在華外企必須接地氣 Foreign companies in China must learn that respect is paramount

China’s economic and industrial transformation is occurring so rapidly that foreign companies often fail to appreciate the risks of doing business in the country. This is particularly true in the sphere of intellectual property (IP), where companies now enjoy much greater protections but have simultaneously been tripped up by competition regulators’ increased scrutiny of their patent and licensing practices.

中國的經濟和工業轉型非常迅速，以至於外國企業往往不明白在華經營的風險。在知識產權領域尤其如此——如今企業在這方面享有的保護比過去大得多，但同時它們也對反壟斷機構加大對其專利和許可實踐的審查措手不及。

China’s ability to protect patents has grown after decades of non-existence and non-enforcement. In 10 years, the number of patent litigations filed has more than quadrupled, with close to 10,000 cases submitted last year.

經過毫無專利保護和專利執法的幾十年後，中國保護專利的能力有所增長。過去10年裏，中國專利訴訟數量增長了4倍多，去年接近1萬宗。

The Chinese government’s new specialised IP courts now provide companies with an enforcement mechanism comparable to, if not better than, those in Europe and the US. Litigation in China also offers many advantages to patent owners, including win rates above 75 per cent (and even higher for foreign patentees), injunction rates above 95 per cent, short time to trial, scant discovery and low costs (less than one-tenth of those incurred in the US). Most importantly, because so many supply chains pass through China, a single litigation can effectively impose a global ban on sales of a disputed product.

中國政府新設立的知識產權專業法庭現在爲企業提供了可以媲美（如果不是更好的話）歐洲和美國的執行機制。在中國打官司也爲專利所有者提供了許多優勢，包括超過75%的勝訴率（外國專利持有人的勝訴率甚至更高）、超過95%的禁令率、審理快、無須舉證且成本低（不足美國花費的十分之一）。最重要的是，由於如此多的供應鏈通過中國，一宗簡單的訴訟就可以有效禁止有爭議產品的全球銷售。

But not all patent owners should rejoice. Along with a strengthening of the patent system has come increased enforcement of China’s 2008 Anti-Monopoly Law (AML). Over the past three years, China’s National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) has beefed up staffing levels and raised its price-related investigations fourfold.

但並非所有的專利所有者都應該歡呼。在加強專利體系的同時，中國加大了對2008年出臺的《反壟斷法》的執行力度。在過去3年裏，中國發改委(NDRC)充實了人員編制，其價格相關調查數量增加了4倍。

In 2013, the NDRC imposed price-fixing fines of Rmb353m on six Korean and Taiwanese LCD panel manufacturers. Last year the NDRC began investigating InterDigital, a US wireless technology company, after complaints by Chinese companies. InterDigital subsequently reached settlement agreements with the Chinese complainants and, in an undertaking with the NDRC, said it would scale back the royalty rates it charges.

2013年，發改委對6家韓國和臺灣LCD面板製造商開出了3.53億元人民幣的罰單，指控其操縱價格。去年，發改委在接到中國公司的投訴後開始調查美國無線科技公司InterDigital。InterDigital隨後與投訴的中國公司達成和解協議，並向發改委承諾，將削減收取的使用費費率。

The NDRC also probed US technology giant Qualcomm on similar grounds and, earlier this year, imposed a record penalty of Rmb6.1bn. Qualcomm agreed to stop some of its “patent bundling” practices and lowered certain royalty rates by one-third.

發改委還基於類似理由對美國科技巨頭高通(Qualcomm)展開調查，並在今年早些時候對該公司處以61億元人民幣的創紀錄罰款。高通同意停止某些“專利打包”行爲，並將某些使用費費率降低三分之一。

AML penalties and fines in China can be extreme. But in the case of Qualcomm, perhaps the worst consequence of its run-in with the NDRC was the separate antitrust inquiries that followed in South Korea, the European Union and US.

中國反壟斷法的處罰和罰款可能有些極端。但就高通而言，與中國發改委發生摩擦的最糟糕的後果或許是韓國、歐盟和美國隨後分別展開反壟斷調查。

There are a number of steps that companies can take to minimise the risks posed by regulatory investigations.

企業可以採取諸多舉措來儘可能地降低監管調查帶來的風險。

First, companies must have friends in China. In a country where everything is based on relationships, every company must have multiple levels of relationships with both government officials and influential Chinese industry leaders who have their ear to the ground. This is not to encourage any type of corruption, but rather facilitate a free flow of information. In China, trust and respect are paramount and cannot be developed overnight.

首先，企業在中國必須有朋友。在一個一切都基於關係的國家裏，所有公司都必須與各級政府官員以及有影響力並且接地氣的中國行業領袖保持關係。這不是鼓勵企業進行任何形式的腐敗，而是爲了保障信息暢通。在中國，信任和尊重是最重要的，而這些不可能在一夜之間培養起來。

The challenge to Qualcomm might have been avoided or minimised if the US company had had better Chinese government contacts who could have advised it that problems were brewing and explained the need for action.

如果高通在中國政府部門有更好的人脈（對方可能告訴它有些問題在發酵，並解釋需要採取行動），它遭遇的挑戰也許本來可以避免。

It is at this sort of early stage that having knowledge of the problem and the ability to communicate a defence is paramount. Once the investigation was announced publicly in February 2014, there was no path for the NDRC to impose either a minimal penalty or no penalty without losing face.

在這種早期階段，明白問題所在並有能力溝通辯解是最重要的。一旦在2014年2月公開宣佈展開調查，發改委就沒辦法在不丟臉的情況下做出最低處罰，或者不做任何處罰。

Had Qualcomm and NDRC instead been able to negotiate a mutually acceptable solution earlier — and with less publicity — the result may well have been a lesser penalty that did not trigger follow-up investigations in other jurisdictions.

如果當初高通和發改委能夠低調協商出雙方都能接受的解決辦法，結果很可能就是較輕的處罰，也不至於引發其他司法管轄區的後續調查。

Second, all foreign companies and their executives, lawyers and other agents must act with great respect in dealing with Chinese officials. US companies in particular have a well-deserved reputation for lacking deference and humility.

其次，所有外國公司和它們的高管、律師和其他代理人員在與中國官員打交道時必須保持極大的尊重。美國公司在缺乏尊重和謙遜方面尤其“名不虛傳”。

Had InterDigital and Qualcomm originally approached their situations with greater meekness, things might have evolved quite differently. Often it is the lawyers that get in the way, because when you are a hammer everything looks like a nail. The better road is one of calm and thoughtfulness rather than agitation and hostility.

如果當初InterDigital和高通的態度好一些，事態的發展就可能相當不同。這往往是律師壞的事，因爲當你是錘子的時候，所有的東西看起來都是釘子。更好的對策是冷靜和體諒，而不是情緒激動和對抗。

Third, any company that licenses patents or technology in China should always have in its back pocket a specific minimum acceptable royalty rate. That way any dispute can be nipped in the bud with a public announcement that the company is lowering its licensing rate to an “even fairer level”, with examples to support this claim. This is not ideal but far better than the alternative of having to face a formal AML investigation.

第三，任何在中國授權使用專利或技術的公司始終應該掌握可接受的最低使用費費率的“底牌”。這樣可以將任何糾紛扼殺於萌芽之中——只要公司公開宣稱把專利費率降至“更爲公平的水平”，並舉例支持這種說法。這並非理想情況，但比起不得不面臨正式的反壟斷調查要好得多。