|
BIZCHINA> Center
![]() |
|
Related
Chinese firms triumph in US battery suit
By Diao Ying (China Daily)
Updated: 2008-05-06 09:17 A US court's decision to shoot down the patent infringement claims of a US battery maker has ended a lengthy case against Chinese battery manufacturers and marks the first victory of Chinese enterprises in trade disputes such as this. "It lasted five years and cost millions of dollars," the China Battery Industry Association said in a press release yesterday, "but the victory marks a perfect ending." Experts said the win will put Chinese battery enterprises in a better position to tap overseas markets, the US in particular, which have seen an annual twofold increase in recent years. According to Wang Jingzhong, spokesman for the association, battery from China costs only half that of the local ones in the US. Energizer Holdings, the second largest battery maker in the US, in 2003 filed complaints against more than 20 companies, including nine Chinese manufacturers, claiming they had infringed on Eveready's zero-mercury-added patent. According to an announcement by Hogan & Hartson, the law firm that helped Chinese enterprises with the case, the patent claims were unfounded. The US Court of Federal Appeals for the Federal Circuit in late April affirmed a previous ruling by the US International Trade Commission (ITC) that Energizer's claim was not valid. It is the final decision on the case since this was the second time Energizer appealed. Energizer used to ask Chinese manufacturers for $1 million as patent fees plus 2 to 3 cents on each battery sold. "That was unacceptable since we earn only 1 cent on each battery," said Wang from the association. Chinese battery makers thus worked together to fight the suit initiated by Energizer. According to experts from the association, fees for Section 337 investigations are very high and therefore companies stand to gain when they work together and share the legal costs. Under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, ITC is authorized to conduct investigations into claims of infringement on US intellectual property rights and other unfair trade practices in imports into the US, and take remedies such as issuing general or specific exclusion orders or cease and desist orders. The US last year initiated 17 Section 337 investigations against Chinese enterprises. The products included recorders, digital TVs, memory cards and media players. A recent report released by the Ministry of Commerce said Chinese enterprises are facing increasing trade barriers. Yu Benlin, deputy chief of the ministry's bureau of trade fairs for imports and exports, last week said enterprises should take the lead in dealing with these suits and protecting their interests. (For more biz stories, please visit Industries)
|
主站蜘蛛池模板: 克东县| 庆云县| 巴楚县| 翁牛特旗| 福建省| 敦化市| 兴国县| 顺平县| 汪清县| 鱼台县| 富蕴县| 珲春市| 那坡县| 罗定市| 田阳县| 姜堰市| 江阴市| 姜堰市| 岳普湖县| 德格县| 桐庐县| 梨树县| 读书| 潍坊市| 普安县| 西丰县| 长丰县| 灯塔市| 上杭县| 永丰县| 新密市| 青冈县| 安溪县| 漠河县| 霸州市| 民乐县| 垣曲县| 盐亭县| 海城市| 茶陵县| 吉林省| 城步| 邵武市| 延长县| 双江| 邯郸县| 彰化市| 赣榆县| 白山市| 林口县| 平陆县| 中卫市| 巴东县| 江陵县| 图们市| 运城市| 青神县| 海盐县| 石柱| 子长县| 繁昌县| 枣庄市| 通辽市| 玉林市| 岗巴县| 凉山| 定西市| 尚志市| 绥中县| 安平县| 兴义市| 台湾省| 广河县| 石阡县| 木兰县| 二连浩特市| 文登市| 镇赉县| 潜江市| 阳曲县| 阿图什市| 宝应县|