IP includes patents, trademarks, and copyrights. A patent provides an exclusive right to an invention. A trademark provides an exclusive right to an indication of source of a product. A copyright provides an exclusive right to an original work. A service mark provides an exclusive right to a service or origin of a service.

United States copyrights accrue automatically, but a work must be registered with the United States Copyright Office to perfect the federal copyright. Trademark rights can also accrue without a federal registration, but those rights are weaker, and a federal registration is preferred in almost all situations.

United States patents and trademarks are obtained by filing an application in the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). An examiner in the USPTO examines the application for compliance with all statutory requirements. The USPTO issues complying applications and rejects non-complying applications. Often, a non-complying application can be amended, thereby placing it in condition for allowance. It is helpful to discuss possible amendments with the examiner in charge of the application prior to filing an amendment. Discussions with the examiner on how best to amend an application increase the chance that the amendment will result in allowance.

Trademarks and service marks identify your business to the purchaser of your product or service. Your mark allows a consumer to come back to you if he or she likes what you provide. If you have a trademark right, using your trademark prevents someone else from using a similar mark that is likely to confuse the public into buying goods from them instead of you.

Patents provide a limited monopoly on your company’s product or process. Monopoly translates into high profit margins due to exclusion of competition. Patents can be obtained on any invention that complies with the statutory requirements, which are that the invention is useful, novel, and non-obvious. The prevailing case law allows patents on just about anything, for example, it allows patents on computer implemented methods of calculating useful results, and on computer implemented methods of doing business.

Obtaining United States patents and trademark rights is expensive, primarily due to the amount of high hourly rate attorney time required to prepare an application and guide it through the USPTO. For patents, part of that cost can be deferred by initially filing a relatively simple provisional patent application. The filing date of a provisional application is prima facie (evidence legally sufficient to establish a fact unless subsequently disproved by additional evidence) proof of the date of invention. A provisional patent application protects for one year the right to pursue patent protection on the novel aspects of a product or process at a very low cost. However, provisional applications do not issue into patents. They simply preserve the filing date for an invention for up to one year. Within one year of the filing date of the provisional application, it must be followed by filing a more formal US application and any foreign applications in foreign countries in which protection is sought. If the formal applications are not filed, the benefit of the early filing date of the provisional application is lost.

Who Owns Your Invention?

Who owns your invention? Who owns your employee’s invention? Invention ownership disputes occur all too frequently. However, invention ownership disputes are easily avoidable with the proper foresight and knowledge.

Our legal system presumes that the inventor is the owner of the exclusive rights in his or her invention. How then, does someone other than the inventor obtain the rights to the inventor’s invention? The answer to that question is by an assignment. The assignment can be an express assignment, which is typically a written document evidencing a contract between the inventor and the assignee in which the inventor sells the rights to the invention to the assignee. However, that type of assignment is not what leads to ownership disputes. Ownership disputes occur when there is no express assignment and both the inventor and his or her employer think that they own the invention. This is because the presumption that the inventor owns the invention is incorrect in certain situations, even without an express assignment.

An employer of one who is “hired to invent” owns the rights to the inventor’s inventions. The Supreme Court came to that conclusion in the Standard Parts Co. v. Peck case in 1924. However, that is the extreme case, since the vast majority of employees are not employed to invent. What about an employee employed to design or construct, such as an engineer? An employee employed in a field of endeavor in order to design or construct is not equivalent to an employee employed for the purpose of invention. That was the conclusion reached by the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Dubilier Condenser Corp. in 1933. However, that conclusion leaves open the question of who owns the invention made by the engineer. The outcome in each ownership case depends on the relationship between the employee, the employer, and the circumstances of the invention.

Even if it turns out that the employee owns his or her invention, if the employee used the employer’s materials or equipment during working hours to make the invention, the law grants the employer a nonexclusive license to the invention. That has been the law ever since the Supreme Court Lane & Bodley Co. v. Locke case in 1893.

It should be apparent that the best way to avoid an ownership dispute is to reduce to a written contract between the employee and the employer who owns the rights to any inventions made by the employee, and that agreement should be defined as early as possible in the employee employer relationship.

Substantial information on patents and trademarks is provided at the USPTO’s website at http://www.uspto.gov.

Copyright Richard A. Neifeld, President, Neifeld IP Law, PC

If you have any other questions or need further information please feel free to contact us via email at http://www.neifeld.com.

Protecting intellectual property (IP) in China requires a multi-pronged strategy including registration, workplace security, employee contracts, commercial contracts and enforcement.

Registrations

China’s IP registration regimes are more or less consistent with international standards.

Trademarks – are protected on a first-to-file basis, with an exception for well-known trademarks. Do not rely on the “well-known” exception, however (unless you are Coca-Cola), because whether a particular trademark is “well-known” or not is a time-consuming argument that keeps IP lawyers in business all over the world. If a trademark uses words, the Chinese language equivalent should also be registered.

China has adopted the international Classification of Goods and Services under the Nice Agreement, and has also adopted the international registration regime under the Madrid system.

FIE Business Names – must be in Chinese and registered with the local Administration of Industry and Commerce before an application to set up a Foreign Invested Enterprise can be submitted (see this site’s Company Startup Guide for details on company name registration). Since China does not have a national register of business names, registrations are valid only within a particular locality (and an FIE business name cannot be registered in any location except its location of establishment). Trademark registrations offer better protection in this respect.

Patents & Designs – are protected on a first-to-file basis. China is a member of the Paris Convention, so filings in a member country within applicable time limits can also gain priority in China. More ominously, compulsory licenses may be granted (i) to qualified enterprises if the owner of the patent fails to license the patent on reasonable terms, and (ii) in the event of a national emergency. Because of this, many foreign companies do not register patents for sensitive technology in China. See Technology Transfers and Licensing for related information.

Copyrights – Copyrighted material may be registered with the China National Copyright Administration. As in the United States, copyrights are not granted on a first-to-file basis. Registration does serves as useful evidence of ownership of a copyrighted work, but it is not a legal precondition to enforcement.

Software – is considered copyrighted material and may be registered with the China National Copyright Administration. Registration requires the filing of source code (with some code blacked out). As a consequence, many foreign companies refuse to register their software in China.

Domain Names – are protected on a “first-to-file” basis. A foreign company
must have an FIE or Representative Office in order to register a “.cn” domain name in China.

Workplace Security

It is strongly advised to create a “plumbing” system to control IP leakage in the workplace.

IT systems and any hard copies of IP should be kept in an access-restricted, secure location.

Confidential information should be distributed on a strict “need to know” basis.

Confidential material should be marked “Confidential Information” in Chinese in anticipation of possible litigation in Chinese courts.

Employees

Independently investigate the reputation and trustworthiness of applicants for sensitive positions during the recruitment process.

Labor contracts should be prepared carefully. You should consider including the following in all labor contracts:

Confidentiality obligations

Non-compete clauses – Post-termination non-competition clauses should be limited to a reasonable geographic area and time limit. Compensation is also required to be paid during the period of non-competition.

Assignment – Although China recognizes the work-for-hire principle, the labor contract should clearly assign ownership of intellectual property created in the course of employment; otherwise IP rights may prove practically impossible to enforce against an employee who creates an IP-related work for hire.

Product Selection

Despite the additional tax breaks and incentives available, think carefully before manufacturing products that require new and sensitive technology in China. Components requiring new and sensitive technology may be imported into China in a secure manner for integration with the rest of the product.

Commercial Contracts

Since many commercial arrangements, even sourcing materials and components, can necessitate an exchange of intellectual property, adequate protections should be included in the contracts and associated documentation.

Administrative Enforcement Action

Various government organs have the power to take administrative action against IP infringers:

National Copyright Administration – The NCA is the “big gun” of the Chinese IP enforcement arsenal and is endowed with broad enforcement powers. They may order cessation of the infringing activities, confiscate illegal income, confiscate and destroy illegal copies, and impose fines.

State Administration of Industry and Commerce – The SAIC and its local AICs have a reputation for efficient trademark enforcement action, including investigations and raids. The SAIC also handles disputes regarding business names, registered trademarks, trade secrets, and passing off activities.

Customs – may confiscate products that infringe trademarks, copyrights and patents.

China Patent Office – may help with patent enforcement through investigation, mediation and raids.

General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine – may get involved if product quality and health issues are at issue.

Administrative enforcement is a relatively inexpensive and efficient alternative to litigation, and it is easier to win a conviction.

Litigation

If administrative action fails to bring the desired result, litigation may have to be resorted to. Chinese courts can issue injunctions and award damages, although in practice their enforcement powers are typically weaker than in Western nations.

Criminal Prosecution

Criminal liability, including imprisonment, can be imposed for IP violations, although successful prosecutions are rare. Financial thresholds that must be met before criminal liability can be assessed can be difficult to prove. These thresholds include:

RMB50,000 turnover for knowingly selling goods with counterfeit registered trademarks

RMB50,000 turnover or RMB30,000 profits if trademarks are applied to goods without authorization

International Enforcement

Products that infringe intellectual property rights can be interdicted by customs at the destination port. It is also possible to seize the overseas assets of infringers located in China.

Technology Transfers and Licensing

Foreign investors often license technology and intellectual property such as trademarks, patents, copyrighted material and trademarks to the FIEs they invest in. A foreign party may also license technology to unaffiliated Chinese companies, such as in manufacturing or management contracts. Unlike joint venture contracts, licensing contracts can be governed by foreign law.

Proper licensing will help the foreign party control its technology and secure the payment of royalties (registration is required for the latter). Only the brave, however, will dare to license sensitive technology to an entity which the foreign party does not control.

Technology transfers are understandably less common than licensing and are usually used as part of the foreign investor’s contribution of technology to a Foreign Invested Enterprise as Registered Capital.

Technology Restrictions

Chinese foreign trade law recognizes three categories of technology: Permitted, Restricted, and Prohibited. These are contained in a catalogue that lists specific technologies.

Permitted technology is simply technology which has not been classified as Restricted or Prohibited.

Restricted technology may not be imported without a license, and is generally related to the chemical, petrochemical, biochemical, biological, and petroleum refining industries.

Prohibited Technology is technology that is considered to endanger national security, the public interest, or public morals by placing people’s lives or health at risk or destroying the environment.

Paperwork

A license for restricted technology must be approved by and registered with the Commission of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation (COFTEC). COFTEC will adjudicate a license application within 30 days. Licensing contracts for Restricted technology are effective only after COFTEC issues the corresponding Technology Import License.

Prohibited technology may not be brought into China.

Certain types of Permitted technology, while not subject to licensing requirements, are still subject to filing with COFTEC.

Technology transfers relating to certain major projects must be registered with and approved by the Ministry of Commerce. Trademark licenses must be filed with the
China Trademark Office within three months of execution in order to remit royalties out of China. Foreign trademarks must be recorded at the China Trademark Office in order to remit royalties out of China. Trademark recordation takes about a year and a half.

Improvements

A foreign company may not prohibit a licensee from improving the licensed
Technology, and these improvements become the property of the improver.

Technology as FIE Capital Contributions

Technology may be contributed as part of an FIE’s Registered Capital; however, the FIE will then become the owner of the technology and the foreign contributor will have to license the technology from the FIE if it wants to use it.

Technology contributed as capital is required to be appraised upon importation and should also be appraised by the Ministry of Commerce or the relevant local COFTEC as soon as the FIE is approved.

Since the Company Law requires 30% of the Registered Capital of an FIE to be contributed in currency (20% of the initial installment of Registered Capital), it follows that alternative forms of contribution, including technology, cannot total more than 70% and 80%, respectively.

Mr Ray was a highly respected expert in classical music in England, reputed to have an encyclopaedic knowledge of classical music. He was engaged by Classic FM in the United Kingdom in 1991 to compile the radio station’s repertoire, compile playlists, categorising tracks for play lists, and rate their popularity under each of the categories. The contract did not deal with intellectual property rights. The consultancy agreement was originally for 11 months, however the work of Mr Ray proved beneficial for Classic FM, and his services were extended until 1997. Some 50,000 tracks were eventually categorised. The results of the work were incorporated into a database that was used to select music on a rotational basis, and prevent overplaying.

The project was success. After internal use for about 5 years, Classic FM proposed to licence the database to overseas companies. Mr Ray objected and commenced proceedings to prevent Classic FM licensing the use outside the UK without his permission, on the basis that he was the author of documents that were incorporated into the database.

The Decision of the High Court

Mr Justice Lightman in the High Court ruled that in the case of a consultancy, the author retained the copyright in the absence of an express or implied term to the contrary effect. Where services by a consultant are performed for an express purpose, a court will readily imply a term into a contract for services that a client is entitled to use it for that purpose. In this case, Classic FM always intended to utilise the Mr Ray’s work in the UK. It was not until 1996 that Classic FM intended to exploit Mr Ray’s work overseas. The court was not prepared to imply a licence into the contract that Classic FM would be entitled to exploit his work overseas. Classic FM was prevented from exploiting their database abroad without the consent of Mr Ray, which would require payment of license fees.

When implying licences in this way, a court will only go so far as is necessary in the circumstances to give effect to the intention of the parties. If a grant of a licence is required, the ambit of the licence will be the minimum required to give effect to the intention of the parties at the time of the contract. An implied term that copyright would be assigned to a client will be exceptionally rare, as most often an exclusive licence will have the same effect in law.

The judge held that the contractor retains the copyright in default of some express or implied term to the contrary effect. The contract may expressly state which party is entitled to the copyright, and the mere fact that the contractor has been commissioned – performed by a contractor – is insufficient to grant rights in the copyright to the client. In the absence of express rights, the client is left to establish an entitlement under the express or implied term of the contract.

Conclusion

The decision means that contractors retain the copyright in the absence of an implied or express term. An implied licence must be reasonable and equitable; necessary to give business efficacy to the contract, capable of clear expression and not contrary to any express term of the contract, and so obvious that it goes without saying. This means that a licence will be implied for the client to use the work for the stated purposes at the outset of the engagement. It is important to document the purposes of the engagement and the intended use for the copyright work created during the course of the engagement.

Perhaps because the work was unfinished, and thinking there may be some future use for it, the copywriter expressed that felt he should retain copyright, and was perplexed when the client got into a snit about it.

I understand the idea to save good work that never got published, hoping to “recycle” it in future jobs. For
years I hung on to a two-inch think file of unused concepts.

When a new job came along that required conception, I’d leaf through the folder looking for something that
would “fit” the new challenge.

Alas, I never did find a perfect fit between an old concept and a new job. And one day I realized I never
would. That’s because every job is unique. Every product is unique, every audience is unique, every marketing objective is unique. The strongest concept would once again have to come from my head. I threw out the contents of the file and never looked back.

So the lesson learned is that if you can’t even recycle a concept, you’ll never be able to recycle copy, which is much more granular.

Therefore it makes no sense to try and retain copyright; if your work is “for hire,” meaning that you’re being paid to do the writing, you can’t retain copyright anyway.

The United States Copyright Act gives the purchaser of the work sole rights reserved. To understand the difference, you, the copywriter, would retain copyright of a work you did not do for hire. For instance, no one is paying me to write this article. So I’m able to retain copyright, and market the article as I see fit.

One final important note about copywriters and copyrights. You do retain copyright until the work is paid in full. So use this fact to your advantage. Make sure your Fee Agreement points out that you will retain copyright until paid in full. It’s a powerful way to use the work-for-hire copyright law to your advantage.