On the eve of the 15th World Intellectual Property Day (April 26), the US International Trade Commission (ITC) raised the industry's strong concern about the launch of the 337 investigation by four LED companies accused by CREE.
It is reported that on January 12, 2015, CREE submitted an allegation to ITC, accusing the US Feit, Taiwan Dongbei and other enterprises of some LED products and similar components of the import and sales infringement of CREE-owned patents, applied for the initiation of 337 investigation, requiring ITC to release Exclusion orders and prohibitions. On February 12th, ITC voted to launch 337 investigations on four companies, Feit, Xiamen Feit, Taiwan Dongbei, and US Unity Microelectronics.
According to Zhang Yafei, an intellectual property engineer of the LED Intellectual Property Alliance (LPA), the 337 survey initiated by CREE involves 8 patents, ranging from epitaxial chips to package applications, covering the entire LED industry chain.
CREE Chairman and CEO Chuck Swoboda said: "We are very pleased that ITC has decided to launch this survey. CREE is fully committed to supporting competition, but it should be fair. In the past ten years, we have invested nearly US$1 billion in research and development to create LED lighting. The basic technology. We have 4,000 granted patents, and we are obliged to take action to protect the interests of our shareholders and authorized partners. He believes that Feit and Dongbei are enjoying unfair advantages and hindering consumption through infringement. New product development.
Then, can the LED companies that have not been sued for this time be able to watch the drama and sit back and relax?
After consulting with the expert of the Expert Committee of the LED Industry Patent Alliance, Sun Yinsheng, he said: "There is no lawsuit, it does not mean that there is no problem. It just shows that the domestic enterprises are not strong enough to threaten the interests of CREE. The technology involved in this case involves LED. At the front end of the industry chain, in addition to legal protection in the United States, CREE has also obtained patent protection in China through priority. This is our biggest concern. If one day, Cree intends to unite with the international giants of semiconductor lighting. For example, Philips, Osram, etc., using their patents to establish a patent pool or patent alliance to completely prevent Chinese semiconductor lighting companies from manufacturing and selling the above-mentioned patented products in mainland China, some or many companies in China's semiconductor lighting industry may be like DVDs. The industry has never recovered from it. After all, the patent cross-licensing clause between the top five manufacturers is unclear, preventing Curry and preventing other manufacturers. This is a tug-of-war."
Sun Yinsheng also added that although this is due to normal commercial competition, the above speculation is not sensational. Once the foreign LED lighting giant tightens the patent network, most Chinese LED lighting companies may inevitably rob.
Then, the technology involved in the lawsuit covers the entire industry chain of the middle and lower reaches. Is it CREE’s own test of water behavior, or is it a prelude to the giants’ attempt to make a net? Feit Xiamen and Taiwan’s Dongbei, and US Unity Microelectronics are all related to China, accounting for the alleged 75% of the total number of enterprises, what are the backgrounds of these enterprises, is this spearhead directly pointing to China? What impact will this lawsuit have on China's LED industry? How should LED-related enterprises respond?
In response to the above questions, Liao Deputy Secretary-General Wang Hua revealed that after receiving the news that ITC launched the 337 investigation on the above four companies, LPA immediately communicated with the Guangdong Intellectual Property Center to evaluate the background of the event. 337 investigation of the hazards and impacts, and will try to minimize the damage caused by the incident to the Chinese LED industry, will be jointed with the Guangdong Intellectual Property Research and Development Center and the Shenzhen University Optoelectronic Engineering Institute, at the University of Shenzhen Optoelectronics on March 20th. The college urgently held a "337 investigation" countermeasure seminar.
Up to now, it is understood that the companies involved have not responded to this incident.
It is reported that on January 12, 2015, CREE submitted an allegation to ITC, accusing the US Feit, Taiwan Dongbei and other enterprises of some LED products and similar components of the import and sales infringement of CREE-owned patents, applied for the initiation of 337 investigation, requiring ITC to release Exclusion orders and prohibitions. On February 12th, ITC voted to launch 337 investigations on four companies, Feit, Xiamen Feit, Taiwan Dongbei, and US Unity Microelectronics.
According to Zhang Yafei, an intellectual property engineer of the LED Intellectual Property Alliance (LPA), the 337 survey initiated by CREE involves 8 patents, ranging from epitaxial chips to package applications, covering the entire LED industry chain.
CREE Chairman and CEO Chuck Swoboda said: "We are very pleased that ITC has decided to launch this survey. CREE is fully committed to supporting competition, but it should be fair. In the past ten years, we have invested nearly US$1 billion in research and development to create LED lighting. The basic technology. We have 4,000 granted patents, and we are obliged to take action to protect the interests of our shareholders and authorized partners. He believes that Feit and Dongbei are enjoying unfair advantages and hindering consumption through infringement. New product development.
Then, can the LED companies that have not been sued for this time be able to watch the drama and sit back and relax?
After consulting with the expert of the Expert Committee of the LED Industry Patent Alliance, Sun Yinsheng, he said: "There is no lawsuit, it does not mean that there is no problem. It just shows that the domestic enterprises are not strong enough to threaten the interests of CREE. The technology involved in this case involves LED. At the front end of the industry chain, in addition to legal protection in the United States, CREE has also obtained patent protection in China through priority. This is our biggest concern. If one day, Cree intends to unite with the international giants of semiconductor lighting. For example, Philips, Osram, etc., using their patents to establish a patent pool or patent alliance to completely prevent Chinese semiconductor lighting companies from manufacturing and selling the above-mentioned patented products in mainland China, some or many companies in China's semiconductor lighting industry may be like DVDs. The industry has never recovered from it. After all, the patent cross-licensing clause between the top five manufacturers is unclear, preventing Curry and preventing other manufacturers. This is a tug-of-war."
Sun Yinsheng also added that although this is due to normal commercial competition, the above speculation is not sensational. Once the foreign LED lighting giant tightens the patent network, most Chinese LED lighting companies may inevitably rob.
Then, the technology involved in the lawsuit covers the entire industry chain of the middle and lower reaches. Is it CREE’s own test of water behavior, or is it a prelude to the giants’ attempt to make a net? Feit Xiamen and Taiwan’s Dongbei, and US Unity Microelectronics are all related to China, accounting for the alleged 75% of the total number of enterprises, what are the backgrounds of these enterprises, is this spearhead directly pointing to China? What impact will this lawsuit have on China's LED industry? How should LED-related enterprises respond?
In response to the above questions, Liao Deputy Secretary-General Wang Hua revealed that after receiving the news that ITC launched the 337 investigation on the above four companies, LPA immediately communicated with the Guangdong Intellectual Property Center to evaluate the background of the event. 337 investigation of the hazards and impacts, and will try to minimize the damage caused by the incident to the Chinese LED industry, will be jointed with the Guangdong Intellectual Property Research and Development Center and the Shenzhen University Optoelectronic Engineering Institute, at the University of Shenzhen Optoelectronics on March 20th. The college urgently held a "337 investigation" countermeasure seminar.
Up to now, it is understood that the companies involved have not responded to this incident.
Metal Rotor Floemeter is a kind of rotameter, which is a device that measures the volumetric flow rate of fluid in a closed tube.
Metal Rotor Floemeter belongs to a class of meters called variable-area flowmeters, which measure flow rate by allowing the cross-sectional area the fluid travels through to vary, causing a measurable effect.
Metal Rotor Flow Meter,Rotary Flow Meter For Gas,Lcd Display Rotor Flow Meter,Metal Tube Float Variable Area Flowmeter
Kaifeng Chuangxin Measurement & Control Instrument Co., Ltd. , https://www.kfcxflowmeter.com