Founded in 1958, Sichuan Changhong Electric (Changhong) is a major Chinese consumer electronics manufacturer. Its 20-person IP team sits within the research and development unit, with a chief focus on patents, and is headed up by Dejian Dai. Appointed acting IP director over 22 years ago, Mr. Dai initially started at the company as a technical engineer and, after getting an MBA, he took over project management for the company\u2019s mobile phones. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cI fell into the IPR role by accident,\u201d Mr. Dai says, during an interview with ip fray<\/strong> at the Via Licensing Alliance Business Summit in Shanghai last month. \u201cAnd now I\u2019ve been \u2018acting\u2019 IP head for over two decades,\u201d he laughs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Mr. Dai sat down to discuss some of the licensee\u2019s biggest wins and losses, how China\u2019s role on the IP stage has grown so much but why it still has so far to go, and the emerging technologies that it is eying (and is hoping patent pool administrators are eying too).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Today marks 40 years since the Patent Law of the People’s Republic of China came into force. Since April 1, 1985, companies have completely revolutionized their perception of patents and this has also shifted the power in negotiations for many of those businesses. But even when Mr. Dai started his role, there were \u201calmost no patent experts in the company\u201d, he says. It was only when China became a member of the World Trade Organization and foreign firms began setting up shop in Shanghai, Beijing and other major Chinese cities that this shift really flourished. He notes:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cI learned a lot from them, as well as foreign patent owners. I needed to. Only a handful of Chinese universities had IP-focused courses.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n To say Mr. Dai was thrown into the deep end right from the start of his IP leadership role would be an understatement. In fact, he says, one of his biggest achievements was also one of his biggest challenges: a United States International Trade Commission (USITC, or just ITC) investigation initiated by U.S.-based battery manufacturer Energizer in 2003 (May 28, 2003 ITC press release<\/a>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Energizer accused Changhong and at least nine other Chinese consumer electronics manufacturers of infringing several alkaline battery-related patents. After the ITC issued a decision in favor of Energizer, ordering all their products to be banned from the U.S. market, the defendants grouped together and shared the costs of fighting back, recruiting a very prominent U.S. lawyer to handle their case, he recounts. \u201cWe didn\u2019t have a high enough budget at the time, so it was necessary,\u201d he explains.<\/p>\n\n\n\n After gaining a win before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which Energizer subsequently appealed, Changhong and the other defendants emerged victorious in the Supreme Court in 2009.<\/p>\n\n\n\nU.S. and European victories<\/h4>\n\n\n\n