Tr
First, the Guangdong Higher People's Court selected the case as "Ten Ten Typical Cases of Guangdong Service Innovation Driven Development in 2018";
Second, the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court selected the case as "Ten Ten Typical Cases of Intellectual Property Civil Administration in Guangzhou Court in 2018";
Third, the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court selected the case as "Ten Ten Typical Cases of Service and Security Technology Innovation in Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court in 2018";
Four, Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, South China International Intellectual Property Research Institute, Guangdong Provincial Lawyers Association Intellectual Property Professional Committee selected the case for the "Third Guangdong Top Ten Foreign-related Intellectual Property Cases" ;
V. Guangdong Province Knowledge Economy Development Promotion Association and Guangzhou Lawyers Association selected the case as "2018 Lingnan Intellectual Property Litigation Excellent Case";
Six, Guangzhou Lawyers Association rated the case as "2018 Guangzhou Lawyers Association Business Achievement Award".
Li said that the core conclusion of the case is that the service invention can be protected by the patent law, regardless of whether the final authorized patent is a US patent or a Chinese patent. Protected by trade secret law. Although the law of service invention creation is different, the law in which the service inventor is protected by the invention invention is unique and not affected by other laws. This conclusion seems easy to understand, but it is groundbreaking and has a demonstration effect. The case involves the application of various legal systems such as patent law, contract law, labor law, private international law, and US patent law. In the face of a variety of legal provisions, there will be layers of confusion in dealing with the case, and people may not move forward. Only sturdy theory, sinking practice, bravely plucking the fog, and now the red day.
About a lawyer
