At 1 pm on December 20, 2012, Associate Professor Feng Jiehan of the Institute of International Law of Wuhan University gave a lecture to the teachers and students of the International Law Institute on the legality of the patent local implementation requirements. Professor Zhang Xianglan served as the moderator of the lecture. Professor Yi Xianhe and Professor Zhang Qinglin from the Institute of International Law attended the lecture.

First of all, Mr. Feng put forward the central topic of this lecture, and explored the specific meanings and implementation methods of the local implementation requirements of patent rights. The core question is whether “import=implementation” or “import ≠implementation”. Then, based on time, the relevant provisions of the 1883 Paris Convention were introduced - Article 5A(1)(2) - indicating that the import of patented products should not lead to the cancellation of this right; the 1967 Paris Convention Article 5 A(1)(2)(4) stipulates that member states are free to define the non-implementation they understand and establish two basic principles, which express that the import of patented products should not result in the cancellation of patents and member states can stipulate the local Implementation requirements in domestic legislation. Then, the relevant provisions of TRIPS, namely Article 27, paragraph 1, are listed, stating that the disputes between countries on this clause lie in the way of implementation, whether imports can replace 100% of local production, and how to choose products or technology transfer.

Finally, Mr. Feng talked about the relevant legislation in China and pointed out that Article 1 of the Patent Law lacks the principle of promoting technology transfer, technology dissemination and other related provisions that patent rights should not unreasonably restrict trade. He also pointed out that in the history of patent legislation in China, some provisions have been made for the local implementation of patents, emphasizing that current legislation in China does not limit the specific implementation methods. At the same time, Mr. Feng believes that if China's legislation incorporates 100% of imports into the scope of patent implementation requirements, it will not be conducive to China's access to advanced technology through patents. She cited the specific data of patent grants in China, indicating that the advantageous proportion of foreign patents in high-tech fields is not conducive to the technological development of domestic enterprises. China can further improve the patent local implementation requirements and detailed provisions of the patent law.

In the question and answer session, Associate Professor Xu Fuxiang proposed whether the compulsory license is the only remedy upon the condition that the patent implementation requirements do not conform to reality. Associate Professor Shi Lei believes that all the core issues are that domestic laws must conform to international treaties. However, the obligations of the Paris Convention and the TRIPS Agreement on patent implementation are not consistent. Which obligation should be given priority? Professor Yi Xianhe compared the US patent law and proposed how to balance patent rights and obligations, that is, how to protect private interests and promote the balance of public interest. Associate Professor Qi Lu believes that TRIPS leaves room for members and does not fully consider the import quantity and price. Teacher Feng gave a serious answer to these questions one by one. Due to the time relationship, the discussion had to end, and the event ended with a warm applause from teachers and classmates. (International Law Website Correspondent: Gong Xun)