1. According to the proposed amendment to the Patent Law, SIPO would be responsible for establishing/building a patent information service system for the public, and for promoting communication and utilization of patent information. Does SIPO have any vision or plan on how to fulfil this responsibility?

    根据《中华人民共和国专利法修改草案（征求意见稿）》，国知局要负责建设专利信息公共服务体系，促进专利信息传播与利用。国知局对如何履行这一职责？有何展望和计划？

    2. Is there any concrete plan to provide complete and update patent prosecution file wrapper, full PRB decisions, and title transfer/licencing information to the public in the near future?

    目前有没有具体的计划安排？比如如何在近期向公众提供完整、及时的专利审查档案信息，完整的复审委审查决定，以及在国知局著录的专利授权转让、许可信息？

    3. According to the proposed revision of the Patent Law, SIPO is required to “provide basic data for patent information”. In SIPO’s view, what are included in the “basic data for patent information”?
 
    征求意见稿中提到国知局要“提供专利信息基础数据”。国知局对“基础数据”怎么解释？都包含哪些数据？

    4. The draft Patent Law Amendment gives SIPO additional power and authority, namely SIPO is to be “responsible for regulation and administration of patent related market”. Assuming this passes into law, what exactly is SIPO’s role in the regulation and administration of the market place? Will SIPO itself be able to take administrative actions at different levels? If so when will/can SIPO exercise this authority? Has SIPO made any plan or proposal for how to fulfil this responsibility?

    征求意见稿提议赋予国知局更多的权力，包括“负责涉及专利的市场监督管理工作，查处有重大影响的专利侵权和假冒专利行为”。如果这条法律生效，国知局会对专利市场起什么样的监督管理作用？国知局有权力直接采取不同行政级别的行政措施吗？如果有，在什么情况下国知局会行使这些权力？国知局是否已有如何履行这些职责和权力的计划或蓝图？

    5. How will the above change affect foreign patent holders?
 
    如何评估上述变化可能会对国外专利权人带来的影响？

    6. The draft Patent Law Amendment proposes that local patent administrative agencies (at county level or higher) are responsible for administrative enforcement of patents in their respective local region. What will be the relationship between local patent administrative agencies and SIPO? Will local agencies report to the local government or to SIPO? If the former, how will SIPO oversee and control consistent patent administrative enforcement throughout China, and avoid local protectionism?

    征求意见稿提议县级以上地方专利行政部门负责本行政区域内的专利工作，开展专利行政执法，查处专利侵权和假冒专利行为，提供专利公共服务。那么，在专利行政执法方面，国知局与地方局是何种关系? 地方局需要向当地政府还是国知局负责、汇报，受谁的领导？如果受是当地政府领导，国知局将怎样协调、统筹并监督管理各地专利行政执法的政策与执行，避免地方保护主义？

    7. We welcome the addition to Art. 60 on penalties for group infringement or repeated infringement. Can you clarify which entity will benefit from (receive) the penalty collected from the infringers? Will any of the collected amount be awarded to the patentee, or will it all go to the government?

    我们赞成第60条增加的内容，特别是专利行政部门可对群体侵权、重复侵权等故意侵犯专利权的行为进行处罚。请问哪个部门/个体将从罚款中受益？专利权人会从罚款中得到任何补偿或奖励吗？还是所有罚款都由专利行政机关缴归国库或当地政府？

    8. When patent infringement is found by an administrative body, but not necessarily intentional, are administrative remedies available to the patentee? Will they be limited to orders of prohibiting further infringement, and seizure and destruction of infringing products and tools, etc.? Can SIPO or the local patent office provide any additional remedy to the patentee? For example, can SIPO or a local patent office levy any penalties or taxes on the infringer? If so, in what circumstances?

    如果专利行政部门认定侵权行为成立,但不一定是“故意”，专利行政部门认定对专利权人的补救措施是不是仅限于禁止进一步侵权，没收、销毁侵权产品、专用于制造侵权产品或者使用侵权方法的零部件、工具、模具、设备等侵权产品和工具等？国知局或地方局可以提供其它有益专利权人的补救措施吗？例如，国知局或地方局可以处以罚款吗？如果可以，什么情况下可以？

    9. We welcome the addition to Art. 61 on requiring infringer to provide accounting information for calculating damages or default to the damages alleged by the patentee. Currently, this is limited to an order by the court. Is there any effort to extend this power to SIPO and local patent offices during administrative enforcement? For example, if the infringer does not provide information on the amount of sales of infringing product, does SIPO or the local patent office have any authority to order the infringer to do so?

    我们赞成61条增加的内容，特别是人民法院认定侵权行为成立后可以责令被控侵权人提供与侵权行为相关的账簿、资料。但是目前好像只有法院有权这样做，请问国知局有否努力将这种权力扩展到行政执法中？譬如，如果侵权人拒不提供销售侵权产品的账簿、资料，国知局或地方局是否有权责令侵权人提供这些资料？

    10. We welcome the addition to Art. 63 on penalties for fake patents; the addition to Art. 64 on the additional power provided to SIPO and other patent offices for investigating patent infringement activities. (We also welcome the addition to Art. 65 on awards of double to treble damages for intentional patent infringement.)  Will SIPO actively pursue this? Does this require requests from the patentee or right holder? Will the patentee be allowed, or required, to participate or provide information and assistance?

    我们赞同第63条款有关虚假专利处罚内容的增加；第64条款有关加大国知局和其它专利局的调查专利侵权行为权利的内容。（我们也赞同第65条款有关对有意专利侵权损害的两到三倍赔偿金内容的增加。）国知局会积极实施此条款吗？这是否规定专利权人或权利持有人提出请求？专利权人会被准许或被要求参与或提供信息与协助吗？

    11. We welcome the addition of Art. 71 regarding responsibility and liability of internet service providers for patent infringement by their customers. Will this provision apply to foreign “internet service providers”? Will this apply to products sold to a foreign market but through a Chinese internet service provider? Will this provision be limited to infringement of Chinese patents, or it can apply when a foreign patent is infringed by the customers of the internet service provider?

    我们赞同第71条款有关互联网服务供应商对其客户的专利侵权行为所应有的责任与义务内容的增加。此项是否适用于海外“互联网服务供应商”？此项是否适用于通过中国互联网服务供应商出售至海外市场的产品？此项会受限于中国专利，或是当海外专利权被此互联网服务供应商的客户侵犯时可适用吗？

    12. Re. new Art 76, how will SIPO promote utilization of patents? What specific steps have SIPO considered?

    有关新增第76条款，国知局将如何推行专利使用？考虑了哪些具体步骤？

    13. In recent years, there has been significant development in the U.S. and Canada on the patentability of business methods and computer-related inventions. There were studies showing that SIPO’s practice in this aspect is more restrictive than the USPTO and EPO, and there have been some suggestions for SIPO to revise its practice or guidelines in this regard to be more in line with other patent offices particularly USPTO and EPO. Has SIPO taken any steps to, or will it in the near future, revise or clarify SIPO’s practice guidelines on patentable subject matter related to business methods and computer-related inventions, with a view for harmonisation?

    近年来，美国和加拿大在商业方法和计算机相关发明的可专利性上有巨大的进展。有研究表明国知局在此方面的操作相对于美专局和欧专局更加严格，且有建议希望国知局修改对这方面的操作或指南，来与其它专利局保持一致，特别是美专局和欧专局。国知局是否从法律统一的角度，已经采取或在近期将采取措施修改或阐明国知局对商业方法和计算机相关发明的可专利性主体的操作指南呢？

    14. In the same area of patentable subject matter, proposed Art. 25 introduces an exception to the rule on non-patentability of methods of diagnosis and treatment of diseases, now allowing such methods if they pertain to bred animals. It is stated that the purpose is to promote innovation in large scale livestock, poultry, and aquaculture production, thus acknowledging the clear correlation between innovation and development and IPRs protecting investment. As such, could the law likewise be further expanded to promote the development of the burgeoning medical diagnostics industry, where the business model depends on the clinical lab that runs diagnostic assays and vendors who sell the labs instruments and assay kits with instructions on how to analyze samples to provide the doctor with useful information to guide their ultimate diagnosis and treatment plan.  It is clear that new instruments are patentable and novel, inventive reagents used in a bioassay kit are patentable. However, many useful assays involve the analysis of a biomarker with known techniques and may either be run on the whole patient (e.g. PET scan) or biosamples isolated from the patient (e.g. blood samples). Presently, such inventions are difficult to patent, in spite of the fact that such patents would have the same beneficial impact on development of the Chinese industry as they are having on agribusiness.

    同样在可专利主体问题上，提议的第25条款介绍了关于疾病治疗与诊断方法中不可专利性规定的一个特例，现在如果是关于饲养动物的，是批准此类方法的。条款阐述了其目的在于鼓励大规模牲畜、家禽和水产养殖生产的创新，所以肯定了创新发展与专利保护投资之间的明确的关联性。如此，如果法律同样进一步扩展进而鼓励新兴医疗诊断行业的发展，将很有帮助。这一行业的商业模式是依赖于进行诊断分析的临床实验室和出售实验室仪器和试剂盒一并样本分析说明书的供货商。供货商向医生提供有用信息进而指导他们达到最终诊断和治疗的目标。很明显新的仪器是可专利且新颖的，被用于生物检测试剂盒的新发明的试剂是可专利的。然而，许多有用的测试涉及使用已知技术的生物标记来分析，也可以在患者身上进行（例如：正子扫描PET）或从患者身体分离出的生物样本（例如：血液样本）。现今，这样的发明很难申请专利，即使这类专利会如其对农业经济那样，给中国行业发展带来巨大影响。

    15. What is the SIPO’s view on patent term extension? Will SIPO support or propose to amend the law to provide any term extension, with a view for harmonisation?

    国知局对专利延期有何看法？贵局会从法律统一的角度支持或提议修订法律提供任意延期吗？

    16. Can SIPO comment on the current views on use of compulsory licenses?

    国知局是否可对强制许可使用的一些现行观点进行评论？

    17. Could SIPO comment on the developing PPH programs?  Are there statistics available for invention patent applications examined under the various PPH programs? For example, how much has the examination pendency been reduced? What are the grant and rejection rates? First action allowance rate?

    针对进行中的专利审查高速路（PPH）项目国知局可否进行评论？第一次审查通过的概率是多少？是否可提供各类PPH项目下的发明专利申请审查的统计数据？例如：审查周期缩短了多少？授权和驳回的比率是多少？一通的准许率是多少？

    18. We presume that the IP5 Dossier project is part of the response to questions 1-3; can you comment on its progress, particularly noting the IP5 Global Dossier Task Force (GDTF) meeting on 20-22 May? What is the status of the planned launch of the SIPO file wrapper service? What types of documents beyond written amendments and written opinions will be eventually made available to the public? Will free machine translation of documents be part of this service accessible by the public?

    IP5专利档案项目看来应该可部分解决上述问题（1-3）， 特别是我们知道IP5全球档案工作组（GDTF）刚刚在5月20日至22日开过会，您能否对其目前进展发表评论？国知局计划推出的专利档案包服务现在是什么情况？都有哪些类型的文件最终会公布，除了书面修改文件和书面审查报告？作为方便公众获取这些信息服务的一部分，会提供免费机器翻译吗？

    19. Could SIPO comment on how amended Art 41(2) and 46(2)(3) are to be implemented to avoid subjecting patentees to risk of arbitrary challenge of their granted patents by the State through PRB initiated re-examination?

    国知局是否能谈论一下修改的第41（2）条款和第46（2）（3）条款将被如何执行，可使专利权人免于其授权专利受到来自国家专利复审委员会提出复审的挑战风险？

    20. With regard to inventor remuneration, Article 18 of the regulations states that an agreement that eliminates the inventor’s reward or is deemed unfair can be ruled invalid.  However, it is often difficult if not impossible to track and distinguish the value of one or more inventions, let alone ‘Know How’, in a marketed product and many companies compensation and benefits packages for their inventions do fairly compensate employees without itemized awards and/or profit sharing based on inventive contributions. How can Entities protect themselves in such cases, assuming they do have remuneration agreements/policies in place? Otherwise, the resulting business uncertainty could drive research driven business/multinationals offshore.

    针对发明人报酬问题，规定的第18条阐明了如果合约规定消除了发明人所得或认定为有失公平，则此合约可被判定为无效。然而，通常查询或分清一个或几个发明的价值是非常困难的，更不要说一个市场化的产品中的专有技术了。并且许多公司的发明补偿福利计划会公平地对雇员给予补偿，但不细化奖项或不根据对发明做出的贡献分配利润。这种情况下，假设实体确实有薪酬协议或规定，他们该如何保护自己？否则，造成的商业不确定性将影响受商业/跨国离岸业务驱动的研究的方向。

    21. Has the revision to the examination procedure of utility model patent applications resulted in any significant delay in the examination of these and other applications due to the added workload?

    实用新型专利申请审查程序的修正是否因为工作量的增加而导致许多此类或其他申请审查的重拖延？