The number of patent applications in China is rampant, the utilization rate is not high, and the licensing implementation rate is only 2%
Our reporter Wan Jing
In order to further promote the upgrading of economic industries, the state has put forward a supply-side reform plan to improve the quality and efficiency of the supply system. Product quality depends to a great extent on the level of product research and development and innovation, and is reflected in factors such as brand awareness. Therefore, the overall improvement of product quality to be achieved by supply-side structural reform is closely related to the intellectual property system. However, the Blue Book of Rule of Law (2017) recently released by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences reveals that the overall quality of China’s product supply is not high and the degree of innovation is insufficient. China’s intellectual property rights still have many problems, such as low quality, insufficient protection and high protection cost, which seriously restrict the innovation of enterprises and the improvement of product quality. Therefore, it is necessary to further improve the intellectual property system and promote the realization of the purpose of supply-side reform.
Only 4.1% of enterprises invested more than 5 million in R&D.
According to the Blue Book of Rule of Law, through the investigation of the average investment in R&D projects of more than 7,000 enterprises, it is found that the majority (67%) of enterprises invest less than 1 million yuan in R&D funds, and only 4.1% of enterprises invest more than 5 million yuan. The investigation on the patent R&D cycle of enterprises shows that 23.2% of enterprises have a R&D cycle of one year or less, 44.1% have a R&D cycle of one to two years, accounting for 67.3% in total; 6.2% are really willing to carry out long-term research and development for more than three years. This shows that most enterprises are unwilling to spend too long on R&D activities.
The Blue Book points out that technological innovation determines the core competitiveness of enterprises. Although technological innovation requires capital investment, it will also generate huge returns. The reluctance of enterprises to invest more funds is a problem that needs reflection and improvement in the field of technological innovation. At the same time, the technological innovation ability of a country or enterprise determines the product supply ability to a certain extent. The ongoing supply-side structural reform in China is precisely to find ways to further enhance the core technological ability of China enterprises’ products and comprehensively enhance their brand reputation. Therefore, it is an important task to further improve the intellectual property protection system and help supply-side reform.
The number of patent applications is rampant and the utilization rate is not high.
The number of invention patent applications in China has maintained a steady growth trend. According to the data released by China National Intellectual Property Administration in 2015, China Intellectual Property Office accepted 1.102 million invention patent applications in 2015, up 18.7% year-on-year, ranking first in the world for five consecutive years. From the perspective of the number of patent applications, it seems that the innovation ability of China enterprises should rank first in the world. However, from the perspective of the quality of patent applications, this is not the case. No matter in the field of consumer goods or high-tech products, there is still a certain gap between the innovation ability and supply ability of China enterprises and their international counterparts. The innovation ability of enterprises in China is not proportional to the increasing number of patent applications.
However, the Blue Book of Rule of Law reveals that a large number of patents applied by enterprises have not really been used to improve product quality. According to China’s patent law, the protection period of China’s invention patent is 20 years, and the protection period of utility model and design patent is 10 years. However, in most cases, the patentee will give up the patent halfway. The Annual Report of Effective Patents in China in 2014 shows that the average service life of domestic invention patents is 3.8 years, utility model patents are 3.5 years and design patents are 3.2 years. However, only 0.02% of inventions, 1.1% of utility models, and 0.5% of designs actually reached the longest service life. The above data show that the vast majority of patents applied for in China have not really been put into use.
In addition, the implementation rate of patent licensing can also reflect the actual use of patents. From 2012 to 2014, 2,787,707 domestic patents were granted nationwide, and only 56,067 patent licensing contracts were signed, accounting for only 2% of the authorized patents. This data also reflects that most patents have not really been put into use.
Therefore, the patent application of enterprises and the product supply capacity of enterprises cannot be directly equated. In fact, in the existing system, the important index to evaluate the scientific and technological innovation ability of the government or enterprises is still the number of patents, such as: enterprises need patents to enjoy many preferential welfare policies; Enterprises need patent indicators to reduce or exempt taxes and apply for high-tech enterprise certification; Many places and units also need patents for talent introduction and talent evaluation. Obviously, applying for a patent can meet various interests. In addition, in many places, in order to strive for an advanced number of patent applications, bonuses are awarded to enterprises applying for patents through so-called incentive measures, which further leads to the proliferation of patent applications.
Seven adults think that the level of intellectual property protection needs to be strengthened.
According to the introduction of the Blue Book of Rule of Law, 8,938 people were surveyed with the title of "Evaluation of Intellectual Property Protection Level in China". On the whole, 67% of the respondents thought that the level of intellectual property protection in China needed to be strengthened gradually, even 24.4% thought it needed to be greatly strengthened, and only 7.2% thought it was more appropriate. It is not difficult to see from the survey results that the level of intellectual property protection in China needs to be further improved.
In fact, what choices do enterprises make — — Are you committed to your own innovation or imitation and plagiarism — — To a large extent depends on the analysis of costs and benefits.
For a long time, the level of intellectual property protection in China is too low, which makes many enterprises reluctant to innovate in the process of product supply, but more willing to imitate and copy. In the litigation of damages for patent infringement cases, 97.25% of the cases are subject to the standard of "statutory compensation", and the average compensation amount is only 79,600 yuan. In contrast, the average amount of patent litigation compensation in the United States from 2007 to 2012 was as high as 29.4 million yuan. In trademark infringement cases, the average amount of compensation awarded by the court is 62,000 yuan, which is also out of proportion to the huge efforts made by trademark operators to maintain their brands for a long time. The low amount of compensation for intellectual property infringement cases has contributed to the formation of this situation: innovators need to spend a lot of financial resources and efforts to make a difference in the pursuit of product quality, and infringers can "copy" it at a low cost. Therefore, the imitation trace is heavy in the supply of various products in China, the innovation ability is insufficient, and the number of intellectual property disputes remains high.
It is suggested that the punitive damages system should be fully introduced.
Supply-side reform is inseparable from intellectual property rights. Only by perfecting the intellectual property rights system can the real supply-side reform be realized. Based on the aforementioned problems existing in the above-mentioned intellectual property system, the Blue Book proposes to improve the intellectual property evaluation system and realize the change of supply side from quantity to quality. In the process of adjusting the patent quality evaluation system, the original patent quantification index should be adjusted to the actual contribution value of patents to improving product supply. Whether it involves the identification of high-tech enterprises, tax relief for high-tech enterprises, reduction of patent application fees, and related incentives for enterprise inventions and creations, it is necessary to cancel the original provisions on patent quantification, and take whether patents are actually used, the use effect, and the actual contribution value to product supply as evaluation indicators. In a series of documents that need to be submitted by enterprises, it is necessary to submit documents that patents play a practical role in product supply besides patent certificates.
The Blue Book also suggests increasing the cost of intellectual property infringement and realizing the transformation of the supply side from imitation to innovation. Although the statutory compensation limit was raised from 500,000 yuan to 1 million yuan when the Patent Law was revised in 2008, the existing compensation system still does not have enough deterrent effect on intellectual property infringement, and it is difficult to play an effective guarantee for innovation. Therefore, it is necessary to introduce the "punitive damages system" into the intellectual property law.
At the same time, reduce the cost of intellectual property protection and provide legal guarantee for continuous innovation on the supply side. In order to give patent applicants clear expectations and reduce the costs and risks caused by uncertain expectations, it is necessary for the patent law to clearly regulate the patent application cycle. Compared with other types, the process of invention patent is the most complicated because it involves substantive examination. It is necessary for the patent law to clearly regulate the time limit for applying for substantive examination and the time limit for examination results, and if it involves submitting corrected materials, it is also necessary to regulate the time for correction. At the same time, the time limit for the examination results of utility model and design patents is clearly regulated. In this way, enterprises will have a relatively clear expectation and evaluation of future risks in the process of technological upgrading and transformation, and minimize the costs and risks brought by intellectual property applications.