|
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: 治多县| 崇阳县| 大姚县| 连南| 忻州市| 邯郸县| 新源县| 张家界市| 兴隆县| 百色市| 海安县| 许昌市| 鹿泉市| 灵宝市| 茌平县| 含山县| 河南省| 永兴县| 建德市| 平利县| 昭平县| 丰镇市| 文登市| 木兰县| 盐津县| 昭觉县| SHOW| 邓州市| 嘉荫县| 汾西县| 宁波市| 宜兰市| 保山市| 诏安县| 江都市| 开原市| 泰来县| 黎川县| 沧源| 稻城县| 贵南县| 临泉县| 噶尔县| 扬中市| 甘南县| 利川市| 平顶山市| 屏东县| 根河市| 故城县| 安达市| 罗甸县| 土默特左旗| 丰城市| 海丰县| 嘉黎县| 策勒县| 石渠县| 公主岭市| 通榆县| 廊坊市| 天峨县| 蓝田县| 和林格尔县| 丹巴县| 兴山县| 缙云县| 丹寨县| 鹤山市| 长丰县| 东莞市| 承德市| 合水县| 德钦县| 睢宁县| 昌吉市| 汶川县| 邳州市| 高安市| 新巴尔虎左旗| 泽库县| 缙云县|