论文部分内容阅读
2005年7月初,中国17家强化木地板出口企业,接到美国国际贸易委员会(USITC)的正式通知—比利时UNILIN国际集团旗下美国公司Unilin-Beheer、Unilin-Flooring、Unilin-Flooring Industry,依据美国国际贸易中著名的337条款,向该组织联合申诉这些企业可能存在对其拥有的三项美国强化木地板“锁扣”专利存在侵权。相对此前中国复合木地板遭遇的反倾销指控而言,涉及专利的知识产权纠纷给我们带来的挑战更加难以把握。比如,中国木地板企业在知识产权诉讼中的经验较少;作为美国1930年关税法案重要组成的337条款,其造成的影响将是直接限制和阻止产品出口该国,不同于反倾销造成的出口价格上升。
At the beginning of July 2005, 17 exporters of laminate flooring in China received a formal notice from USITC - Unilin-Beheer, Unilin-Flooring and Unilin-Flooring Industry under the UNILIN International Group of Belgium, Section 337, known in trade, complained to the group that there may be infringement of the “lock” patents on the three American laminate flooring owned by these businesses. Compared with the anti-dumping allegations encountered by China’s laminate flooring before, the challenges brought by intellectual property disputes involving patents are even more difficult to grasp. For example, Chinese wood flooring companies have relatively little experience in intellectual property litigation. Section 337, an important part of the U.S. Tariff Act of 1930, will have the effect of directly limiting and preventing the export of products to that country, unlike export prices resulting from anti-dumping rise.