Table of Contents

Patent Law in Greater China

Patent Law in Greater China

Elgar Intellectual Property Law and Practice series

Edited by Stefan Luginbuehl and Peter Ganea

This book provides a comprehensive introduction to patent policy, law and practice in Greater China and will be a go-to book for patent practitioners who have client interests in that region.


Chen Wenping

Subjects: law - academic, asian law, intellectual property law, law -professional, intellectual property law


Patent protection of chemical, pharmaceutical and biotechnological inventions in China differs quite significantly from the majority of Western jurisdictions, as compared to other technical fields. This is especially true with regard to two aspects. One is the scope of subject matter that is eligible for patent protection. The other is how broad a claim can be to be in line with law and practice, and how the description must be formulated to support an allowable claim. The first version of the Chinese Patent Act of 1984 did not provide patent protection for chemical, pharmaceutical or biological substances. Patent protection for these subject matters became available only after the first amendment to the Chinese Patent Act in 1993. From 1993 to 2006, the examination practice of the Chinese Patent Office (now SIPO) in relation to applications for such inventions was generally in line with the practice of other major patent jurisdictions. However, in 2006, stricter Guidelines for Patent Examination (hereinafter ‘Guidelines’) became applicable. The 2006 version of the Guidelines, as well as its subsequent versions, emphasized that the predictability of an invention in the chemical field (including pharmaceutical and biotechnology) is generally low and that most of the technical effects have to be verified by experimental data. Based on this understanding, the examination practice of SIPO has become increasingly strict over the years. Meanwhile, the allowable scope of protection has become so limited in some cases that it has become virtually meaningless to seek protection for the invention at issue. Nevertheless, there is still some room for

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.

Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Further information