Mediaboss Marketing

Wearing T-shirts, buttons or hats supporting political candidates at the polls is illegal. But in the pandemic era, voters are now being reminded that the electioneering rules also apply to face masks.

According to the law, a person may not electioneer for or against any candidate, measure, or political party within 100 feet of a polling place.

It's really a protected area that should be just focused on providing the access to the ballot and voting processes without any kind of interruption or any kind of chaos, or stress, or concerns, said Bruce Sherbet, elections administrator for Collin County.

For years, election officials have had to ask voters to turn their political shirts inside out and leave their accessories in the car. This election cycle, poll workers are also dealing with political messages on some face masks intended to protect voters from the coronavirus.

Sherbet said Collin County judges this year are offering plain disposable masks to cover the political ones, he said.

We strongly encourage masks, so if someone is wearing them, we don't want to be too inconvenient with it as long as they can just cover it up, Sherbet said.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld an electioneering ban at polling places in 1992, meaning that states could create laws to prevent voter intimidation and ban electioneering around polling places.

What can I wear to the polls?

Electioneering specifically includes advocating for or against any political candidate, measure or political party.

Sherbet said this means while a "Make America Great Again" hat or Joe Biden button would count as electioneering, a Black Lives Matter or Dont tread on me message would not because they are advocating for a movement.

But electioneering could be interpreted and enforced differently across the state.

In 2016, a San Antonio man wore a T-shirt and hat supporting Donald Trump. He removed the hat, but not the Basket of Deplorables shirt. He was arrested on electioneering charges.

In 2012, a woman in Williamson County was asked to cover up her shirt that read "Vote the Bible."

Ultimately, it falls upon local Election Officials to make the final determination as to what constitutes electioneering, said Stephen Chang, spokesperson for the secretary of states office in an email.

According to the secretary of states office, voting clerks and election judges decide what counts as electioneering and have the authority to ensure there is no electioneering in that area.

So why are there so many signs and political volunteers outside my polling site?

Within 100 feet of the polls, electioneering is not allowed. But outside of that boundary, campaigns are free to wave signs, hand out fliers, advocate for proposals and wear whatever campaign gear they want.

But campaign volunteers and advocates cannot use sound amplification devices or loudspeakers, which must be 1,000 feet away from the polls.

While those who control or own the building used for voting cannot prohibit electioneering, they can enact reasonable regulations of the time, place and manner electioneering happens. For example, a reasonable regulation would be prohibiting electioneering on sidewalks to keep them clear for pedestrians, according to the secretary of state's office.

Whats the difference between electioneering and voter intimidation?

Voter intimidation is illegal nationally, regardless of where it takes place at a polling location, said David Becker, executive director at the Center for Election Innovation & Research, in an email.

So, if any conduct goes from being merely expressive to intimidating toward voters, it would be outlawed regardless of where it occurred, Becker said.

He said generally electioneering is ordinary campaign activity.

The difference is that voter intimidation is when someone does anything that could negatively affect a voter when they go to vote. This includes making people feel in physical danger or uncomfortable, verbally accosting them and any other activity that someone shouldnt have to endure while exercising their most fundamental right, he said.

The ACLU website says voter intimidation can include aggressively questioning voters about citizenship or criminal record and falsely representing oneself as an elections official. It also includes spreading false information about voter requirements and voter fraud.

What should I do if I see electioneering?

Sherbet said its best to tell an election judge at the voting location if you see what could be illegal electioneering. He said they are trained to handle electioneering and if someone notifies the election office, the office will relay the message to the judge at that location.

According to the secretary of states office, local voting clerks and election judges decide what counts as electioneering. While serving in that capacity, they have the authority of a district judge to ensure there is no electioneering. If judges or clerks have questions, they can ask their local election office or the secretary of states office.

Disclosure: The Texas secretary of state has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here.

"A MAGA face mask? A Black Lives Matter T-shirt? Heres what you can and cant wear to vote in Texas" was first published at https://www.texastribune.org/2020/10/28/texas-voters-wear-polls-2020/ by The Texas Tribune. The Texas Tribune is proud to celebrate 10 years of exceptional journalism for an exceptional state.

Go here to see the original:
A MAGA face mask? A Black Lives Matter T-shirt? Heres what you can and cant wear to vote in Texas - FOX 4 Dallas

The NBA has taken a hit in recent years as the number of Black coaches has alarmingly decreased, but theres been slight improvement in this offseason cycle with a twist.

The numbers havent gone up in a traditional sense, but the tandems of Black coaches and general managers have increased exponentially. Just two seasons ago, it was applauded when the New York Knicks had a Black president of basketball operations in Steve Mills and Black head coach in David Fizdale.

Now, there are five teams that can boast such a claim the one caveat being the Philadelphia 76ers, who hired Doc Rivers as coach to go along with Elton Brand as general manager but will hire Daryl Morey to run basketball operations.

The Detroit Pistons have Troy Weaver as general manager and Dwane Casey as head coach, the Phoenix Suns have the combo of GM James Jones and Monty Williams, the Cleveland Cavaliers have GM Koby Altman and J.B. Bickerstaff, and the Houston Rockets have GM Rafael Stone and the recently hired Stephen Silas as head coach.

As a whole, there are just seven Black coaches in a 30-team league with Tyronn Lue and Lloyd Pierce rounding out the group, a far reach from the high-water mark of the 2012-13 season, which started with 14 Black head coaches.

The recent cycle was necessary after the firings of Alvin Gentry in New Orleans and Nate McMillan in Indiana. And with the NBAs focus on racial justice in the Disney bubble in Orlando, it would look mighty hypocritical if so many qualified coaches were not getting opportunities to advance to the top seat.

There isnt a lack of Black representation on the floor, in the locker room or even in scouting, but one could rightfully claim theres a glass ceiling on positions of leadership. The NBA placed the phrase Black Lives Matter on playing courts in Orlando, but theres at least some recognition that those values have to be reflected in its business practices.

Rivers had the social currency to lay the vulnerabilities of Black people on the worlds stage during the playoffs with a message that was actually quoted recently by presidential candidate Joe Biden.

Were the ones getting killed. Were the ones getting shot. Weve been hung. Its amazing we keep loving this country, and this country does not love us back, Rivers said.

That doesnt happen if Rivers isnt respected, a champion who endured on and off the floor, and hes long spoken about not wanting to be the exception but the rule. The NBA has positioned itself as a moral leader of sorts, and even if the visual messaging wont carry into next season, having Black leaders who have the publics trust could be beneficial.

The Biden-Rivers connection seems to contradict the billionaire statuses of most NBA owners, who tend to donate heavily to one side of the political aisle. But that doesnt mean Black employees cant progress in spite of it.

Rockets owner Tilman Fertitta wouldnt be considered a blue-state guy by any stretch, but he doesnt appear to be in a rush to tear down a James Harden-Russell Westbrook-led team, hoping Stone and Silas can keep them in contention and compete for championships.

Fertittas political views didnt get in the way of him rewarding two Black men who came up through the ranks, especially in the case of Silas. Silas interviewed with the Rockets during their last opening and impressed, but they ultimately chose Mike DAntoni in 2016. Silas helped engineer the Dallas Mavericks record-breaking offensive efficiency, unlocking Luka Doncic and maximizing supporting players Tim Hardaway Jr., Seth Curry and Trey Burke.

Silas has been highly regarded for quite a while and shouldve been a head coach before now, but it should be noted Fertitta saw fit to take the leap with a Black coach who isnt a former player an unfortunate unicorn of sorts.

Story continues

The coach-general manager combo doesnt guarantee anything, but if connectivity and synergy mean something, the commonality could present better chances for Black coaches to reverse the trend of being last hired, first fired.

There isnt much connective tissue between either of the hires aside from persistence and dedication, which actually shows the number of roads many future coaches and executives can travel to attain their goals. Assuming Brand stays onboard with Morey and has some level of say, only he and Rivers were high-level NBA players.

Jones and Williams were role players but widely respected in the locker room. Weaver, hired in Detroit over the summer, was a grinder before rising to second in command in Oklahoma City. Casey was a head coach in Toronto and Minnesota before landing in Detroit.

Casey, like Weaver, isnt a former NBA player.

The NBA has yet to mandate a Rooney Rule of sorts, and commissioner Adam Silver has been hesitant on it, although all parties recognize the need for the numbers and quality of opportunities to increase.

The current situation is nowhere near where the league wants it to be, but it should be noted that in some ways, its actions have mirrored its sentiments.

More from Yahoo Sports:

Link:
NBA isnt where it needs to be, but it's making strides in elevating Black coaches and executives - Yahoo Sports

The Fourth Amendment right to be free from "unreasonableseizure" includes the right to be free from unreasonable arrest or detainment. Does it also include the right to be free from what we might call unreasonable attempts or efforts at arrest or detainment? The late Justice Antonin Scalia thought that it did. "The mere grasping or application of physical force with lawful authority, whether or not it succeeded in subduing the arrestee," Scalia wrote for a unanimous Supreme Court in California v. Hodari D. (1991), qualifies as a seizure for Fourth Amendment purposes.

Earlier this month, however, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a new Fourth Amendment that asks whether Scalia might have got it wrong.

In Torres v. Madrid (2019), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit held that no seizure occurred when officers with the New Mexico State Police shot Roxanne Torres twice in the back, because their bullets did not actually stop her from getting away. According to that court, "an officer's intentional shooting of a suspect does not effect a seizure unless the 'gunshotterminate[s] [the suspect's] movement or otherwise cause[s] the government to have physical control over him.'"

Torres was sitting in her car in her apartment building's parking lot when it went down. The officers were there to arrest somebody else. They claimed they approached her because she was acting suspiciously. According to Torres, she thought she was about to be carjacked, later testifying that the officers never identified themselves as they crowded her vehicle. Fearing for her safety, she drove away. The officers then shot her twice as she fled. She only learned that it was the police who pulled the trigger when she was arrested a day later at the hospital.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Torres v. Madrid on October 14. "Roxanne Torres was not seized by either [Officer] Janice Madrid or [Officer] Richard Williamson," New Mexico lawyer Mark Standridge told the justices. "At no time did the officers acquire possession, custody, or control over her. Indeed, [Torres] never stopped in response to the police action. As the officers did not seize [Torres], they cannot be held liable to her for excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment."

Unsurprisingly, the Court's most hawkish Fourth Amendment advocate, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, did not seem to find that position particularly palatable. "Counsel, there is an element to the Fourth Amendment that all of our cases, including Hodari, recognized by Justice Scalia," she said, "that has to do with the Fourth Amendment's protection of bodily integrity. It is why we call putting a needle in someone's arm a seizure that requires either probable cause or exigent circumstances, et cetera."

And that conception of bodily integrity, Sotomayor continued, includes "the seizure of the person with respect to the touching of that person because even a touch stops you. It may be for a split second, but it impedes yourmovement and offends your integrity."

What you are asking the Court to do, Sotomayor told Standridge, is "reject the clear line drawn by Hodari and say that Justice Scalia was wrong about what the common law showed." Sotomayor left little doubt that she was with Scalia on that one.

Read the original post:
Invoking Scalia, Sotomayor Presses for Broad Fourth Amendment Protections - Reason

To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

Twelve years from the third amendment of China's patent law,the fourth amendment was approved by the Standing Committee of theNational People's Congress on October 17, 2020. The newamendment will take effect on June 1, 2021. This article provides adetailed review of the changes from the current patent law.

The first aspect of changes relates to enhanced protection ofpatent rights. Specifically, it includes punitive damages,increased statutory damage, reversed burden of proof, increasedfine for passingoff, and extended time limit for initiatinglitigation.

(1) Punitive Damages and Increased StatutoryDamage

Under the current patent law, the concepts of willfulinfringement and associated punitive damages are not available.These are included in Article 71 of the fourth amendment of thepatent law. Specifically, for willful infringement on a patentright, if the circumstance is serious, the amount of damages may beincreased up to five times of the calculated damages. The amount ofdamages for patent right infringement shall be determined by tryingthe following methods in the following order. First, the amount ofdamages may be determined according to the patentee's actuallosses caused by the infringement or the benefits acquired by theinfringer through the infringement. Where it is difficult todetermine the losses of the patentee or the benefits acquired bythe infringer, the amount of damages may be determined according tothe reasonably multiples of the royalties of that patent. It is tobe noted that compared with the current provisions, Article 71slightly revised the order of the methods for calculating damagesthat should be used. Either the patentee's actual losses or thebenefits acquired by the infringer can be used first, whereas thecurrent law requires that the actual losses must be triedfirst.

If it is difficult to determine the losses of the patentee,benefits of the infringer, or royalties of the patent, thepeople's court may, on the basis of the factors such as thetype of patent right, nature of the infringement, and seriousnessof the case, determine the amount of compensation within the rangefrom RMB30,000 to RMB5,000,000 (US$4,500 to US$750,000). Thisis referred to as statutory damage and it's lower and upperlimits are respectively raised to 3 times and 5 times of thecurrent ones.

(2) Reversed Burden of Proof

One of the biggest difficulties faced by a patent right holderin a patent infringement law suit in China is the lack ofdiscovery. It is often the case that infringement is found butthere is no good evidence to calculate damages as the evidence isin the possession of the defendant. To deal with this problem,Article 71 of the fourth amendment of the patent law provides wherethe right holder has tried his best to provide evidence but theaccount book and materials related to the infringement are mainlyin the possession of the infringer, in order to determine theamount of damages, the people's court may order the infringerto provide the account book and materials related to theinfringement acts.

Where the infringer fails to provide the account book ormaterials or provide fake account book or materials, thepeople's court may determine the amount of damages based on theclaim made and the evidence provided by the right holder. Itfollows that the plaintiff may want to claim high when launching aninfringement law suit. However, one factor that needs to beconsidered is that the court fees are related to the amount atstake. Even if China does not have a loserpay system, i.e.the losing party does not need to cover the cost of the winningparty in a law suit, overclaiming increases the risk ofhaving to pay higher court fees if the plaintiff does not win thecase.

The punitive damages and the increased statutory damages,together with the reversed burden of proof for calculating damagesare likely to significantly increase the amount of damages awardedin future patent infringement cases in China, which will creategreater deterrence to potential infringers.

(3) Increased Fine for PassingOff

Patent passingoff can be generally understood as fraud,such as false patent marking. Article 68 of the fourth amendmentprovides that when handling a patent passingoff case, apatent enforcement authority can confiscate the illegal gains ofthe party who passes off a patent and, in addition, impose a fineof not more than five times the illegal gain, which is increasedfrom the current limit of four times of the illegal gain. In casethere is no illegal gain or the illegal gain is less than RMB50,000(US$7,500), a patent enforcement authority may impose a fine of upto RMB250,000 (US$37,500). It is to be noted that the fine is atype of punishment on the party who passes off a patent but thepatent right holder will not gain any financial benefit from thefine. Of course, in addition to confiscation and fine, the partywho passes off a patent also has to bear civil liability, e.g.compensation to the patent right holder.

According to the current patent law, when a patent enforcementauthority investigates and handles the suspected passingoffof a patent, it may, based on evidence obtained, (1) inquire theparties concerned and investigate the circumstances related to thesuspected illegal act; (2) conduct onsite inspection of theplaces where the suspected illegal act is committed; (3) review andduplicate the relevant contracts, invoices, account books and otherrelated materials; (4) inspect the products related to thesuspected illegal act; and (5) seal or confiscate the productswhich pass off the patent.

In China, a patent right holder can enforce a patent rightthrough judicial route, i.e. people's court or administrativeroute, e.g. local IP offices. However, local IP offices' powerto review and duplicate the relevant contracts, invoices, accountbooks and other related materials and to seal or confiscate theproducts which pass off the patent, as mentioned above, is limitedto patent passingoff cases only. The fourth amendment of thepatent law still does not give local IP offices such power inhandling patent infringement cases.

(4) Extended Time limit for InitiatingLitigation

According to Article 74 of the fourth amendment of the patentlaw, the time limit for taking legal action against patent rightinfringement was extended from two years to three years, commencingfrom the date when the patentee or interested party knows or shouldhave known of the infringing activity and the infringer. Similarly,if a patentee wants to sue another party for compensation duringthe period from the publication of the invention patent applicationto the grant of the patent right, the time limit for taking legalaction is also extended from two years to three years, commencingfrom the date when the patentee knows or should have known of theuse of the patent by that other party. However, the time limitshall commence from the date when the patent right is granted, ifthe patentee knows or should have known of the use before thepatent right is granted.

In the fourth amendment, the second aspect of changes from thecurrent patent law relates to design patent practice. Specifically,it includes extended patent term for design, allowance of partialdesign and possibility of claiming domestic priority for designapplications.

According to Article 42 of the fourth amendment of the patentlaw, the term of a design patent shall be 15 years, extended from10 years as prescribed in the current patent law. It is believedthat this change is part of China's effort to join the HagueAgreement.

Article 2 of the fourth amendment redefines design as any newdesign of the shape, the pattern or their combination, or thecombination of the color with shape or pattern, of the whole or apart of a product, which creates an aesthetic feeling and is fitfor industrial application. This makes it possible to protect aportion of a product, often referred to as "partialdesign". Under the current law, a design patent can onlyprotects a complete product but not a portion of a product whichcannot be separated or cannot be sold and used independently.Allowance of partial design makes design practice in China moresimilar to that in many other jurisdictions and offers broaderprotection of design patents. Without having to limit their designpatent to specific complete products even though the design pointsare only related to certain part of such products, design patentright holders will be in a better position to protect themselvesfrom infringers who may be able to avoid the risk of infringementby only copying their design points and using them in a differentshaped product.

The allowance of partial design also renders design patentprotection for graphic user interface (GUI) more useful. Applicantsdo not have to protect the product, i.e. the display screen panel,with the GUI, in their design patents, as under the currentpractice. Instead, a design patent may be used to protect thedesign of the GUI itself, with the other parts of the productdisclaimed and presented by dotted lines. Even in the GUI itself,some parts may be disclaimed through the use of dotted lines. Itwill be interesting to see what standard will be used in theexamination of partial design application.

Article 29 of the fourth amendment of the patent law includesdomestic priority for design applications, which is not availableunder the current patent law. Specifically, if within 6 months fromthe date an applicant first files an application for a designpatent in China, he files another design application in China forthe same subject matter, the applicant may enjoy the right ofpriority. Under the current domestic priority practice forinvention and utility model applications, when domestic priority isclaimed, the first filed Chinese application will be deemed to bewithdrawn. Therefore, it is not possible to keep both applications.It is reasonable to believe that this also applies to designapplications.

In the fourth amendment, the third aspect of changes from thecurrent patent law relates to drug patents. Specifically, itincludes patent term extension and patent linkage system.

(1) Patent Term Extension

Article 42 of the fourth amendment provides that in order tocompensate for the time spent in the review and marketing approvalof new drugs, at the request of the patentee, CNIPA (China NationalIntellectual Property Administration) may grant compensation forthe term of the invention patent related to the new drug which hasbeen approved for marketing in China. The compensation period shallnot exceed five years, and the total effective period of patentright after the new drug is approved for marketing shall not exceed14 years.

It is to be noted that "Bolar exemption" is availableunder the current patent law, i.e. use of a drug patent for thepurpose of application for drug approval is not considered a patentinfringing activity, but extension of patent term is not available.The inclusion of patent term extension in the fourth amendment ofthe patent law better balances the interest of innovative drugcompanies and the generic companies. There are no detailedprovisions available yet regarding how the extension will becalculated. However, it can be expected that this new provisionencourages innovative drug companies, especially foreign drugoriginators to bring their new drugs to the Chinese market as earlyas possible and hence make new drugs more accessible to the Chinesepeople.

(2) Patent Linkage System

Article 76 of the fourth amendment of the patent law providesthat in the process of review and marketing approval of a drug, ifa dispute arises between the applicant for the marketing approvalof the drug and the relevant patentee or interested party due tothe patent right related to the drug applying for registration, therelevant party may bring a suit in the people's court andrequest a judgment be made on whether the related technicalsolution of the drug applying for registration falls within thescope of protection of other's drug patent. The drug regulatorydepartment of the State Council may, within the prescribed timelimit, make a decision on whether to suspend the marketing approvalof the relevant drug based on the effective judgment of thepeople's court.

The applicant for marketing approval of a drug and the relevantpatentee or interested party may also request an administrativeruling from CNIPA for the dispute over the patent right related tothe drug applying for registration.

Article 76 further provides that the drug regulatory departmentof the State Council, in conjunction with CNIPA, shall formulatespecific measures for the connection between the marketing approvalof drugs and the resolution of patent disputes in the stage ofapplication for marketing approval of drugs, which shall beimplemented after the approval of the State Council.

The newly added article introduces the socalled"patent linkage system" into the patent law, whichprovides an early resolution mechanism for drug patent disputes,aiming to resolve potential patent disputes before relevant drugsare marketed. However, by the completion of this article, detailedrules in this area still need to be formulated, such asavailability of experimental data protection period for drugs, andthe establishment of China's Patent Information RegistrationPlatform for Approved Drugs, equivalent to the correspondingcontent in "Approved Drug Products with TherapeuticEquivalence Evaluations" in the US, commonly known as the"Orange Book". Other drug related measures may also needto be updated to reflect the changes in this regard, such as anupdated application process for drug approval, or a revised Catalogof Approved Drugs.

As a matter of fact, on September 11, 2020, the National MedicalProducts Administration and CNIPA jointly issued"Implementation Measures for the Early Resolution Mechanismfor Drug Patent Disputes (Trial Version) (Draft for Comment)"for public comments. On April 25, 2018, the National MedicalProducts Administration issued "Implementation Measures forthe Protection of Drug Experimental Data (Trial Version)" forpublic comments. Neither one has been finalized and implementedyet. However, it is reasonable to expect that a full system similarto that established by HatchWaxman Act in the US will beavailable in China soon.

Articles 50 to 52 of the fourth amendment of the patent lawprovide an "Open License" system. Specifically, apatentee may express in writing to CNIPA its willingness to licensetheir patents to anyone and specify relevant royalties and methodof payment. CNIPA will announce the patentee's statement andoffer the open license. Patent right evaluation report should beprovided with the offer of an open license for utility model ordesign patent. If a patentee withdraws its offer of open license,it must do so in writing and CNIPA will announce the withdrawalstatement. In this case, any previously granted open license shallnot be affected.

According to Article 51, anyone that is willing to exploit thepatent which is open licensed gets the license to exploit thepatent after it informs the patentee in writing, and pay thelicense fee according to the open license announcement. In otherwords, anyone that complies with the above provision automaticallygets a license. In addition, the same article specifies that thepatentee that offers the open license and potential licensees canstill negotiate on license fees. However, the patentee that offersthe open license may only grant ordinary licenses and shall notgrant a sole or exclusive license for the patent concerned.Moreover, if any dispute arises with respect to the open license,the relevant parties may either request mediation from CNIPA orlaunch a law suit in people's court.

Interestingly, in order to encourage patentees to offer openlicenses, the fourth amendment of the patent law provides thatduring the implementation period of the open license, the annuitiespaid by the patentee shall be reduced or exempted.

(1) Patent Term Adjustment

Patent term adjustment is made available in Article 42 of thefourth amendment of the patent law. It is believed that this changewas made in line with the ChinaUS phase 1 trade agreement.Specifically, where an invention patent right was granted afterfour years from the filing date of the invention patent applicationand after three years from the date of the substantive examinationrequest, CNIPA shall, at the request of the patentee, providecompensation for the term of the patent with respect to theunreasonable delay in the examination stage of the inventionpatent. Not detailed calculation method is available yet.

(2) A New Grace Period Provision

Article 24 of the fourth amendment includes a new provision thatrelates to grace period. Specifically, disclosure of an inventionfor public interest in case of national emergency can enjoy thegrace period of 6 month.

(3) Patent Right Evaluation Report

Under the current patent law, if a dispute over patentinfringement involves a utility model patent or a design patent,the people's court or the administration office may require thepatentee or the interested parties to present a patent rightevaluation report prepared by the CNIPA through searching,analyzing, and assessing the relevant utility model or design,which shall serve as evidence for trying or handling the patentinfringement dispute. Currently only patentees or the licenseesthat have the right to launch law suits have the right to requestpatent right evaluation reports. In the fourth amendment of thepatent law, it is provided that relevant parties from both sides ofthe law suit may request the patent right evaluation reportproduced by CNIPA. This means that not only the patentee canrequest the CNIPA to produce the patent right evaluation report butthe defendant is also able to do so. It provides a new vehicle foralleged infringers to defend themselves.

However, for a party that is not involved in an infringement lawsuit but is concerned with potentially infringement on a utilitymodel or a design patent, it is still not possible to request apatent right evaluation report from CNIPA.

(4) Extended Deadline to Submit PriorityDocuments

According to Article 30 of the fourth amendment, an applicantwho claims priority from an invention or a utility model patentapplication shall submit a written declaration at the time offiling an application and submit copies of the patent applicationdocuments filed for the first time, within 16 months from the dateon which the invention or utility model patent application wasfiled for the first time. In other words, for invention or utilitymodel applications, the deadline for submitting priority documentsis extended from 3 months from claiming priority to 16 months fromthe priority date.

Copies of priority documents for claiming priority from a designapplication should be submitted within 3 months from filing anapplication for design patent.

(5) AntiMonopoly Provision

The fourth amendment of the patent law includes a new Article 20which is a very broad antimonopoly provision. Specifically,it provides that the application for and the use of patent rightsshould follow the principle of good faith. Patent right should notbe abused to damage public interest and other's legitimaterights. Abuse of patent rights to exclude or restrict competition,which constitutes monopolistic behavior, shall be dealt with inaccordance with the AntiMonopoly Law of China. Currently,there are several laws, regulations or judicial interpretations inplace to address the abuse of intellectual property right. However,it will be interesting to see how this provision is applied inlitigation in the future.

The content of this article is intended to provide a generalguide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be soughtabout your specific circumstances.

Go here to see the original:
Review Of The 4th Amendment Of China's Patent Law - Intellectual Property - China - Mondaq News Alerts

With increasing frequency, law enforcement is using unconstitutional digital dragnet searches to attempt to identify unknown suspects in criminal cases. In Commonwealth v. Dunkins, currently pending before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, EFF and the ACLU are challenging a new type of dragnet: law enforcements use of WiFi data to retrospectively track individuals precise physical location.

Phones, computers, and tablets connect to WiFi networksand in turn, the Internetthrough a physical access point. Since a single access point can only service a limited number of devices within a certain range, WiFi networks that have many users and cover larger geographic areas have multiple stationary access points. When a device owner moves through a WiFi network with multiple access points, their device seamlessly switches to the nearest available point. This means that an access point can serve as a proxy for a device owners physical location. As an access point records a unique identifier for each device that connects to it, along with the time the device connected, access point logs can reveal a devices precise location over time.

In Dunkins, police were investigating a robbery that occurred in the middle of the night in a dorm at Moravian College in eastern Pennsylvania. To identify a suspect, police obtained logs of every device that connected to the 80-90 access points in the dormabout one access point for every other dorm roomaround the time of the robbery. From there, police identified devices belonging to several dozen students. They then narrowed their list to include only non-residents. That produced a list of three devices: two appeared to belong to women and one appeared to belong to a man who later turned out to be Dunkins. Since police believed the suspect was a man, they focused their investigation on that device. They then obtained records of Dunkins phone for five hours on the night of the robbery, showing each WiFi access point on campus that his phone connected to during that time. Dunkins was ultimately charged with the crime.

We argued in our brief that searches like this violate the Fourth Amendment. The WiFi log data can reveal sensitive location information, so it is essentially identical to the cell phone location records that the Supreme Court ruled in Carpenter require a warrant. Just like cell phone records, the WiFi logs offered the police the ability to retrospectively track a persons movement, including inside constitutionally protected spaces like students dorm rooms. And just as the Carpenter court recognized that cell phones are essential for participation in modern life, accessing a college WiFi network is equally indispensable to college life.

Additionally, we argued that even if police had obtained a warrant, such a warrant would be invalid. The Fourth Amendment requires law enforcement to obtain a warrant based on probable cause before searching a particular target. But in this case, police only knew that a crime occurredthey did not have a suspect or even a target device identifier. Assessing virtually the same situation in the context of a geofence warrant, two federal judges recently ruled that the governments application to obtain location records from a certain place during a specific time period failed to satisfy the Fourth Amendments particularity and probable cause requirements.

The polices tactics in this case illustrate exactly why indiscriminate searches are a threat to a free society. In acquiring and analyzing the records from everyone in the dorm, the police not only violated the defendants rights but they also wrongly learned the location of every student who was in the dormitory in the middle of the night. In particular, police determined that two women wholly unconnected to the robbery were not in their own dorm rooms on the night of the crime. Thats exactly the type of dragnet surveillance that the Fourth Amendment defends against.

The outcome of this case could have far-reaching consequences. In Pennsylvania and across the nation, public WiFi networks are everywhere. And for poor people and people of color, free public WiFi is often a crucial lifeline. Those communities should not be at a greater risk of surveillance than people who have the means to set up their own private networks. We hope the court will realize whats at stake here and rule that these types of warrantless searches are illegal.

Go here to see the original:
EFF Files Amicus Brief Arguing That Law Enforcement Access to Wi-Fi Derived Location Data Violates the Fourth Amendment - EFF