Left image: gnomeandi/Shutterstock.com
Right image: Peter Gudella/Shutterstock.com
全球粮食危机不断的恶化使2021年12月开通的中老铁路对中国来说更加重要。中国是否已采取措施来帮助老挝，让其可以更好地应对相关法律风险？从中国的角度来看，帮助老挝从此60亿美元的铁路项目中获得最大利益，同时将风险降至最低，这将加强两国关系，并且有利于中国在该地区的发展。Read more
Left image: gnomeandi/Shutterstock.com
Right image: Peter Gudella/Shutterstock.com
The worsening food crisis around the world has made the China–Laos Railway, which opened in December 2021, even more important to China. Has China taken steps to help Laos so that the latter can manage related legal risks better? From China’s perspective, helping Laos maximize its benefits from this USD 6 billion railway project while minimizing the risks involved will strengthen the two countries’ relations and bode well for China’s presence in that region.Read more
中国在人工智能应用于裁判方面的政策目标是什么？ 这篇丝络谈™ 简讯 告诉您答案，并解释了为什么指导性案例对于实现这一目标很重要。Read more
What is China’s policy goal regarding the application of artificial intelligence to adjudication? This piece of SINOTALKS.COM In Brief tells you the answer and explains why Guiding Cases are important to the accomplishment of this goal.Read more
Image: 13_Phunkod/Shutterstock.com
Only a few days after the launch of SINOTALKS.COM, Dr. Mei Gechlik began publishing a biweekly newsletter titled SINOTALKS.COM In Brief. The goal for this newsletter is to demystify Chinese law and policy so that readers will be able to craft evidence-based strategies for their China-related issues.Read more
Image: Heru Purwanto, Pomelo On The Tree, Publicdomainpictures.net
Guiding Case No. 160 addresses a fundamental issue: when rights to a new plant variety are granted, what falls within the scope of protection? According to China’s legislation, propagation materials of the plant for which variety rights have been granted are clearly protected. Yet, what are “propagation materials”? Unfortunately, no definition can be found in China’s legislation. Guiding Case No. 160 fills the legal gap by setting the criteria for such determination.Read more
Image: George Hodan, Agriculture, Publicdomainpictures.net
中国最高人民法院发布指导案例92号、100号和160号，明确该国立法和司法解释尚未解决的植物新品种权保护的基本问题。然而，本文分析指出，这三个指导性案例的指导原则已经被纳入最高人民法院最新的植物新品种司法解释。考虑到这一点，这些指导性案例是否基本上已经失去了重要性？熊美英博士解释了为什么答案是否定的并讨论了相关的含义。Read more
Image: Lilla Frerichs, Indian Corn 1, Publicdomainpictures.net
Before the release of Guiding Case No. 100, the Supreme People’s Court of China released Guiding Case No. 92 to establish this principle: in a case involving infringement of rights to a new plant variety, when the related DNA fingerprinting test result cannot provide a clear answer, the allegedly infringing party, i.e., the defendant, has the burden to prove that the allegedly infringing plant is different from the plant for which variety rights have been granted. Guiding Case No. 100 shows what the defendant can do to meet this burden of proof.Read more
Image: George Hodan, Agriculture, Publicdomainpictures.net
The Supreme People’s Court of China released Guiding Case Nos. 92, 100, and 160 to clarify fundamental issues related to the protection of rights to new plant varieties that were left unanswered by the country’s legislation and judicial interpretations. Yet, have these three Guiding Cases essentially lost their significance, considering that their guiding principles, as analyzed in this article, have already been incorporated into the Supreme People’s Court’s latest judicial interpretation related to new plant varieties? Dr. Mei Gechlik explains why the answer is negative and discusses related implications. Read more
Image: Andrew Schmidt, Corn On The Cob, Publicdomainpictures.net
Guiding Case No. 92 provides guidance on an important issue frequently encountered in cases involving infringement of rights to new plant varieties: how to determine whether two plants are of the same variety, when the related DNA fingerprinting test result cannot provide a clear answer. According to this Guiding Case, when this happens, the allegedly infringing party, i.e., the defendant, has the burden to prove that the allegedly infringing plant is different from the plant for which variety rights have been granted. How did the court justify the shifting of the burden to the defendant?Read more
The material presented on this website is for general reference only.
SINOTALKS® LLC disclaims all liability for any inaccuracy, error, or incompleteness in such material.
本网站提供的材料仅供一般参考。
丝络谈有限公司不对此类材料中的任何不准确、错误或不完整内容承担任何责任。
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
© 2024 SINOTALKS® LLC | © 2024年 丝络谈有限公司
