The two main developments were establishment of an IP court and the Patent Attorney Act. The court is being set up, said Wang, to provide more effective handling of IPR cases, and a better deterrent toward counterfeiting and pirating of goods. The court is scheduled to be up and running by July 2008.

The IP Court, she continued, will shorten the decision-making process, reduce litigation costs, establish more effective court procedures and deliver more universal decisions. That said, disadvantages include high costs in maintaining such a court. “The government cannot set up specialized court everywhere,” said Wang. “Doing so affects the costs to litigation parties.”

There is also concern, she observed, that having such a court may result in over-concentration on specific cases. “This reduces the ability to integrate general legal principles in such cases. In addition, attorneys who are familiar with the litigation procedures will have advantage over those who are not. This may lead to unfairness.” Voices have also been raised against having a specialized court because it will muddle the framework of civil, criminal and administrative actions.

According to Jason Chen, counsel at Jones Day at AmCham IPL Committee cochair, the IP court is very important to AmCham member companies. “As owners of intellectual property rights, they require a more effective system to protect their rights.” Given that the court was originally set to open in early 2007, Chen hopes that the July 2008 schedule will be met.

The Patent Attorney Act — promulgated July 11, 2007 — becomes effective Jan. 11, 2008. The major changes are that it simultaneously abolishes regulations on patent agent management and allows attorneys to conduct patent representative affairs pursuant to the Attorney Act. “In the past,” said Wang, “accountants could acquire patent agent qualification pursuant to the Patent Agent Regulations. After the regulations are abolished, they will no longer be able to do so.”