LED patent litigation: the next trap in the internationalization process of semiconductor lighting industry

Between 2003 and 2004, the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) received a total number of patent infringement lawsuits against Chinese companies more than the sum of Japan and South korea. In February 20th this year, ITC and LED products for our country launched 337 survey. According to the provisions of the United States Tariff Act of 1930, section 337th, in order to protect the registered patents in the United States, once found to infringe the patent products, these products will be banned in the U.S. market. Although the domestic LED companies involved in only 4, but it caused a high degree of concern in China's LED industry. National semiconductor lighting engineering research and development and industry alliance is also analyzed through the union patent pool working group and experts.

Although this lawsuit is directed against light-emitting diode products and downstream products, but the future of LED intellectual property will face greater challenges. Manufacturing, sales, management, finance, what seems to have not China enterprises, and use of foreign law, contract traps, patent litigation, anti-dumping investigation, foreign companies are using various legal means to put what they have lost back to become aggravated. Chinese LED companies have come to realize that, with the increasing competitiveness of Chinese products, their competitors will try to use the provisions of the 337th quarter to suppress competition. In order to protect their legitimate interests, in the future should be changed in the past do not want to fight the case, and the United States to study the law, and for the use of.

For semiconductor lighting R & D institutions, how to combine the patent and investment, legal work is very important, but also an important way to circumvent technical risks. Mutual authorization of patent and patent pool can make patent share. China's Taiwan ICM&A (IntELlectual Capital ManagementAnalysis), namely "management and analysis system of intellectual property rights". The system monitors the global industry, products, technology, patents and changes in the development of the industry, but the investment in the system of hardware and software on more than 300 million yuan. Through the establishment of the database, you can clearly see the domestic and foreign competitors or partners of the capital structure, technology, market share, competitors and product structure. For a deeper analysis of the patent, patent number, area relates to deployment, patent citation frequency, commercial value, content differences, we can clearly know and compared to others strong and weak respectively where. We are an organized, systematic implementation of the task, or aimlessly do, very different.

Law is a difficult thing. Not only for the law, but also on the product, technology, management, capital markets, have a comprehensive understanding, and even earlier in the front to provide analysis. Its personnel must be in institutions, manufacturing units at least three months. Or can't you know what manufacturing is? How to predict the change? Dismantling the work of the patent mine, is to go to the public notice and competitors to apply for patents, find out the lack of patent definition, technical loopholes, objections, so that the patent lost. After training, the future will be able to find a solid combination of patent direction.

Patent = technology + market + law. When it comes to patents, the Chinese tend to attribute it to technological backwardness. In fact, the patent is a combination of technology, law and market three aspects. First, there must be a breakthrough in technology, which is the premise. Following the need to follow up the market sector to determine whether there is market prospects. If the market determines the business prospects, the legal department at the same time follow up to determine whether there is a patent risk. If the law found that the new algorithm around other companies to master the core technology, but this improvement can not be authorized, you can only stop. Otherwise, the company has a patent loophole products sell more, the subject of litigation is greater, the more the loss of enterprises.

Foreign companies have a patent Committee system. This is an independent decision-making body, which constitutes a market to do, but also engage in research and development, but also need to understand the law. They decide the patent strategy. However, the actual situation of Chinese enterprises, technical staff just technology, legal personnel understand the law, sales staff only consider selling, selling will have trouble, and even lose money regardless of. Many enterprises do not please legal professionals for patent analysis direct money, the R & D, manufacture of products or others have, or have a similar technology, which is a great waste of research.

Some enterprises to enter the European market, the U.S. market, invest huge funds to do the market, found the core technology patent product promotion master in Europe and some enterprises hands, and patent is given by the state in a certain period of monopoly, prohibit others the right to enter, resulting in huge financial waste. This loss is not only an economic compensation, the loss of the market, as well as the reduction of the brand, the company's image damage, the consequences of the dominant and recessive can not be expected. The Chinese government can learn from the u.s.". It is composed of well-known scholars and company CEO, the annual inspection of American competitiveness, emerging countries rise faster than the United States, they have a sense of crisis, will put forward a series of strategies to curb technology development in other countries. There is a saying in the US Competitiveness Council that "what is protected in the United States is to be protected around the world."".

The United States in the history of the country is also a "piracy"". In the 100 years since the founding of the United States, the United States did not give any formal definition of foreign copyright for the sake of the need to build knowledge about the social and cultural foundations of the United States