My two years in China have overturned many previous paradigms that I held, including the stereotype of China as merely an IP copier and not an IP generator. While the West clings to that view, largely discounting the patents and innovation capability of China, a rapid transformation is occurring in which China has taken the global lead in national patent filings and is about to tie with Germany as the #3 international patent filer (expensive, generally high-quality PCT filings). China is now #2 internationally in scientific publications, behind the US but ahead of England and everywhere else. In hot areas like graphene, the two-dimensional carbon nanomaterial that is opening whole new vistas of nano-possibilities, China has a clear global lead in the number of patents filed so far.
In my own innovation-related experiences, I have seen that teams of Chinese college graduates, though often seemingly shy and unresponsive at first when challenged to contribute in ideation and innovation sessions, can, with the right guidance and framework, become as energetic and innovative as any Western team I've worked with. One must understand Chinese culture a little and take some steps like removing the boss from the room and setting up rules and guidelines that make it clear they won't lose face by participating and might lose face (or delay lunch and bathroom breaks) if they don't. Once we get past the initial shyness, it can be hard to get them to turn off the innovation juice.
For some, the biggest challenge in China has been the IP system, which many have felt was too weak and lacked adequate means for enforcement. This is being addressed, and the new 4th Amendment to Chinese patent law looks like it will bring some major steps forward, including opportunities for discovery of evidence and stronger penalties. The trend is clear, though, that China is working to strengthen its systems and is treating foreign IP holders as fairly as Chinese companies in general.
Do not ignore the rising tide of IP and innovation in China. Some extremely importance advances in technology and business models are emerging here. The nations and companies that can respect China and its IP are the ones that will benefit most. The opportunities are staggering.
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
Sunday, March 24, 2013
My Presentation at IP Counsel 2013: Shenzhen Station
March 19-20 was the 5th IP Counsel Congress held at Shenzhen, one of 3 2013 IP Counsel events in China managed by JFPS Group. This was their first year in Shenzhen, and I think it was highly successful. I think about 150 delegates from China and other nations were present, including IP leaders and influencers from Hungary, Germany, South Africa, Korea, Japan, and other nations.
I was especially pleased to learn from IP leaders from some of the world's leading IP generators such as ZTE, the top international filer recently.
I had the pleasure of chairing day one of the two-conference, and being the lead speaker with my presentation on IP, China, and innovation. I briefly retraced some of the monumental achievements in the history of China, including some major inventions that the West originally thought came from the West but actually started in China. I began with the example of the printed book, and quizzed the audience about who invented the world's first mass-produced book printed with movable type? Gutenberg is a pretty good answer and his Bible was a remarkable achievement, one that came just 142 years after the world's first mass-produced book printed with movable type was created in China by Wang Zhen. Had some fun with that bit of history, and caught a lot of the Chinese people by surprise. Many don't realize how rich China's tradition of innovation actually is.
Today, many people think of China as a great copier, but China is rapidly and deliberately moving from a copier to an inventor and a leading source of IP. There are still barriers and inertia to overcome, but the goal is being realized and by the time the West understands the significance of this transformation, many players will have missed the opportunity of a lifetime and some will be completely disrupted. Those who recognize what is happening here may more wisely prepare for the opportunities and risks that will be created, and adapt.
China as a source of innovation and IP must not be ignored. But tapping its potential requires a deeper understanding of Chinese culture and business, which is much different that what the West is used to. I gave some basic tips and reviewed the importance of Chinese concepts such as guanxi, yuanfen (destiny in chance encounters), and hexie (harmony).
I was especially pleased to learn from IP leaders from some of the world's leading IP generators such as ZTE, the top international filer recently.
I had the pleasure of chairing day one of the two-conference, and being the lead speaker with my presentation on IP, China, and innovation. I briefly retraced some of the monumental achievements in the history of China, including some major inventions that the West originally thought came from the West but actually started in China. I began with the example of the printed book, and quizzed the audience about who invented the world's first mass-produced book printed with movable type? Gutenberg is a pretty good answer and his Bible was a remarkable achievement, one that came just 142 years after the world's first mass-produced book printed with movable type was created in China by Wang Zhen. Had some fun with that bit of history, and caught a lot of the Chinese people by surprise. Many don't realize how rich China's tradition of innovation actually is.
Today, many people think of China as a great copier, but China is rapidly and deliberately moving from a copier to an inventor and a leading source of IP. There are still barriers and inertia to overcome, but the goal is being realized and by the time the West understands the significance of this transformation, many players will have missed the opportunity of a lifetime and some will be completely disrupted. Those who recognize what is happening here may more wisely prepare for the opportunities and risks that will be created, and adapt.
China as a source of innovation and IP must not be ignored. But tapping its potential requires a deeper understanding of Chinese culture and business, which is much different that what the West is used to. I gave some basic tips and reviewed the importance of Chinese concepts such as guanxi, yuanfen (destiny in chance encounters), and hexie (harmony).
Sunday, September 23, 2012
Speaking at China IP Focus 2012, Shanghai, Sept. 20-21, 2012
One of my favorite recent IP conferences was just held in Shanghai. It was the China Intellectual Property Focus 2012 held at the Doubletree Hotel in PuDong. We got to hear extensively from a recently retired Supreme Court Justice, Judge Jiang Zhipei, who shared much about the development of IP law in China and the bold path China is pursuing. We also heard from Ben Wang, R&D leader for Unilever in China, and from many other authorities from Europe, the US, and especially China.
On the second day, I shared my perspectives about the role of IP strategy in dealing with disruptive innovation, and including some of my thoughts about Chinese companies and the lack of respect they get from the West when it comes to innovation and IP. My main point, though, was that large companies need to have aggressive IP-generators who help mitigate future risks by building low-cost but aggressive IP estates in emerging areas and in potentially disruptive areas. Risk aversion is the battle cry, but the "hidden agenda" is actually to help the company prepare for future opportunities in those areas. With proactive IP filed early, when the business units of the company later recognize the importance of market trends and see or feel the need to pursue areas that once looked a little too non-standard/disruptive for comfort, well, when that happens, it won't be too late as is usually the case with disruptive innovation, but the company will find that they are actually prepared with a foundation of IP that can help them survive and move forward more easily.
The application of "disruptive IP strategy" involves some risk and cost, but the costs can be contained and the potential benefits can be huge. A handful of visionary people can help create future-looking IP much more easily than they can convince the company to change directions and make massive investments in new areas. But that IP can later help save the day when the significance of a disruptive threat or opportunity is recognized, often several years down the road.
There were some excellent questions on this topic, including one about the difference in resources and skills between Western companies and Chinese companies. There was a perception, though, that Western companies must be really good at dealing with disruptive innovation and being proactive with their IP. Not so! They are as clumsy and short-sighted as ever, and the opportunity for Chinese companies to seize the future with disruptive innovation and disruptive IP is great. In fact, it's already happening in some quarters. The need for all of us to be more aware and more proactive with out IP is serious.
On the second day, I shared my perspectives about the role of IP strategy in dealing with disruptive innovation, and including some of my thoughts about Chinese companies and the lack of respect they get from the West when it comes to innovation and IP. My main point, though, was that large companies need to have aggressive IP-generators who help mitigate future risks by building low-cost but aggressive IP estates in emerging areas and in potentially disruptive areas. Risk aversion is the battle cry, but the "hidden agenda" is actually to help the company prepare for future opportunities in those areas. With proactive IP filed early, when the business units of the company later recognize the importance of market trends and see or feel the need to pursue areas that once looked a little too non-standard/disruptive for comfort, well, when that happens, it won't be too late as is usually the case with disruptive innovation, but the company will find that they are actually prepared with a foundation of IP that can help them survive and move forward more easily.
The application of "disruptive IP strategy" involves some risk and cost, but the costs can be contained and the potential benefits can be huge. A handful of visionary people can help create future-looking IP much more easily than they can convince the company to change directions and make massive investments in new areas. But that IP can later help save the day when the significance of a disruptive threat or opportunity is recognized, often several years down the road.
There were some excellent questions on this topic, including one about the difference in resources and skills between Western companies and Chinese companies. There was a perception, though, that Western companies must be really good at dealing with disruptive innovation and being proactive with their IP. Not so! They are as clumsy and short-sighted as ever, and the opportunity for Chinese companies to seize the future with disruptive innovation and disruptive IP is great. In fact, it's already happening in some quarters. The need for all of us to be more aware and more proactive with out IP is serious.
Sunday, June 3, 2012
A Historic Event in IP Collaboration: The US-China IP Adjudication Conference, May 28-30, 2012, Beijing
After 3 years of planning and navigating complex political waters, a historic event finally took place in Beijing last week at China’s top university for IP law, Renmin University. Top justices, judges, lawyers, business leaders and academicians from the US and China gathered for 3 intensive days of sharing regarding intellectual property and the courts. There were over 1,000 people that attended, including numerous judges and IP thought leaders from China and the US. The number of judges from China was said to be 300, though most of the Chinese people I met were not judges but lawyers, business leaders, and students, though I did have lunch with a Chinese judge and met several in other settings during the conference.
The leaders and speakers of the conference included US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) Chief Justice Randall Rader, one of the most brilliant and influential minds in US patent law whose decisions have long been shaping US law and practice. He is a strong advocate of international collaboration and appears to have been one of the primary driving forces between this event. I was pleased to see a total of 7 Federal Circuit judges present, most visiting China for their fist time, including these 6 Circuit Judges: Raymond C. Clevenger III, Richard Linn, Timothy B. Dyk, Sharon Prost, Kimberly A. Moore, and Jimmie V. Reyna. Also playing prominent roles were Gary Locke, US Ambassador to China; David Kappos, Director of the US Patent and Trademark Office; Mark Cohen, the USPTO’s former Attaché to the US Embassy in Beijing; Steven C. Lambert, President, Federal Circuit Bar Association; and many others. Mark Cohen wowed the crowd by delivering his speech in fluent Mandarin, though his rather erudite citations of Chinese poetry and classics sometimes challenged the gifted translators who made this bilingual conference accessible to everyone present.
On the Chinese side, we were elated to have active participation by Chief Judge Kong Xiangjun, IPR Tribunal of the Supreme People’s Court. Also from the IPR Tribunal of the Supreme People’s Court were Deputy Chief Judge Jin Kesheng, Supervisory Attaché Zhang Shengzu, Presiding Judge Yu Xiaobai, Presiding Judge Wang Yongchang, Presiding Judge Xia Junli, and Judge Zhu Li. These judges, with the 7 from the US Federal Circuit, were part of an “en banc” panel discussing US and China law and IP adjudication. Fascinating! Also representing China was Chong Quan, Deputy Deputy China International Trade Representative and a leader of MOFCOM (China Ministry of Commerce).
In addition to many keynote speeches and panel discussions, there were also breakout sessions on such topics such as trademark law, patent litigation, pharmaceutical patent adjudication, and copyright law. Definitely one of the most interesting and information-packed IP conferences I've ever attended.
For many, the highlight may have been the afternoon of mock trials in which the same case was presented in an appeal to the US Federal Circuit and to the IPR Tribunal of the People’s Supreme Court of China. Judge Rader lead the 3-judge panel for the US mock trial. The mock trials allowed representatives of both nations to quickly grasp important differences in procedure, though both courts came to essentially the same conclusion in a genuinely interesting real case involving an advance in safety equipment for a circular saw. Following the trials, there was further exchange between the judges of both countries as they discussed their different systems and what they had learned from one another. What a tremendous learning experience and example of meaningful international cooperation.
The rapidity of China’s progress in IP law and adjudication has been breathtaking, in spite of the many complaints made by voices in the West, and the obvious need for further improvements. But from a historical perspective, to go from virtually no IP law in the early 1980s to a world-class system that is leading the world in patent filing now, with the ability of foreign plaintiffs to win against Chinese companies in Chinese courts, represents massive progress worthy of respect. Exchanges like this recent one in Beijing will influence the thought leaders of both nations to further learn from each other and strengthen our approaches to IP law. Many thanks to all those who made this monumental event possible.
In the closing session, I was able to ask a question to the panelists about what future impact they anticipated might come from this exchange. Chief Judge Kong kindly fielded that question and spoke eloquently of the growth of IP law in China and the rich opportunity they had to draw from the US experience and strengthen their system. There is no doubt in my mind that China is rapidly learning and growing and a visionary eye toward the future. I hope the US can keep up and remain a worthy partner and competitor!
Below are some photos of the event that I took.
Related resources: David Kappos’ blog, “China as an IP Stakeholder.”
The leaders and speakers of the conference included US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) Chief Justice Randall Rader, one of the most brilliant and influential minds in US patent law whose decisions have long been shaping US law and practice. He is a strong advocate of international collaboration and appears to have been one of the primary driving forces between this event. I was pleased to see a total of 7 Federal Circuit judges present, most visiting China for their fist time, including these 6 Circuit Judges: Raymond C. Clevenger III, Richard Linn, Timothy B. Dyk, Sharon Prost, Kimberly A. Moore, and Jimmie V. Reyna. Also playing prominent roles were Gary Locke, US Ambassador to China; David Kappos, Director of the US Patent and Trademark Office; Mark Cohen, the USPTO’s former Attaché to the US Embassy in Beijing; Steven C. Lambert, President, Federal Circuit Bar Association; and many others. Mark Cohen wowed the crowd by delivering his speech in fluent Mandarin, though his rather erudite citations of Chinese poetry and classics sometimes challenged the gifted translators who made this bilingual conference accessible to everyone present.
On the Chinese side, we were elated to have active participation by Chief Judge Kong Xiangjun, IPR Tribunal of the Supreme People’s Court. Also from the IPR Tribunal of the Supreme People’s Court were Deputy Chief Judge Jin Kesheng, Supervisory Attaché Zhang Shengzu, Presiding Judge Yu Xiaobai, Presiding Judge Wang Yongchang, Presiding Judge Xia Junli, and Judge Zhu Li. These judges, with the 7 from the US Federal Circuit, were part of an “en banc” panel discussing US and China law and IP adjudication. Fascinating! Also representing China was Chong Quan, Deputy Deputy China International Trade Representative and a leader of MOFCOM (China Ministry of Commerce).
In addition to many keynote speeches and panel discussions, there were also breakout sessions on such topics such as trademark law, patent litigation, pharmaceutical patent adjudication, and copyright law. Definitely one of the most interesting and information-packed IP conferences I've ever attended.
For many, the highlight may have been the afternoon of mock trials in which the same case was presented in an appeal to the US Federal Circuit and to the IPR Tribunal of the People’s Supreme Court of China. Judge Rader lead the 3-judge panel for the US mock trial. The mock trials allowed representatives of both nations to quickly grasp important differences in procedure, though both courts came to essentially the same conclusion in a genuinely interesting real case involving an advance in safety equipment for a circular saw. Following the trials, there was further exchange between the judges of both countries as they discussed their different systems and what they had learned from one another. What a tremendous learning experience and example of meaningful international cooperation.
The rapidity of China’s progress in IP law and adjudication has been breathtaking, in spite of the many complaints made by voices in the West, and the obvious need for further improvements. But from a historical perspective, to go from virtually no IP law in the early 1980s to a world-class system that is leading the world in patent filing now, with the ability of foreign plaintiffs to win against Chinese companies in Chinese courts, represents massive progress worthy of respect. Exchanges like this recent one in Beijing will influence the thought leaders of both nations to further learn from each other and strengthen our approaches to IP law. Many thanks to all those who made this monumental event possible.
In the closing session, I was able to ask a question to the panelists about what future impact they anticipated might come from this exchange. Chief Judge Kong kindly fielded that question and spoke eloquently of the growth of IP law in China and the rich opportunity they had to draw from the US experience and strengthen their system. There is no doubt in my mind that China is rapidly learning and growing and a visionary eye toward the future. I hope the US can keep up and remain a worthy partner and competitor!
Below are some photos of the event that I took.
Related resources: David Kappos’ blog, “China as an IP Stakeholder.”
 |
| Liu Yang, Exec. VP of the China Law Society, introduces speakers in the first session. Also visible are Mark Cohen (USPTO), Chong Quan (MOFCOM), David Kappos (USPTO), and Shen De Yong (VP of the Supreme People's Court). |
 |
| First session. Left to right: David Kappos (USPTO), Shen Deyong (VP Supreme People's Court), Chief Judge Randall Rader (US CAFC), Chen Jiping (Executive VP, China Law Society), US Ambassador Gary Locke, and Chen Yulu (President, Renmin University). |
 |
| The US Ambassador to China, Gary Locke, speaks on the importance of innovation and collaboration. |
 |
| Chief Judge Randall Rader is one of the rock starts of IP--literally. I asked him if he was going to perform for us in the evening but sadly, he informed me that he had left his band behind in the US for this event. I took the opportunity to compliment Judge Rader on setting a great example by being visibly active in areas other than his profession alone. His pursuit of rock music with a real band, even while in the judiciary, is one of many attributes that makes Judge Rader one of the more interesting and likable people in IP law. His passion for China is also part of the Rader equation. Many thanks for making this historic event happen! |
 |
| David Kappos deserves a lot of credit also for his support of international cooperation with China and other nations. |
 |
| Another highly likeable luminary of IP is Mark Cohen, a Chinese law scholar and fluent Mandarin speaker who created quite a stir with his presentation in eloquent and rather advanced Mandarin. Kudos! |
 |
| Richard Rainey, Executive Counsel, IP Litigation, General Electric. |
Monday, April 30, 2012
The Innovation Renaissance in China
I've been away from this blog for quite a few months as I've begun an exciting journey of innovation and IP strategy in China. Since 2011 I've been living in Shanghai, where I'm now Head of Intellectual Property for one of the world's largest and most rapidly growing forest products companies, Asia Pulp and Paper. Innovation and IP protection are becoming bywords of industry in China, even as the West continues to ignore China as a source of innovation. But the culture is shifting as the economy develops and as China's IP system matures, and the result is that copying is no longer going to bring lasting success. Innovation, backed with IP to protect one's competitive edge, is increasingly becoming the key for success in China.
China just became the world leader in the filing of patents. Yes, many have questionable quality, but there is a large body of high-quality IP being developed, manifest by the growing emphasis on internationally filed patents as well as Chinese patents. Heavy investment in Chinese R&D is also occurring, and China is now in the #2 position globally for published technical papers. The time of ignoring China's innovation and IP is ending, though some companies and nations are trying their best to keep their eyes closed.
More to follow.....
China just became the world leader in the filing of patents. Yes, many have questionable quality, but there is a large body of high-quality IP being developed, manifest by the growing emphasis on internationally filed patents as well as Chinese patents. Heavy investment in Chinese R&D is also occurring, and China is now in the #2 position globally for published technical papers. The time of ignoring China's innovation and IP is ending, though some companies and nations are trying their best to keep their eyes closed.
More to follow.....
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Northeast Wisconsin Innovation Event: NEW END
Hundreds of Wisconsin entrepreneurs will attend NEW END:
One day event for start-up businesses to focus on creativity and networking
On Wednesday, June 22, 2011, hundreds of entrepreneurs will join together in a one day event to celebrate innovation and job creation in the "New North" of Wisconsin. Northeast Wisconsin Entrepreneur Networking Day—or NEW END—takes place at Fox Valley Technical College, Appleton, WI. The event is dedicated to the specific needs of entrepreneurs and small business owners by packing networking, education, and collaboration into one day.
This is the seventh year for the influential business meeting which has been attended by hundreds of entrepreneurs annually. NEW END features nationally known author, speaker and entrepreneur, Barry Moltz, who will conduct a workshop specifically designed to get business “un-stuck.” Moltz has been a featured speaker at NEW END in the past, but this year’s event will provide more one-on-one learning with Moltz.
“Entrepreneurs are not used to taking the easy path,” Moltz said. “But when they get stuck either in an existing business or a new venture, sometimes they just need to change perspective—that’s what this workshop will do,” Moltz said.
NEW END is sponsored by the FVTC Venture Center, the leading entrepreneur center in Northeast Wisconsin. In the last five years. The Venture Center has helped launch more than 200 businesses through the E-seed and Pro-Seed programs. Executive Director Amy Pietsch says this event is not only popular with entrepreneurs, but is a critical element of their business plan.
“For years, one of the most popular events at NEW END has been the ability to network in person with other entrepreneurs and business resources,” Pietsch said. “Entrepreneurs who attend will connect with the people and information they need to be successful.”
New for NEW END 2011, the “Pop-up-Pitch.” Entrepreneurs may register to be part of this competition in which they could win $2500 by telling a panel of judges in only 60-seconds who they are, what their business is, and how they will use the $2500 to advance their enterprise. Entrepreneurs are encouraged to come prepared for the “Pop-up-Pitch”. A limited number of registrants will be presenting their ideas in front of the entire NEW END conference and are urged to register early.
“Start-ups are constantly pitching their business idea to investors, partners or lending institutions,” Pietsch said. This is a fresh, creative way for them to hone their pitch into a short, specific message.”
In addition to the Pop-up-Pitch, NEW END 2011 will feature:
- Day long workshop with Barry Moltz
- Afternoon Networking session with business owners and other entrepreneurs
- Taste of Entrepreneurship featuring area food entrepreneurs and their finest fare
Cost for the day-long workshop with Barry Moltz is $100/person; attendance is limited. Cost for the evening NEW END networking, Pop-up-Pitch and Taste of Entrepreneurship event is $39/person. To register, please visit www.newend.biz or www.venturecenterwi.biz.
# # # # # # # #
MEDIA ADVISORY:
Barry Moltz is available via phone for personal interviews. Visit his website for more information www.barrymoltz.com
The Venture Center can provide interviews with regional entrepreneurs who have been involved in NEW END.
For more information, contact Mary Schmidt, mkschmidt at centurytel.net, 920-284-7165
Friday, April 22, 2011
More Dangers of the Patent Reform Bill Identified
Sometimes doing nothing isn't such a bad thing. Our patent system could use a few fixes, but not the kind Congress is now pursuing. Folks, if Congress or the Administration really wanted to fix the patent system to BENEFIT innovators and advance the cause of the useful arts, they would NOT imposes a $100 million tax on patent seekers by diverting the money they pay in fees to the USPTO to feed their big spending habits in unrelated sectors. That's right: the inefficiencies and costly delays in our patent system are due, at least in part, to Congress taking away the money that the USPTO receives from inventors. It's a tax on innovation, a ridiculous innovation fatigue factor. Let the USPTO keep and spend the money it receives to advance patent searching and prosecution. Tax tobacco, not innovation and innovators. Our economic recovery needs more innovation, not less.
Now the same group who doesn't mind taxing innovators and adding to the delays at the USPTO have offered "patent reform" to "fix" our patent problems. Sounds great, right? Good intentions, no doubt. But as we warn repeatedly in Conquering Innovation Fatigue, there can be unintended innovation fatigue factors rising even from well-intended actions if policy makers aren't listening to the voice of the innovator. That's the voice of the innovator, not the voice of the largest campaign donors. They might do OK with the reforms being pushed through Congress. It's lone inventors and small companies I'm most worried about. You should be, too.
David Boundy offers a summary of the problems with the patent reform legislation over at Patent Docs. I agree with much of his analysis. From my work in the innovation community, I've seen that the year grace period inventors have in the U.S. from public disclosure to filing a patent really is valuable for lone inventors and small companies, and eliminating it will greatly increase costs and risks. It could be a crushing blow for some.
Read David's article. I look forward to your comments, there or here.
Now the same group who doesn't mind taxing innovators and adding to the delays at the USPTO have offered "patent reform" to "fix" our patent problems. Sounds great, right? Good intentions, no doubt. But as we warn repeatedly in Conquering Innovation Fatigue, there can be unintended innovation fatigue factors rising even from well-intended actions if policy makers aren't listening to the voice of the innovator. That's the voice of the innovator, not the voice of the largest campaign donors. They might do OK with the reforms being pushed through Congress. It's lone inventors and small companies I'm most worried about. You should be, too.
David Boundy offers a summary of the problems with the patent reform legislation over at Patent Docs. I agree with much of his analysis. From my work in the innovation community, I've seen that the year grace period inventors have in the U.S. from public disclosure to filing a patent really is valuable for lone inventors and small companies, and eliminating it will greatly increase costs and risks. It could be a crushing blow for some.
Read David's article. I look forward to your comments, there or here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)