Source: https://chinaipr.com/2020/03/27/mofcom-releases-draft-foreign-investment-complaint-rules-how-good-will-it-be-for-forced-tech-transfer/
Timestamp: 2020-05-26 18:25:16
Document Index: 489520895

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 2', 'Art. 8', 'Art. 19', 'Art. 21', 'Art. 18', 'Art. 14', 'Art. 17']

MofCOM Releases Draft Foreign Investment Complaint Rules: How Good Will It Be For Forced Tech Transfer? | China IPR - Intellectual Property Developments in China
2020/03/27 by Mark Cohen （柯恒）
On March 23, 2019 the Ministry of Commerce released its Rules for Foreign Investment Complaints (Draft for Public Comment (外商投资企业投诉工作办法[征求意见稿]) (the “Rules”). Comments are due by April 22. This is one of several recent Phase 1 / trade responsive initiatives that have been announced or are expected in the near term from China. This blog will focus on the IP aspects of the Rules, notably those provisions that can be used to address forced technology transfer and protecting trade secrets.
The Rules seek to implement Article 26 of the Foreign Investment Law, which provides as follows:
The State establishes working mechanisms for complaints by foreign-invested enterprises, promptly handles the issues raised by foreign-invested enterprises or their investors, and coordinates and improves the relevant policy measures.
A major concern by the Trump Administration had been to prohibit forced technology transfer by China, through making tech transfer a condition of foreign investment approval or other means. Article 2.1 of the Phase 1 Agreement addresses this concern:
Natural or legal persons (“persons”) of a Party shall have effective access to and be able to operate openly and freely in the jurisdiction of the other Party without any force or pressure from the other Party to transfer their technology to persons of the other Party.
Any transfer or licensing of technology between persons of a Party and those of the other Party must be based on market terms that are voluntary and reflect mutual agreement.
Article 23 of The Foreign Investment Law, which predates the Phase 1 Agreement addressed this concern as well:
Administrative organs and their employees shall, in accordance with law, maintain the confidentiality of the trade secrets of foreign investors or foreign-invested enterprises that they learn in the course of performing their duties, and must not disclose or unlawfully provide them to others.
The proposed Rules set up a working group (工作机构), coordinated by MofCOM with counterpart agencies down to county levels (Art. 2) to handle foreign investment complaints. This complaint process is not exclusive of other legal remedies, such as administrative reconsideration or litigation, “letters and visits” (petitioning), etc. (Art. 8). The Rules afford the possibility of initiating parallel track procedures, provided applicable legal limitations periods are adhered to for legal actions. However, if these alternative legal procedures are accepted, the MofCOM process will be terminated:
Art. 19.3 During the handling of a complaint, if the complainant initiates administrative reconsideration, administrative litigation and other procedures on the same complaint, or an application is filed with a higher level complaint agency or disciplinary inspection, supervision, letters and visits and has been accepted, the complainant shall be deemed to apply for withdrawal of the complaint.
投诉处理期间，投诉人就同一投诉事项提起行政复议、行政诉讼等程序的，或者向上级投诉工作机构或者纪检、监察、信访等部门提出申请并已被受理的，视同投诉人申请撤回投诉。
The Rules also set up the basic procedural requirements for making a complaint, including types of documentation, representation, response time, and potential remedies (Chapter 2). Once a completed complaint is filed, the Working Group will have seven days to advise the complainant that the complaint has been accepted. Trade secrets and private information are to be protected in the process (Art. 21). Final decisions are required within sixty days of acceptance (Art. 18). The complaint acceptance process does afford MofCOM the possibility of delaying due to incomplete complaints (Art. 14).
The principal remedy of this process appears to be a mediated response with the offending agency (依法公正进行协调处理，推动投诉事项的妥善解决) (Arts. 15, also Arts. 17, 19). Other possible outcomes procedures include recommending that local governments change their procedures or rules (Art. 17).
How effective are such procedures likely to be?
Although this process may afford some individuals a useful alternative channel to resolve forced technology transfer and effect policy changes, I am doubtful it will afford much relief in most licensing/trade secret cases. An earlier administrative effort to protect trade secrets through the National IPR Leading Group also didn’t deliver much relief as far as I know. Trade secret matters are very difficult to handle in China’s administrative processes due to concerns about local economic influences, uncertain procedures to maintain confidential information, fears of retaliation, etc. In general, foreign companies have been reluctant to sue national and local Chinese government agencies, with the significant exception of patent and trademark validity challenges. Of particular concern is that possibility of retaliation against those who file complaints. As USTR noted in the Section 301 Report:
As U.S. companies have stated for more than a decade, they fear that they will face retaliation or the loss of business opportunities if they come forward to complain about China’s unfair trade practices. Concerns about Chinese retaliation arose in this investigation as well. Multiple submissions noted the great reluctance of U.S. companies to share information on China’s technology transfer regime, given the importance of the China market to their businesses and the fact that Chinese government officials are “not shy about retaliating against critics.”
Moreover, there are competing channels to trade secrets that are improving. China has made significant advances in civil judicial protection of trade secrets, which should be utilized where appropriate. Technical trade secrets appeals are now being heard by a new national appellate IP court. SAMR also has plans to draft an administrative rule on stopping trade secret infringement(禁止侵犯商业秘密若干规定).
Finally, it is difficult for me to conceive of a complaint mechanism that essentially is being made to the same agency or group of agencies that approve the actual investment, rather than the agenc(ies) in charge of protecting trade secrets. Should complaints fail to materialize, it may also be interpreted by China as a lack of concern about the issue, rather than concerns about the effectiveness and risks of the process.
My perspectives on this process have been clear. As I stated in an earlier blog:
[N]ewly amended provisions in the new Foreign Investment Law prohibiting forced technology transfer are likely to have little impact absent effective complaint and legal challenge procedures, such as the creation of a foreign investment ombudsman and/or appeals to the newly established IP court. The inclusion of a non-discrimination position in administrative licensing procedures is also welcome news, although it may be similarly difficult to monitor and enforce.
While there is nothing harmful in the Rules, I continue to believe that appeals to a competent, specialized court or creation of an independent ombudsman would likely best serve foreign interests.
This entry was posted in Administrative enforcement, China IPR, forced technology transfer, Foreign Investment Law, Foreign Related Cases, Legislation, MofCOM, National Leading Group, SAMR.