Blogs

Author: Zhong Yi, Michael Ni [Shanghai Runhe Law Firm]

1.   Brief Introduction to the First Instance

The plaintiff and the defendant entered into an contract providing that both parties collaboratively develop a set of software whose support of creation and art crafts, and manufacture and sales, etc. is provided by the plaintiff and the defendant shall be responsible for development and script plan of the programme; the copyright of the product belongs to the defendant; the price of the Contract was paid separately by procedure like down payment, test and etc.; after the product is on the market for 30 days and if no quality issues which arouse return of goods, the rest payment will be made by the defendant, or the payment will be offset for the losses of goods; the copyright will be transferred to the plaintiff if the defendant is late for make payment. After the plaintiff delivered the developed software to the defendant, the defendant made it published by publisher for sale in the market under the condition that the software hasn't been accepted in a formal way.  During the procedure of sales, the plaintiff provided supplemental "Q&A of Installation" and "Software Patches" which are sold together with the software by the request of the defendant. After that, the defendant refused to make the rest payment on the grounds that the software has quality issue for which the plaintiff filed the case to the court requesting the defendant to pay the rest payment for developing the software.

Author: Zhong Yi, Liu Jiayin [Shanghai Runhe Law Firm]

In the trial of the case of software copyright infringement, how to determine the amount of damages in the event that the software involved in the case has been taken off the market? Will it affect the determination of the infringement and the amount of compensation if the infringer purchases the upgrade version of the software involved in the case after the litigation procedure begins? The following restatement of the Case will discuss such issues.

Author: G·IPRs Runhe Group

1. MultiTerm Extract 2009 Shall Support SDLXLIFF Format

SDL MultiTerm Extract 2009, as a module which shall be purchased separately in SDL Trados Studio 2009, unexpectedly does not support the bilingual document format "SDLXLIFF". For the purpose of extracting terms from bilingual documents, we have to use TTX of the old software. SDL mainly promotes the bilingual document format "SDLXLIFF" through the latest SDL Trados Studio 2009 and SDLXLIFF is not compatible to the previous version TTX. It is obvious that SDL hopes users make a transition from TTX to SDLXLIFF (just like MS Office2007). MultiTerm Extract 2009 not compatible to SDLXLIFF was hastily published with SDL Trados Studio 2009 simultaneously, which makes users who need to extract terms from bilingual documents create TTX first and then process those documents with Editor of Version 2009. The original intention of SDL to promote SDLXLIFF was contravened, which also brings a lot of inconvenience to users. We suggest MultiTerm Extract 2009 supporting SDLXLIFF as soon as possible and it is unreasonable for users to use transitional products after making the payments for upgrade every year.

The Comparison and Commentaries on Regulations on the Administration of Setting and Revision of the National Standard Involving Patent (Interim) (Exposure Draft) (2009 Nov.) and Regulations on National Standard Involving Patent  (Interim) (Exposure Draft) (2004 Sept.)

Zhong Yi [1]  Ni Jia  Liu Jiayin  [ Shanghai Runhe Law Firm ]

On Nov. 2, 2009, the Standardization Administration of the People’s Republic of China promulgated Regulations on the Administration of Setting and Revision of the National Standard Involving Patent (Interim) (Exposure Draft) (hereinafter "Version 2009") and asks for opinions from specified national organs, public institutions and industrial associations on revisions of which the deadline is Nov. 30, 2009. It is noticed that compared with Version 2009, Regulations on National Standard Involving Patent (Interim) (Exposure Draft) (hereinafter “Version 2004”) promulgated in September of 2004 is adjusted greatly on its contents.

In June of 2009, SDL published SDL Trados Studio 2009. To be on the safe side, we made an internal test on the trial version and did not make an update until SDL Trados Studio 2009 Sp1 (hereinafter "Version 2009") was published. For the advantages and new characteristics of Version 2009, please see the official website of SDL and this article does not make deliberation. We desire to share our experience of using the two software through the comparison of Version 2009 and Trados 2007 Sp2 (hereinafter "Version 2007") and hope it may be helpful to the further improvement of Version 2009.

Author: Zhong Yi[1]   

[ Abstract ] DVD, CDMA, ATSC and other technical standards which contain patent technologies shocked us repeatedly with the power of patent standardization. In the light of the OutlineNational Intellectual Property Strategy, central and certain provincial governments successively carried out policies and measures to promote and encourage "Technology Patentability, Patent Standardization" and meanwhile TD-SCDMA, UOML, AVS and other industry alliances alike have fruitful achievements concerning the development of Patent Standardization. A burgeoning area of legal service emerges in the absence of corresponding legislation. This paper, with the perspective of establishing specialized legal services in the audio video coding industry, discusses how lawyers prepare for the ever-increasing requirements of legal services under the strategy of implementing and coping with Patent Standardization.