Since March of this year, since receiving the complaint from the US International Trade Commission (ITC) on the "337 investigation" on light-emitting diodes (LED), Zeng Guangming, general manager of the LED Lighting Division of Shenzhen Zhouming Technology Co., Ltd. There have never been pressures and challenges.
Just in June of this year, the company formerly known as “Zhou Lei Electronics†was forced to change its name because Chinese and English trademarks had been squatted abroad. The big trouble of intellectual property issues has never been so urgently pursued. they.
On March 20th, the US International Trade Commission (ITC) officially filed a “337 investigation†application for light-emitting diodes (LEDs), and 30 companies including 4 Chinese mainland LED manufacturers received complaints from ITC. . The four mainland enterprises involved in the “337 investigation†are all Guangdong enterprises, and three of them are Shenzhen enterprises.
On the afternoon of June 23, Shenzhen City held a special work meeting on the “337 investigation†of the United States. Mayor Xu Zongheng attended the meeting and made important instructions.
On the morning of June 24, Zhang Jinsheng, director of the Shenzhen World Trade Organization Affairs Center, presided over the plenary session of the center to convey the speech and instructions of Mayor Xu Zongheng, and made a specific division of work for the deployment of the special work conference.
Yan Hanjun, chairman of the Shenzhen Intellectual Property Research Association, said that the future patent war in the LED industry will become increasingly fierce. Enterprises should learn to use their own patents to compete with each other and increase the distribution of overseas intellectual property.
Some experts pointed out that the resistance from all parties in the world may be a catalyst for some powerful industries and enterprises to quickly realize industrial transformation and pay more attention to intellectual property issues.
3/4 of the enterprises involved in the mainland are deep enterprises
On February 20 this year, Gertrude Neumark Rothschild, an honorary retired professor at Columbia University, filed an application with the US International Trade Commission (ITC) to initiate a “337 investigation†on short-wavelength light emitting diodes.
The US International Trade Commission has identified 34 companies involved in the case, including Japan, China, South Korea and Taiwan, including 9 countries and regions. Among them, 4 companies in China have been sued, namely Shenzhen Chaoyi Optoelectronics Co., Ltd. and Guangzhou Honghong. Liguang Electronics Co., Ltd., Shenzhen Jiaguang Electronics Co., Ltd., Shenzhen Zhoulei Electronics Co., Ltd.
This is the fifth "337 investigation" application that Chinese enterprises have encountered this year. The industry that will affect the LED survey will include LED chip packaging and utilization, display, lighting, backlight, home appliances, etc. Industry. According to the statistics of the Ministry of Commerce, in 2007, China's LED industry exported about US$350 million to the US, a year-on-year increase of 53.9%.
According to relevant statistics in the industry, there are currently 1,700 enterprises related to the LED industry chain in China, among which there are 740 Guangdong enterprises with LCD backlight and solar energy, and most of these enterprises are in Shenzhen, accounting for similar enterprises in the country. 44.3%.
That is to say, once ITC decides that the patentee wins the case, ITC will issue an exclusion order or prohibition order. During the validity period of the plaintiff's patent, the LED products produced by any enterprise in China and the downstream products containing LEDs will be completely banned from exporting to the United States. The LED market door will be closed. Subsequently, major markets such as the relevant EU are also likely to be affected by this.
Experts predict that the case involves an export value of at least $100 million. Once the patentee wins the case, China's 1,700 LED companies will be threatened, which will have a very serious impact on the healthy development of China's LED industry. For the “hardest hit†Shenzhen, the entire LED industry may be devastated.
Aware of the seriousness of the problem, the Shenzhen government department and related associations responded as soon as possible.
On March 21st, the LED Patent Case Analysis Seminar hosted by Shenzhen Intellectual Property Office and Nanshan District Intellectual Property Office and held by Shenzhen Intellectual Property Research Association was held in the multi-function hall on the first floor of Nanshan District Digital Culture Industry Base. Lawyer He Wei of the US Morgan & Louis Law Firm conducted a legal and technical analysis of the US patent that initiated the “337 investigation†in the US, and guided the company to respond actively.
A related person from the Shenzhen Intellectual Property Office said that we will hold this seminar before the company receives the lawyer's letter, that is, we must plan ahead and not help the company to correctly respond to the upcoming "337 investigation."
Huge amount of responding expenses challenge the financial resources of enterprises
According to the statistics of the National Semiconductor Lighting Engineering Research and Development Industry Alliance, the output value of China's LED products in 2007 was about 16.8 billion yuan, and the related application products were close to 30 billion yuan. If you lose the case, you will not only lose the US market, but also affect exports to Europe, South America and other places, and will lose tens of billions of dollars in the international LED product market.
Experts from the National Semiconductor Lighting Engineering R&D and Industry Alliance (CSA) also pointed out that if all four companies in mainland China give up their complaints or lose their complaints, they will have a disastrous impact on the entire LED industry in China. Because the other party is applying for a general exclusion order, if we choose a weak settlement, we may only need to pay a small fee, but it will bring disaster to the domestic LED enterprises that have just started.
"We and Guangzhou Hongliguang responded together, starting from the overall situation, starting from the sense of corporate social responsibility, and turning a blind eye." On April 18, two domestic companies involved in Shenzhen Zhoulei Electronics Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Shenzhen Zhoulei) and Guangzhou Hongli Optoelectronics Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Guangzhou Hongli) jointly responded under the leadership of China's semiconductor lighting engineering research and development and industry alliance, and is expected to jointly bear the legal expenses of 3 million US dollars. The two companies, Chaoyi Optoelectronics and Jiaguang Electronics, gave up the joint lawsuit on the grounds that the litigation costs were too high for the company to bear.
"Under the organization and leadership of the industry alliance, we have entrusted two senior law firms in China and the United States, and are making non-infringement defenses. We are still in the defense stage. The general principle is to pursue the interests of the overall situation of the industry and strive for the smallest. The economic cost is in exchange for the greatest benefit."
Zeng Guangming said, "At present, it is less likely to win the case, but because we respond in time to the case, as long as it is settled after responding, although the company has to bear certain expenses, the entire industry can be exempted from the general exclusion order. Free from the catastrophe."
At present, the heads of domestic LED companies have expressed their willingness to pay attention to this incident, to participate in the joint response, and said that they will contribute money to jointly solve the huge litigation costs, and at the same time, they are recommended to be led by the National Semiconductor Lighting Engineering R&D and Industry Alliance. Organize fundraising and seek government support, we must win this lawsuit.
The US is not just about intellectual property
Some experts pointed out that more and more companies in the United States are using the "337 investigation", a unique law to frequently set obstacles to Chinese goods. The real purpose is not to protect intellectual property rights, but to protect their market share. The main practice is to first file an investigation application for China's highly competitive export products or smaller enterprises, and then use the prohibition order to restrict all enterprises in related industries in China from exporting to the United States.
According to statistics, since the first “337 investigation†on China in 1986, as of June 2007, there were 53 “337 investigations†involving Chinese products, accounting for 9% of the total investigation. Among them, 46 cases involved invention patent disputes. The "337 investigation" has become an important means for the US to resist Chinese products that are both effective and cost-effective.
Looking back at the development trend of Shenzhen and the national LED industry, we can deeply understand the worries of the United States.
Taking Chau Ming Technology as an example, the company was established in 2004. It took only three years from zero to sales to sell billions of dollars and is still developing rapidly. The goal of its recent rebranding behavior is very clear – - Prepare everything for layout and attack on the international market. At the same time, this company is not an ordinary small and medium-sized enterprise that people imagine. In the two major businesses of its operation, the display aspect as a manufacturing service provider can be squeezed into the top three in China; the lighting aspect is from the beginning. Just spare no effort to build their own brand, the accumulation of power to compete with the "three giants" in the international lighting field. However, at the same time of development, intellectual property issues that have never been considered in the past have become an annoyance for growth, and they have begun to rethink their development strategies.
National Semiconductor Lighting Engineering Research and Development and Industry Alliance (CSA) related experts said that the survey involves many large foreign companies, the scale of the enterprises involved in the country is not large, the target does not directly refer to domestic large-scale enterprises and upstream chip manufacturing enterprises, Therefore, the ability of responding to the enterprises involved in the case in China is an issue that cannot be ignored. Another downside is that Toyota Synthetic and Osram have reached a settlement with Rothschild G.F. Neumark in a 2005 District Court complaint, and Lumileds also reached a settlement last month, which will be the current corporate Cause a certain amount of pressure.
In addition, the characteristics of the “337 investigation†itself have increased the difficulty of the case. The “337 investigation†application threshold is low but the sanctions are severe. Compared with anti-dumping, it takes less time and costs more. Respondents who are caught off guard must prepare all materials for production and operation within a limited time, and complaints of millions of dollars in lawyer fees also make it difficult for SMEs to cope. But for the plaintiff, even if the loss is lost, there is no compensation constraint.
The author also learned that for the "337 investigation" of the United States, domestic enterprises have already set a precedent for success.
On July 19 last year, the US International Trade Commission signed an official document and decided to terminate the "337 investigation" on the digital multimeters of three enterprises in Shenzhen. This is another success of Chinese companies in the “337 Investigation†following batteries, wooden floors and lighters.
At the “337 Survey†countermeasures seminar organized by the Alliance on March 18th, delegates believed that the “337 investigation†encountered in the LED industry was only the beginning. With the rapid development of China's LED industry, the intellectual property rights of China's LED industry in the future. The problem will face even greater challenges. Strengthening the awareness of intellectual property protection and implementing effective coping strategies are a long-term and arduous task for the domestic LED industry to jointly raise vigilance.
"Leading" needs to learn to look up at the sky
On July 1st, the enthusiasm of international buyers was not affected by the “Shenzhen LED International Sourcing Fair†organized by Global Market Group in conjunction with Home Depot, Philips, German Berman, and more than 100 LED companies in Shenzhen. influences. However, at the scene, the thinking about the development of the LED industry in Shenzhen caused by the “337 investigation†discussion and the economic transformation of various industries that have been extended to it have caused people to feel at home.
Entrepreneurs have signed their own names on the background board, and vowed to make "Made in China" synonymous with "quality products". At the same time, Pan Shijie, a representative of the Shenzhen Intellectual Property Office, said with some emotions, "For 20 years Most of the enterprises in Shenzhen are accustomed to burying their heads and pulling their heads to look at the road. They find that they already have a little lead. How to forget 'follow the run' and learn to 'lead' will become a new topic at this stage."
Huang Yuchuan, deputy general manager of Guangzhou Hongli Optoelectronics Co., Ltd. said, "There are many problems that we have not estimated in the process of coping with the two companies, but in general they are still optimistic. Such an intellectual property issue is still It will happen one after another, maybe someday will be 'lucky' to get to the head of the company, we must find a way to deal with it. First of all, we must pay attention to research and development, and protect the results. Hongli Guangzhizhi and Zhou Lei (Zhou Ming) company jointly respond Challenge, we have passed with industry associations and many peers, and hope to be able to unite and respond to the '337' from the social responsibility of the company."
Zeng Guangming said that if a company suffers from "337 investigations" or similar allegations, it must actively respond to the lawsuit. It should focus on the overall situation, not avoiding it, and not giving up. At the same time, we must pay full attention to intellectual property rights, and we must strengthen the research and construction of independent innovation, especially patent work. "We want to 'carry the cooperation,' and we are deeply touched. Under the leadership of the industry alliance, we have been united in an unprecedented period of time, and have experienced several rounds of discussions. Thousands of companies are paying attention. For our company, it is a separate response. Very difficult, so uniting is very important."
The relevant person in charge of the Shenzhen Intellectual Property Office also stated that it will strengthen the construction of the early warning mechanism for intellectual property rights and ensure the healthy development of the LED industry.
This incident has also become an important case in the work of WTO affairs in Shenzhen. On June 23, the Shenzhen Municipal Government held a special meeting on the "337 investigation" of the United States, Xu Zongheng said that all departments should attach great importance to the trade friction situation in Shenzhen, provide rational and standardized support and protection for the national industry, and form an effective, A high-level response to the international trade friction linkage mechanism, keep abreast of the dynamics, timely research and treatment, actively promote trade-related intellectual property rights, actively study the legal protection issues in dealing with trade frictions, and implement individualized guidance from enterprises from a legal perspective. Our reporter Du Fu
Nouns explain "337 investigation"
The “337 investigation†originated from Section 337 of the US Tariff Act, which refers to the investigation of unfair competition, especially the infringement of patents, trademarks and other intellectual property rights. If the US International Trade Commission determines that the company violated Section 337. An exclusion order will be issued to instruct the US Customs to ban the import of the batch of products, and even lead to the inability of the entire industry to enter the US market.
1000W Solar Generator
Super Green Energy Portable Solar Generator Battery Energy Storage System USB Power Station for Outdoor Picnic
1000 Solar Generator,All In One Solar Generator,Outside Home Off grid Portable Solar Generator
suzhou whaylan new energy technology co., ltd , https://www.whaylan.com