hunters looking for undue compensations. Technological companies promote a system that recognizes only high quality patents. Last year, a study by the Bipartisan Sunwater Institute’s reflection group, however, showed that in the United States, the undue allocation of patents (7 %) is half the rejection of perfectly valid requests (18 %). This preference for elitism therefore deprives the country with additional innovation.
Robin Rivaton is CEO of Stonal and member of the Scientific Council of the Foundation for Political Innovation (Fondapol)
.