HOME > Resources > Newsletters

 

Title

KIPO strengthens the exchange and cooperation of intellectual property rights with a local Chinese government (News Letter No. 240)

Author 

KH

Post Date 

2012-05-17

Read

4292

Attach File

-
1. KIPO strengthens the exchange and cooperation of intellectual property rights with a local Chinese government

The Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO) signed a memo of understanding (MOU) to protect intellectual property rights with Jiangsu Sheng and held a presentation to identify counterfeits of famous Korean trademarks.

□ Signing of the MOU to protect intellectual property rights

On April 10, 2012, KIPO signed the MOU to agree to develop the exchange and cooperation to protect intellectual property rights in Nanjing, the capital city of Jiangsu Sheng in China, where major figures (including Mr. Hequa, a vice-governor of Jiangsu Sheng) of the Jiangsu Sheng People’s Government attended.
KIPO had signed the MOUs regarding the comprehensive work cooperation in the intellectual property right field with the State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO), which is in charge of intellectual property rights under the central government of China, and the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (SAIC). However, this is the first MOU signed between KIPO and the local people’s government in charge of substantial management work regarding the intellectual property protection within China.

□ Opening of the presentation to identify counterfeits of famous Korean trademarks

In the afternoon of the same day, KIPO and Korean Trade-Investment Promotion Agency (KOTRA) (Shanghai IP-DESK) held the presentation to identify counterfeits of famous Korean trademarks for about 150 officials who belong to the Nanjing Administration for Industry and Commerce and who crack down on counterfeits.

Seven (7) Korean famous brand companies with popularity in China (Samsung Electronics, LG Electronics, ThreeSeven <777>, LOCK & LOCK, E. LAND, BASIC HOUSE, KIA Motors, etc.) attended in the presentation. Each participating company introduced its own brand, displayed the comparison of an original and a counterfeit in the spot and explained know-how to distinguish the counterfeit, thereby enhancing the effects of education.

China’s basic policies related to intellectual property rights are established by the central government. However, a local government has very strong discretion and authority in establishing and executing concrete policies and protecting and supervising intellectual property rights. In a particular area, since local protectionism is intense, the cooperation with a local government is absolutely important to settle an intellectual property infringement issue of a Korean company to enter China’s markets.


2. A secondary battery (rechargeable battery) answers for an infinitely speeding electric car

As the technology for a high-capacity and high-efficiency battery has been developed to significantly improve the weight, moment power and duration time of a battery, the number of patent applications for the secondary battery-related technology used for a hybrid or electric car has rapidly increased.

According to KIPO, since the hybrid car markets were newly formed centering on US in 2008, the number of the Korean patent applications related to a secondary battery was a total of 3,278 cases, showing a big average annual increase of 21.9%. Classified by countries, the Republic of Korea had 2,533 cases (77%) with the highest percentage, followed by Japan having 626 cases (19%), US having 56 cases (2%), Europe having 40 cases (1.2%), China having 18 cases (0.6%) and Taiwan having 5 cases (0.2%).

Classified by applicants, Samsung SDI (688 cases, 21%), and LG Chem (648 cases, 19.8%) had the highest percentage of the patent applications, followed by SB LIMOTIVE (223 cases, 6.8%), Panasonic (114 cases, 3.5%), Sanyo (83 cases, 2.5%), Samsung Electronics (62 cases, 1.9%), Sony (58 cases, 1.8%), Toyota (54 cases, 1.6%) and SK Innovation (39 cases, 1.2%).

Classified by relevant technologies, the applications for a lithium ion battery (LIB) and a lithium polymer battery (LIPB), which are applied to hybrid/electric cars, continuously increased with 1,367 cases (58%) and 672 cases (29%), respectively. However, the applications for a nickel metal hydride (Ni-MH) battery and a nickel cadmium (Ni-Cd) battery, which held most of the battery markets for the other present cars, showed a gradual decrease with 168 cases (7%) and 138 cases (6%), respectively.


3. Localization of a reflective polarizer (polarizing film) for a liquid crystal display (LCD) is active

According to KIPO, the number of the patent applications for the LCD reflective polarizer-related technology shows an increase.

The reflective polarizer which is a core component of a low power LCD in line with an increase in the number of mobile devices and a low power consumption of home appliances is indispensable in solving a low luminance efficiency of an LCD and increasing the brightness thereof.

In the meantime, the dual brightness enhancement film (DBEF), the patent of which is owned by 3M, a US company, was almost the only choice as a reflective polarizer in the LCD optical film market. However, alternate products which are competitive in the improvement of brightness, performance and price have been developed centering on Korean companies.

The current state of the patent applications for the reflective polarizer is as follows: The number of the applications, which was only 18 from 1994 to 2003, increased from 2004 and was a total of 232 by 2011. 160 cases being close to a half of the total number were filed during the last five (5) years, showing a clear increase. Classified by applicants, the number of the applications filed by the domestic applicants was 188 by 2011, having 80% of the total number of the applications. From this, it is known that the Korean components/parts suppliers’ technological development in the reflective polarizer field is active.

The current state of the applications classified by technologies of the reflective polarizer is as follows: 121 cases (52%) were related to mainly a ‘nano wire grid-type’ polarizer to avoid the patent of a ‘multilayer’ DBEF. 42 cases (18%) were related to a ‘cholesteric LCD-type’ polarizer, 35 cases (15%) were related to a ‘double refraction polymer dispersed type’ polarizer, and 34 cases (14%) were related to a multilayer-type or the other structure-type polarizer.
 

Prev 

Intellectual Property (IP) Right Trend during the first quarter of 2012 (News Letter No. 241)

Next 

KIPO positively supports the ‘drug approval-patent linkage system (News Letter No. 239)