Western ways, good and bad
China has been facing a barrage of criticism since the decision by the State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) to invalidate a Chinese patent for Viagra, the impotence drug owned by Pfizer, the US pharmaceutical giant.
Some critics believe this decision reflects China's disregard for market principles. However, the facts point to a more nuanced interpretation. If anything, the case demonstrates the evolution of the Chinese intellectual property dispute resolution system, whichis quickly following its western counterparts.
A bit of history: in 1991, Pfizer thought it had found a heart drug when it applied for a patent in the UK to protect a chemical now known as Viagra. Pfizer obtained patents in the US, Europe, Japan and many other countries but China did not start granting drug patents until 1993.
Pfizer filed for a second patent in the UK in 1993 when it discovered that the "heart" drug had a better use for treating male erectile dysfunction. This time, Pfizer applied for a patent in China as well.
European and American patents were granted in 1998 and 2002, respectively. A Chinese patent was granted in 2001. These patents protect the new application of Viagra, rather than the actual compound.
Before a group of Chinese companies petitioned the SIPO to invalidate the patent, others - such as Eli Lilly, Icos and Bayer - had sought to revoke the patent in Europe. A UK court revoked the Viagra application patent in 1999, and the European Patent Office revoked the European patent in 2001.
So how does this help us understand the decision by SIPO to invalidate the Viagra patent in China?
The Chinese companies' arguments were similar to those made in the UK and Europe. They claimed that Pfizer's patent had lacked inventiveness beyond what was known to scientists in the field and alleged that Pfizer had provided insufficient disclosure. SIPO accepted that the patent specification failed to provide sufficient guidance to support Pfizer's patent claim.
The outcome of the Chinese legal dispute remains unclear, because Pfizer has indicated that it will appeal. What is clear, however, is that this case illustrates several trends in China.
There has been a surge in registration of intellectual property rights in China since it joined the World Trade Organisation. In 2002 and 2003, more trademark applications were filed in China than in any other country. Annual patent filings in China are now approaching the same level as in the US.
Intellectual property disputes have also mushroomed. Chinese companies are incorporating litigation into their business strategy. Over 9,000 lawsuits were filed in China in 2003.
All these lawsuits make one wonder whether China is becoming a place where business disputes are resolved by rule of law or whether it is simply adopting a "bad" habit of the west?
中国为何不承认伟哥专利
自中国国家知识产权局宣布伟哥(Viagra,又译万艾可)专利使用权无效后，各方批评蜂拥而来。伟哥是一种抗阳萎药物，由美国医药巨头辉瑞公司(Pfizer)开发。
一些批评人士相信，该决定反映出中国仍然对市场原则漠然置之。但事实比这说法要更微妙一些。如果此事能够说明什么问题的话，那它说明了中国知识产权争议解决体系在快速学习西方国家模式的过程中所发生的变化。
我们不妨回顾一下历史：1991年，辉瑞公司认为自己发现了一种治疗心脏病的药物，准备在英国为该药物申请专利保护。此药就是我们现在知道的伟哥。辉瑞先后在美国、欧洲、日本等多个国家和地区取得了专利，却未能在中国取得专利，因为中国直到1993年才开始药物专利的审批。
辉瑞后来发现，该“心脏”药物用于治疗男性勃起障碍症疗效更佳，于是1993年在英国申请了第二项专利。该专利也同时在中国内地提起申请。
伟哥于1998年和2002年先后获得欧洲和美国专利。2001年，中国也批准了伟哥的专利申请。这些专利只保护伟哥的新型应用，而不是保护药物配方本身。
一些中国企业此后向国家知识产权局提出申请，要求宣布该专利保护无效。而在此之前，礼来(Eli Lilly)、伊科斯(ICOS)和拜耳(Bayer)等公司也在力争推翻伟哥在欧洲的专利保护。1999年，一家英国法院撤消了伟哥的专利申请，欧洲专利局(European Patent Office)也于2001年取消了伟哥在欧洲的专利。
有了以上这些事实，我们应该怎样去理解中国国家专利局宣布伟哥专利无效一事呢？
中国公司提出的抗辩理由和英国、欧洲的理由相似。它们认为，辉瑞公司的专利并无独创性，只停留在该领域科学家的已知水平。它们还指称，辉瑞公司对相关信息披露不足。中国国家专利局接受了专利说明书提供的指导不足以支持辉瑞的专利申请这一说法。
辉瑞表示将在中国提出上诉，因此该案法律争议的结果尚不明朗。但是有一点很清楚，那就是此案反映了中国的几个趋势。
中国加入世界贸易组织(World Trade Organization)后，知识产权登记量激增。2002和2003两年，中国商标申请件数居全球之冠。中国每年的专利申请数量已接近美国的水平。
知识产权纠纷数量也迅速增长。中国公司已经把法律诉讼列为商业战略的一部分。2003年，中国的诉讼案超过9000宗。
这些诉讼不禁让人疑惑，中国是在逐步走向用法制手段调解诉讼，还是在照搬西方的“坏”习惯？
