Mediaboss Marketing

Harrisburg officials Tuesday night released body camera footage after a community activist demanded the firing of a police officer for his handling of a noise complaint at her house.

The incident at 11:30 p.m. Saturday in the 300 block of South Front Street ended with Kimeka Campbell, 39, in handcuffs and one her friends doused in pepper spray.

Campbell, who lives with her husband in Shipoke, said a 6-foot wooden privacy fence protects her back yard but the officer let himself in through a gate in the dark and said he had a right to be on her property because he was investigating a noise complaint.

She vehemently disagreed, and admitted she cursed at him to get him to leave her yard, because she believed he had violated her Fourth Amendment rights. She said she provided her name to him, but refused to spell her last name, and didnt want to speak to him until he left her property.

Eventually, two officers dragged her out of her yard to a police car, where she was arrested. She spent about 40 minutes at the county booking center and was issued two citations: one for disorderly conduct and one for the noise complaint.

Earlier this year, Campbell had been organizing residents to support police reform measures to increase accountability, but city officials said the officers didnt know who she was when they arrived to handle the complaint filed by a neighbor.

A member of a local organization started a petition this week asking for the officer to be fired and pushing for more oversight of officers in the city. The petition had more than 900 signatures by Tuesday night.

Mayor Eric Papenfuse said during Tuesdays virtual city council meeting that he had watched the officers body camera footage and believed the officer handled a difficult situation correctly. He said he wanted to publicly release the footage as soon as possible to knock down some of the rumors and misinformation he believed surrounded the issue. The footage was released later Tuesday night. It contains graphic language.

Harrisburg city council members and Mayor Eric Papenfuse approved a bill to improve oversight of police Nov. 10, 2020. Earlier in the meeting, council heard complaints about an incident at a woman's home that occurred Nov. 7.

It was absolutely legal for the police officer to enter the yard to investigate the complaint, Papenfuse said. He flashed his lights before opening the gate. A citation couldnt be issued without someone being identified.

Papenfuse said the main problem with the incident was the homeowner refusing to identify herself.

The officer reportedly said, let me have your name and Im out of here, Papenfuse said, but Campbell became increasingly hostile.

The officer called for backup and the decision was made to arrest, Papenfuse said. He said a clear warning was given before an officer deployed pepper spray against people who were blocking the arrest.

Papenfuse said it was reprehensible that hundreds of people were signing a petition for the officer to be fired without getting all the information first. He said its hard enough to recruit and retain officers and that officers need to be able to investigate quality of life complaints such as noise complaints.

He said the incident wasted officers' time when the city has more pressing needs, including a series of shootings that have plagued some neighborhoods.

We must do better, he said.

Council President Wanda Williams said she had viewed the footage and agreed with the mayor.

Other council members said they wanted to see the footage and said city officials shouldnt make editorial comments about the incident prior to the public getting to see the video.

Prior to Papenfuses comments, more than a dozen people submitted public comments to city council Tuesday night complaining about what happened to Campbell, who co-founded a Young Professionals of Color group in Harrisburg four years ago. She also advocated for a bill to create a citizens law enforcement advisory committee that was on the agenda for Tuesdays council meeting. The bill passed 6-1, with Williams voting against it.

Campbell said she was traumatized by the incident at her home. She had a few friends over in her back yard to celebrate a difficult week with the national presidential election, she said. They had music playing and never heard a knock on the door or her doorbell ring. Then she saw a stranger in her back yard.

One of her friends was talking to the man she didnt recognize, so she walked up to see what was going on. When she realized it was a police officer who had let himself into the yard, Campbell said she immediately demanded that he leave.

After multiple requests by her were denied, she said she started screaming for him to leave using profanity.

Thats when he backed out at the gate but kept his foot wedged in the door so it could not be closed. As her friends became concerned, and one of them tried to close the gate, the officer pulled out a canister of pepper spray, she said.

Back up or Im going to mace you, he reportedly said, and Campbell said she gladly obliged because she didnt want to leave her yard anyway.

But then the officer and a second officer tried to grab her through the gate, Campbell said. She stepped backwards and fell down. Thats when her friend stepped in front of her and told the officers she was going to close the gate.

The officer sprayed the friend with pepper spray, and another friend tackled her to prevent any additional interactions with the officer, Campbell said.

The two officers then came into her back yard and pulled her out into a private parking lot behind her house.

Campbell called her husband for a ride home from the booking center and said she couldnt believe what happened. She believed the officer unnecessarily escalated things by not acknowledging he didnt have a right to barge into her fenced yard.

You cannot walk onto my property and refuse to leave then rip me out of my yard, she said. Over a reported noise complaint after the music is off? It seemed like a total power trip. And with the mace? I dont even know how they would justify using that.

Campbell said she and friends who were at her home Saturday plan on filing complaints with the police department.

The fourth amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects residents from unreasonable search and seizure of a persons home, but a persons yard can be more complicated, attorneys say. What part of someones outdoor property is covered by this protection is often determined on a case-by case basis, according to attorneys.

The penalty for violating this amendment is generally the suppression of any physical evidence obtained. In this case, there was no physical evidence obtained. Instead, there was a dispute that emerged and citations that followed.

City officials said the officer was within his rights to try to contact someone at the home to resolve the pending noise complaint. He flashed his vehicle lights before opening the gate because he had been trying to gain their attention, officials said.

The main officer involved in the incident graduated from the police academy in July 2019.

READ: Can police enter your gated yard without permission? Questions arise after arrest of Harrisburg activist

READ: Rash of shootings in Harrisburg due to gangs: police

View post:
Police release body cam video of Harrisburg activists arrest after she calls for officer to be fired - PennLive

Should people take part in large gatherings without taking proper COVID-19 precautions?

No, not unless some measure of social distancing takes place.

Should Gov. Andrew Cuomo have the power to dictate local police departments, code officers or health department workers go into homes to break up those gatherings without observing basic due process rights?

No.

But thats it appears the governor is telling local governments to do with an edict earlier this week limiting gatherings in peoples homes to 10 people or less. The governor says he has contact tracing results that show gatherings in homes are one of three central reasons COVID-19 is spreading throughout the state. The U.S. Constitution, however, does not appear to give him the right make the matter one of law. The Supreme Court has upheld time and again the right to privacy inside ones home. Yet heres the governor this week saying people cant have more than 10 people in a home. How, exactly, does he plan to enforce that regulation and not violate the rights of privacy enumerated by the Supreme Court in Mapp v. Ohio, an illegal search and seizure case; Griswold v. Connecticut, a contraception case; or Lawrence v. Texas, a 2003 Supreme Court case that invalidate a Texas sodomy law? If there is no evidence of wrongdoing from outside a dwelling such as loud noise or a bunch of cars in front of a house, how can anyone can enforce this order without a search warrant? Are families serving turkey, mashed potatoes, gravy and a search warrant for dessert this year? Were sure judges are going to love signing warrants for every time a house is suspected of having more than 10 people in it for however long Cuomos order lasts.

Governors can and should issue guidelines and recommendations, and if contact tracing results do indeed show in-home Halloween parties spread COVID-19, it would appear guidance around small gatherings is warranted. But guidance is where the governments role should end when it comes to the privacy of ones home. Its one thing to issue an edict from Albany. Its quite another to task local governments with enforcing a measure that come dangerously close to the line of unconstitutional infringement on the right of privacy in a home.

Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence, Justice Tom C. Clark wrote in his majority opinion in Mapp v. Ohio, a 1961 Supreme Court case in which the court ruled evidence seized without a valid search warrant violated a womans right to privacy in her home. As Mr. Justice Brandeis, dissenting, said in Olmstead v. United States, 277 U. S. 438, 485 (1928): Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. . . . If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. Having once recognized that the right to privacy embodied in the Fourth Amendment is enforceable against the states, and that the right to be secure against rude invasions of privacy by state officers is, therefore, constitutional in origin, we can no longer permit that right to remain an empty promise. Because it is enforceable in the same manner and to like effect as other basic rights secured by the Due Process Clause, we can no longer permit it to be revocable at the whim of any police officer who, in the name of law enforcement itself, chooses to suspend its enjoyment.

While it is unassailable that health emergencies allow some infringement on rights, in our view Cuomo is on a slippery slope when it comes to enforcing the gathering limit.

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

Go here to read the rest:
Cuomo Is On A Slippery Slope With Enforcing His New Restrictions - Jamestown Post Journal

Newport residents expressed fears at a public hearing on Nov. 5 that the proposed North End Urban Plan will lead to unaffordable housing and will drive them out of the city.

Several dozen people, either speaking on Zoom or in signed letters, cited fears of displacement during a three-hour Newport Planning Board session.

This plan scares me, said resident Jennifer Jackson. It worries me that we are going in a direction that doesnt benefit the community.

Lauren DeSantis who has lived on Halsey Street for 33 years, talked about disturbing trends of violence from too much foot traffic, and begged the City Council and Planning Board to create a different cut-through street.

Resident Natalie Harris said, We want the best for our neighborhood. We dont want to be displaced.

The Planning Board is preparing a set of amendments for the North End plan, including addressing affordable housing, that will be finalized at a third and final public hearing on Nov. 18.

The North End Urban Plan is an innovative zoning initiative that has been studied for at least two years with the goal of creating a Newport Gateway, with state-of-the-art development, open space, better roads, and many planned amenities spurred by developer interest in nearly 50 acres of land, including the former Newport Grand Casino and acreage opened up by the Pell Bridge ramp realignment, among other undeveloped parcels.

After Nov. 18, the Planning Board will forward its recommendations to the City Council, with the hope that any recommended zoning changes can take place in the citys Comprehensive Plan before they are officially adopted in an urban plan.

Colin Scarff, founding partner of Code Studio, a national firm hired by consultants NBBJ, opened the meeting by providing a site plan that split the area into a village district and a non-village district.

When a developer comes in to redevelop these sites, they have to think about providing new blocks and new streets as part of their site plans, which is unlikely to happen in the non-village districts [due their smaller sizes generally], he said.

This includes the 23 acres of the former Newport Grand Casino property and, possibly, parcels among the estimated 25 acres that will be developed after the Pell Bridge ramp realignment.

The former Navy Hospital site may also be part of this equation. In this design, Scarff said, a large block cannot be more than 1,600 feet on the perimeter and a maximum length of 600 feet, with core streets provided every 1,000 feet.

The real distinction here between these districts is some of its form building height and width and the kind of uses that are allowed, he said.

Emphasis was placed on driveways and pedestrian walkways. We really need to be aware of how vehicles access these sites to make them as pedestrian-friendly as possible, said Scarff. Getting people out of cars and on bicycles with the kind of infrastructure [in place], maybe it makes sense to make sure there are bike racks there.

He also pointed out open space that must be part of any planned development, with tree islands and open landscaping.

Planning Board Chair Kim Salerno addressed form-based zoning codes used nationally that Newport may adopt in this mixed-use industrial/business/residential zone.

There are certain street types, and some really focus on pedestrian activity, continuity and transparency, so that you can encourage retail and other kinds of commerce, she said. And those kinds of uses may be discouraged by the shape of streets that are, say, state roads that are designed for traffic.

Patricia Reynolds, Planning and Economic Development director, said, The city is very old and our zoning is based more on a modern version of zoning, something thats basically developed for a suburban community. As a result, most of the parcels throughout the city are non-conforming, which makes any type of change to a building difficult.

Most changes involve a trip to the Zoning Board of Review, she said.

In the future, a form-based code, also called a character code because it supports the character of the area, would be applicable to other areas that are made non-conforming by inappropriate zoning. Such areas are historic districts or along Ocean Drive that have a defined character, and would do better with a code that better suits their specific needs and their current patterns of development, according to Salerno.

Planning Board member Steve Berlucchi asked about drive-through services, charging stations for hybrid or electric cars, traffic access from the bridge ramps, and other issues that were not addressed by the general zoning site plan.

When I see your rendition of what the new main roads are going to look like, they look like New York City, he said. They dont look like Newport. Sorry to say, but from what I see, your adaptations are not pleasing to me.

Alan Mountjoy of NBBJ said the additional bike lanes give the design a wider, big city feel. People are sick of the traffic. If they dont have a decent alternative, they will have to get into their cars, and we want to give them options, he said.

Salerno joined Berlucchi in this concern, asking why the streets would be so wide. She was told that the plan is to accommodate as much vehicular traffic as possible along with bikes.

The North End Urban Plan supports the citys Comprehensive Plan, said City Planner Peter Friedrichs, which addresses the housing loss. Limiting short-term rentals is another city goal, along with adding more housing units and more workforce housing.

The Planning Board received four emails with 23 written questions from members of the community. They asked NBBJ to provide more of a road map or action plan for potential growth, a possible public safety facility, better open space and affordable housing, to name just a few.

One resident asked about contamination left behind at the former Newport Grand Casino site and Pell Bridge ramp realignment. Friedrichs said that the city received a $250,000 grant from the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management in 2019 to address contamination.

Other questions centered on developers contributing to a community benefits agreement or fund to better the North End, and asked about job opportunities. The so-called Blue Economy (oceans) and Green Economy (environmental) were mentioned often as to the businesses and job opportunities ideally created in the proposed Innovative Zone.

The Greater Newport Chamber [of Commerce] states the Blue Economy is identified as the greatest opportunity to create new quality jobs, Reynolds said. It already employs over 36,000 people statewide, with an impact of over $5.6 billion for the state.

Christian Belden, executive director of Church Community Housing Corp., sent in a letter stating the plan is not equitable, would drive out existing residents, and does not represent the communitys full voice.

I dont think the problem is so much with what the plan proposes, with as much as it is what the plan doesnt propose, he said in the public forum. They are expressing their concerns about being forced out of Newport.

Many of these concerns are being addressed with the plan, Friedrichs said.

Reynolds then read four amendments that will be added. The first, on equity, addresses concerns about creating community benefits. The second deals with the importance of the North End Urban Plan and its relation to economic development. The third centers on traffic issues on Admiral Kalbfus Road. The fourth amendment discusses the establishment of a design review body for our projects within the North End.

Its important to understand that this is a road map for development, Salerno said, but development will all have to undergo a review process.

Will you help Newport This Week continue coverage on the local election, COVID-19 updates and municipal news during these unprecedented times with a monetary donation? Any amount helps!

Visit link:
North End Residents Fear Being Driven Out - Newport This Week

Tear gas creeps up the street May 30 in Indianapolis. Police enforcement used tear gas to break up the protest in response to the police killings of George Floyd in Minneapolis, Breonna Taylor in Louisville, Kentucky, and Dreasjon Reed in Indianapolis. Alex Deryn

Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department agreed on Oct. 29 to end the use of riot control agents against peaceful, law-abiding protesters and passive resistors. Passive resistors are defined as those who are nonviolent but may be breaking the law. Riot control agents include chemical agents such as tear gas and pepper balls.

The agreement settled a suit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union in June on behalf of Indy10 Black Lives Matter and individual protesters who were exposed to chemical riot control agents deployed at protests in late May. The complaint claimed the deployment of tear gas violated First and Fourth Amendment rights of those protesters.

Similar scenes, and similar lawsuits, played out across the country during protests after the killing of George Floyd. IMPD was one of about 100 law enforcement agencies across the U.S. and one of three in Indiana that deployed tear gas and other riot control agents against protesters this summer. According to the New York Times, this summer marked the most widespread use of tear gas in the U.S. since the late 1960s and early 1970s.

The IMPD settlement states that riot control agents will not be used against future protesters unless there is an imminent threat of serious injury or death or other exigent circumstances.

The department also agreed not to use riot control agents to deter protesters from relocating or because there are unlawful activities occurring elsewhere in the city, both of which they did this summer. It also limits the circumstances in which IMPD can use impact weapons, such as rubber bullets, against protesters.

Demonstrators in mourning deserve safe and secure places to gather without the threat of state-sanctioned violence, especially prematurely and without provocation, Indy10 Black Lives Matter said in a statement responding to the settlement.

The ACLU of Indiana also filed a lawsuit on behalf of Balin Brake, a 21-year-old Fort Wayne, Indiana, protester who lost his right eye to a tear gas canister on May 30. That complaint, filed on Oct. 2, also argues Brakes First and Fourth Amendment rights were violated.

A former IU student was among those tear gassed at a protest in Indianapolis this summer. She said she went to protest police brutality and mourn the loss of George Floyd. She said the crowd was peaceful when the police deployed tear gas.

It just seemed like it came out of nowhere, she said.

She said the feeling of not being able to breathe was the most notable affect the gas had on her.

She observed that I cant breathe became a common political refrain this year.

"It's been such a strong theme lately with COVID, with police brutality now with this, like with this tear gas," she said. "This theme of not being able to breathe. I can't breathe. It's just, I mean, we're being suffocated."

She said the gas also made her eyes burn and tear up. She wears contacts, which she had to remove because they made the effects of tear gas worse. She was separated from her friends and unable to see. She said the pain was intense for about 15 minutes.

Its an acceptable first step, she said of the IMPD settlement. But I dont think theyre great at having a good grip on what a peaceful protest is. And I think tear gas should be illegal all the time.

Tear gas and other riot control agents are used because they are thought to have short-lived but debilitating effects, making them effective for quelling protests. The sensation of not being able to breathe and a burning sensation in the eyes are the most common short-term effects of tear gas.

There is no legal obligation on state or federal governments to monitor or report the deployment or effects of tear gas, which is banned under the Geneva Protocol for use in warfare. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention urges those who have been exposed to riot control agents to seek medical attention immediately.

This summer, there were concerns that tear gassing protesters might contribute to the spread of the coronavirus by causing people to cough, rub their eyes and nose and remove their masks. A U.S. Army study showed soldiers exposed to tear gas had a higher risk of contracting respiratory infections such as the flu and the common cold, heightening experts' concerns about tear gas exacerbating COVID-19. Experts say its difficult to determine whether spikes were related to tear gas use because it was used around the same time states began to allow businesses to reopen.

While there are no exact counts of tear-gas related casualties available, it is clear the effects of tear gas arent always short-lived. Tear gas has caused at least hundreds of miscarriages and menstrual irregularities, lost eyes and limbs, respiratory failure, other permanent injuries and deaths.

Editors note: The author of this piece wrote opinion columns for the Indiana Daily Student this summer opposing the use of tear gas by police, specifically including one about this lawsuit.

Like what you're reading? Support independent, award-winning college journalism on this site. Donate here.

The state has set three new single-day records in the last four days.

There is no clear cause, according to the Duke Energy website.

The board had to reject 94 out of 110 provisional ballots.

The rest is here:
IMPD agrees to end use of tear gas, other riot control tactics against peaceful protesters - Indiana Daily Student

October 17, 2020, the 22nd Meeting of the Standing Committee of the Thirteenth National People's Congress adopted the decision on amending the Patent Law of the People's Republic of China (PRC). This is the fourth amendment of PRC Patent Law. The PRC Patent Law was first entered into force in 1985, and was amended three times in 1992, 2000 and 2008. The fourth amendment was drafted in 2015 and adopted after several years of discussion and many rounds of solicitation of different opinions. The amended Patent Law will come into effect on June 1, 2021. The substantive amendments include the following: I. Design patent regulations This amendment made the following changes to the design patent regulations: (1) Broadening the eligible subject matter of the design patent According to the current Patent Law, partial designs are not eligible subject matter of the design patent. In other words, the current Patent Law in China protects only the design of an overall product, and applicants are not allowed to claim a partial design of a product. Accordingly, in practice, it is not allowed to include broken lines in six-dimensional views and perspective view(s) of a design patent application (Note: It is allowable to include broken lines in the reference view(s)). In contrast, Article 2 of the amended Patent Law stipulates that, "a design means any new design of the shape, the pattern, or their combination, or the combination of the color with shape or pattern, of the whole or part of a product, which creates an aesthetic feeling and is fit for industrial application," which makes partial design become eligible subject matter of a design patent. After the new law comes into force, applicants may apply for design patent protection for partial innovative designs of the product. In practice, the applicant may show the unclaimed parts by broken lines (or other ways) and the claimed parts by solid lines in the drawings of a design patent application. (2) Extending the term of a design patent According to the current Patent Law, the protection period of a design patent is 10 years. Pursuant to Article 42 of the amended Patent Law, "the duration of the design patent right is 15 years." This amendment was made to keep pace with international standards and prepare for China's future participation in the Hague Agreement Concerning the International Deposit of Industrial Design. (3) Adding domestic priority right regulations Pursuant to Article 29 of the current Patent Law, applicants may claim both foreign priority and domestic priority rights for inventions and utility models according to the law, and may only claim foreign priority right for designs. This amendment introduced domestic priority right regulations for design patent applications. II. Addition of novelty grace period Pursuant to Article 24 of the current Patent Law, any invention-creation for which a patent is 2 applied shall not lose its novelty if, within six months before the filing date of the application, one of the following events has occurred: (1) it was exhibited for the first time at an international exhibition sponsored or recognized by the Chinese Government; (2) it was made public for the first time at a prescribed academic or technical conference; or (3) it was disclosed by any person without the consent of the applicant. Regarding state-of-the-art technology put to use in response to emergencies, to allow such technology to be patentable subject matter, the amended Patent Law stipulates that: any invention-creation which is first disclosed for the purpose of the public interest when a national emergency or extraordinary state of affairs occurs shall not lose its novelty within six months before the date of filing. III. Addition of unpatentable subject matter According to Article 25 of the amended Patent Law, nuclear transformation methods are subject matter that cannot be granted a patent right. IV. Extension of time for submitting copies of priority documents for inventions and utility models According to Article 30 of the current Patent Law, an applicant who requests a right of priority shall submit copies of priority documents within three months. Article 30 of the amended Patent Law is as follows: (1) Any applicant who requests the right of priority of a patent for invention and utility model shall submit a written declaration at the time of application, and submit, within sixteen months, a copy of the patent application documents filed for the first time. (2) Any applicant who requests the right of priority for a patent for design shall submit a written declaration at the time of application, and submit, within three months, a copy of the patent application documents filed for the first time. According to the above amendments, the time for submitting a copy of the priority document for inventions and utility models is extended from three months to sixteen months, and for designs, the time remains unchanged, i.e., three months. V. Encouraging entities to dispose of their rights for service inventions and motivated inventors According to Article 6 of the amended Patent Law, an entity may dispose of its right to apply for a patent of a service invention-creation and the patent right thereof in accordance with the law, to promote the exploitation and utilization of the invention-creation concerned. The foregoing regulations can ensure that entities have the right to dispose of its right for service inventions. In addition, in accordance with Article 15 of the amended Patent Law, the state encourages entities that have been granted patent rights to implement property right incentives by using equity, share options, dividends, etc., so that inventors or designers can share the benefits of innovation in a reasonable way. The foregoing regulations clearly encourage entities to use equity, share options, and dividends to motivate inventors to be more innovative. VI. Introduction of regulations on extension of the duration of patent protection Duration of patent protection (for example: The duration of a patent right for an invention is 3 20 years) is counted from the date of filing. In the current patent examination practice, some inventions are granted patent rights several years (or even more than 10 years) after the filling date. This excessively long examination period will undoubtedly shorten the protection term of patent rights. This amendment introduced regulations on extension of the patent protection term for the first time. According to Article 42.2 in the amended Patent Law: "where the patent right for an invention was granted after four years from the date of its application and after three years from the date of substantive examination of the application, the patent administration department under the State Council shall, at the request of the patentee, grant a compensation period for the duration of a patent right with regard to the unreasonable delay during the granting process of the invention patent, except where the unreasonable delay was caused by the applicant. VII. Introduction of a compensation mechanism for duration of drug patent right Drug patents usually involve very high research and development costs, so all drug patentees wish to obtain more effective and longer-term protection for drug patents. However, due to the particularity of drug-related inventions, drugs need to be approved by the relevant authorities before going on the market, which delays the time to market for patented drugs. For this reason, this amendment introduced regulations on compensation for the duration of a drug patent right, to better protect drug-related patents. According to Article 42.2 in the amended Patent Law: "in order to compensate for the time occupied by the review and approval of new drugs before they go on sale, the patent administration department under the State Council shall, at the request of the patentee, grant a compensation period for the duration of patents of new drug inventions that have been approved for marketing in China. The compensation period shall not exceed five years, and the total effective duration of the patent right after the new drug goes public shall not exceed 14 years." VIII. Introduction of regulations on open licensing and annual fee reduction for patents In order to promote licensing and exploitation of patents, this amendment introduced open licensing regulations. The amended Patent Law is as follows: (1) Where a patentee voluntarily declares in writing to the patent administration department under the State Council that he/she is willing to license any entity or individual to exploit their patent, and specifies the payment method and standard for license fees, the patent administration department under the State Council shall make an announcement and implement open licensing. Where an open licensing statement is filed for a utility model or design patent, a patent right evaluation report shall be provided. Any patentee who withdraws his/her open license statement shall make a written request and the patent administration department under the State Council shall make an announcement. Where the open licensing statement is announced and withdrawn, the validity of the open licenses granted earlier will not be affected. (Article 50). (2) Any entity or individual who is willing to exploit an open-licensed patent shall notify the patentee in writing, and obtain a patent exploitation license after paying the license fee in accordance with the payment method and standard as indicated in the announcement. During implementation of open license, the annual patent fee paid by the patentee shall be reduced or exempted accordingly. Patentees who implement open license may grant an ordinary license after negotiating with the licensee on the license fee, but shall not grant an exclusive or sole license for the patent. (Article 51). (3) If any dispute arises from the exploitation of open license between the parties, it shall be 4 settled by the parties through consultation; if they are unwilling or fail to reach an agreement through consultation, they may request the patent administration department under the State Council for mediation or may directly file a suit in the people's court. (Article 52). IX. Introduction of a regulation that allows the alleged infringer to voluntarily submit a patent evaluation report Since utility model and design applications are not subject to substantive examination, in the process of enforcement after these patents are granted, courts or local intellectual property offices generally require patentees to submit a patent right evaluation report to prove the stability of their patent rights. According to the current Patent Law and patent examination guidelines, courts or local intellectual property offices may require the patentee or interested party (i.e., exclusive licensees) to submit a patent rights evaluation report issued by the State Intellectual Property Office of China. According to Article 66 of the amended Patent Law: "the patentee, interested party or alleged infringer may also submit a patent right evaluation report." This amendment includes the "alleged infringer" as a subject who can request the State Intellectual Property Office of China to issue a patent right evaluation report. This makes the regulation for the patent right evaluation report more complete and neutral in terms of procedures, and also provides a new way for the alleged infringer to confront the patentee. X. Introduction of principle of good faith This amendment of the Patent Law not only strengthens the protection of the legitimate rights and interests of the patentee, but also provides regulations so as to prevent the abuse of the patent right by the right holders. According to Article 20 of the amended Patent Law, "the principle of good faith shall be followed in applying for and enforcing the patent right, and the patent right shall not be abused to damage the public interest or the legitimate rights and interests of others. Those who abuse the patent right to exclude or restrict competition and therefore constitute monopolistic behavior shall be dealt with according to the Anti-monopoly Law of the People's Republic of China." XI. Perfection of administrative protective mechanism against patent infringement Patent protection in China has been implemented through a two-track system, which means that a patentee may file a lawsuit with the people's court or apply for handling by the patent administration department in the case of patent infringement disputes. This amendment has improved the administrative protective mechanism against patent infringement, and the key points are as follows: (1) According to the current Patent Law, only a local intellectual property office may handle patent infringement disputes. In order to further improve the patent administrative protection, Article 70.1 of the amended Patent Law stipulates that "the administrative department for a patent under the State Council (i.e., the China National Intellectual Property Administration "CNIPA"; formerly known as the State Intellectual Property Office, "SIPO", of the P.R.C.) may, at the request of the patentee or interested party, handle patent infringement disputes that are of nationwide significance.

Read more:
China adopted the fourth amendment of the Patent Law - Lexology