By Runhua Wang*
To encourage innovation, Chinese investors increasingly invest in U.S. technology researchers. Meanwhile, U.S. investors also invest in the technology market in China. Recently, Intel Capital invested $67 million in eight Chinese startups, and Dell Inc. pledged $125 billion in investments in Chinese businesses, including technological component purchases and manufacturing expenses. When entering a market in a developing country, investors in high-technology industries must consider IP protection, especially patent protection, so they should understand what a utility model is and how that patent system can be efficiently used in the developing countries that have a utility model patent regime.
This article focuses on explaining the utility model regime in China and helps investors in developed countries, especially U.S. investors whose home country does not have a parallel regime, to avoid relative legal risks in the Chinese market, so they can adjust to and survive in that market. This article includes three sections. In this section, I will introduce the utility model patent system and compare the Chinese utility model regime to other utility model regimes, as well as general utility patent regimes, to help investors from developed countries understand the inherent characteristics in the Chinese utility model regime. In the second section, I will analyze the efficiency of utility model regimes from economic and technological perspectives and explain why the U.S. does not have a utility model patent system. Based on the comparative analysis of the Chinese and other utility model regimes, I will make recommendations in the last section as to how investors can avoid relative legal risks and maximize their benefits in the Chinese market through this particular regime.
A. FDI and the Trend of Financial Globalization
Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in China is transforming from solely manufacturing FDI to FDI in technology development. It is not difficult to recognize that, under the trend of financial globalization, the bright line between traditional FDI and international portfolio investment, which focuses more on capital mobility rather than on technology transfer, diminishes.
FDI is important for technology transfers and spillovers. Most developing countries rely on inward FDI to effect technical change and structural transformation, which could increase economic growth. Moreover, FDI may also directly facilitate the growth of a country’s economy in many other ways, such as creating new jobs, improving access to new and advanced technologies, increasing productivity, and strengthening management strategies.
B. Concerns of the Strength of IP Regime in Developing Countries
Besides the benefits of FDI to receiving economies, the benefits to originating economies are also important in international trade and financial transactions, because levels of FDI are driven by factors in originating economies. The technology transfers and spillovers through FDI trigger concerns regarding IP protection, another factor driving the levels of FDI; so, scholars and international institutions usually suggest that developing countries strengthen their IP protection to attract FDI. For example, one of the main obligations of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is to assist developing countries in preparing IP laws and in promoting the overall protection of IP rights.
Statistics of several developing countries show an uneven distribution of FDI among developing countries and among their industrial regions, but not among their IP laws. However, even though strong IP protection alone is not sufficient to attract foreign firms to invest in a country, some scholars, including Maskus, believe that a weak IP system would deter foreign firms from investing in a developing economy.
Can this theory of the relationship between FDI and the strength of the IP regime in a developing country be used by developing countries to attract U.S. capital investors and technology investors if those countries strengthen their IP protections? WIPO and the TRIPS Agreement do not require IP regimes in developing countries to be as strong as those in developed countries to avoid a “development dilemma.” Because there are no rigid restrictions on the strength of developing countries’ IP regimes, how should U.S investors evaluate the strength of an IP regime in a developing country? Under the trend of financial globalization, what concerns would U.S. investors have regarding the patent regime and the technology market in China?
In practice, statistics show that the venture capital market could be over-developed so as to become uneven in developed countries, including the U.S, thus decreasing the incentives of investors to invest in the domestic financial market. Hence, regardless of the concerns regarding the costs of production or labor, it seems to be inevitable that there will be more U.S. investors involved in the financial and technology markets in developing countries, especially in China.
III. Understanding Utility Model
A. What is Utility Model?
“Utility model” is a generic term that refers to the subject matter falling between patent law and sui generis design law. However, there is no global consensus on the term’s meaning due to fundamentally different concepts from one country to another, such as “innovation patent” in Australia, “utility certificate” in France, “short term patent” in Belgium, and “utility innovation” in Malaysia. Thus, it is necessary to review the nature of these systems through the characteristics of some typically designed utility model regimes.
Some of these systems define utility models as intangible subject matter like technical concepts; other systems relate their definition of utility models to three-dimensional forms; still others consider utility models tantamount to utility patents without examination and for a shorter duration (usually seven to ten years). Classical utility models are usually recognized by these characteristics: cheap, quick, and easily accessible protection for inventions or innovations, many of which cannot gain protection under the utility patent regime.
The earliest classical utility model regime appears to be the United Kingdom’s Utility Designs Act of 1843. It protected designs for the shape or configuration of useful articles of manufacture, which were literally remote from utility patent protection. However, because of its narrow protection only for external appearance or “form,” not for function or principle, many commentators argued to extend its scope to functional equivalents of the embodiments that the drawing illustrates. In 1919, the act was reduced to insignificance by a series of judicial and legislative actions.
Germany, comparatively, introduced a utility model regime, Gebraucbsmuster, firmly and essentially remaining a creature of design protection in 1891, a prototype of classical utility model regime. It features lower standards of inventiveness, no pre-grant examination, limited subject matters only for movable articles having three dimensions, and a very short term of protection.
Progressively, the utility model regime in Germany departed from the classical utility model originating in design protection concepts to a modern second-tier patent regime as a complement to its utility patent regime. In 1990, Germany enacted reforms to abolish the requirements of a three-dimensional configuration and to permit protection of electronic circuit designs, chemical substances, foodstuffs, drugs and immovables. Thus, this regime is no longer only a close cousin of design protection, but has transformed into a longer and stronger regime, providing patent-like protections of small inventions generally for a relatively short period of time. The qualified protected inventions are less strictly tied to three-dimensional, functional shapes of tools or everyday implements.
Another vital characteristic of a utility model regime in many countries is the lack of substantive examination to register. The registration process hence is often significantly simpler and faster than that in a patent regime in testing for non-obviousness, and it expands a temporary protection for pending applications of patents.
Similar to patents but with lower standards of non-obviousness, utility models require novelty, even if the level of the novelty standard could vary in different countries’ utility model regimes. The Commission of the European Community (“The Commission”) suggests that restricting novelty to the territory of a particular Member State might run counter to the objective of a single market.
Therefore, based on their common characteristics, utility models are fairly defined by Pager as subpatentable innovations combined with early disclosure of patent applications and narrow interpretation of claims to allow local firms to invent around foreign innovations. This series of rules for favoring surrounding inventions is excluded from the restriction of TRIPS Article 31 for dependency patents to favor developing countries.
B. Utility Model in China
In the law of China, utility model is defined as a type a “patent.” It should be practical and have new technical solutions relating to the shape, the structure, or a combination thereof of a product. Beside the P.R.C. Patent Law (“Patent Law”), the patent regime also administers utility models through other regulations: the Rules for the Implementation of the Patent Law (“the Rules”) and the Guide of Patent Examination (“the Guide”). Until the amendment of the “Patent Law” in 2009, utility models had not been clarified, and they were only specified by these two regulations at a lower level of authority. Functionally, these two regulations provide or emphasize the details to clearly explain the terms in “Patent Law.”
The contents of the patent laws show that utility models in China acquire a second-tier patent protection. The Guide requires that the subject matter of utility models be attached to products. Measures can only be protected under utility patents. Moreover, utility patents are protected for twenty years after the filing date; utility models are protected for ten years after the filing date. In addition, the qualifications of both types of rights demand novelty, inventiveness, and utility, but the standards to grant rights differ between them.
The State Intellectual Property Office of the P.R.C. (SIPO) conducts a preliminary examination to determine conformity with proper procedures and qualifications for the requirements of utility and novelty. When a utility model application passes this preliminary examination, it should be published and issued on the same day. Only utility patents require a substantive examination as a condition to issue. However, for enforcement, courts or administrative authorities can ask for a patent examination report as evidence in a dispute concerning utility model infringement. The report is made by SIPO after searching, analyzing, and judging the technology from the request of the patentee or an interest-related party.
Moreover, the Rules require that the scale of protection and the remedies or punishments, such as injunctive relief, be basically similar between utility patents and utility models. The requirement of a patent examination report for utility model disputes is the only distinctive term to regulate how utility patents and utility models get protected through litigation. The rules of compulsory licenses and the rules of the six month grace period for utility patents and utility models are not differentiated. In addition, both of them must satisfy the same standards of novelty, which requires a “prior art” search, and have practical applicability to meet the standards of utility.
The requirement of prior art for both utility patent and utility model is an important notion to judge their novelty and creation. The prior art in “Patent Law” refers to any technologies known to the public in the country or abroad before the date of filing. It should be a statement in which the knowledge and information concerned are disclosed to the public, and the technicians in the field can obtain the knowledge and information from public domains through normal channels. Thus, it includes both the local prior arts and the existing arts in any other countries.
Filing both a utility model and a utility patent for an identical invention on the same day is permitted. However, only one patent right shall be granted, so an applicant shall be granted a utility patent only if the applicant agrees to abandon the previously obtained utility model that has not ended.
C. Standards of Non-Obviousness
From 2006 to 2010 in China, there were merely around 21.5 percent utility model applicants who were rejected in the preliminary examination for lacking utility, but more than 97 percent of these failed applications were individual applicants rather than “work for hire.” Hence, investors who are interested in investing in Chinese startups or established firms rather than individuals need to understand that the fundamental difference between registration of utility model and registration of a utility patent is substantive examination, the core of which in China is the standards of non-obviousness.
Some European utility model regimes have no requirements of non-obviousness. These regimes are similar to classical utility regimes and usually are called three-dimensional regimes, such as the regimes in Italy, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Portugal, and Spain, and they only examine for formalities. Because of their standards of local novelty that only prohibit using local prior arts, the three-dimensional form requirement could be abolished. Some scholars, such as Janis, believe that a second-tier patent system could be a gap-filler to utility patent regimes.
The U.S. has a trend of increasing the strictness of patent requirements through the standards of non-obviousness. Australia applies the same standards for obviousness to both utility patents and utility models. Comparatively, while Germany has amended its utility model regime several times, its procedure, which has a soft obviousness standard rather than requiring substantive examination, has not been changed, and Germany has experienced a softening of the non-obviousness standard for patents to be less strict. Therefore, the soft obviousness standard makes the utility model regime primarily different from a utility patent regime with a shorter term. In the European Union, apart from the European Patent Convention, other conventions, such as the Strasbourg Convention on the Unification of Certain Points of Substantive Law and Patents for Inventions, left the standards of registration of utility models unclear, so member countries can flexibly design and adjust a proper system for their local economy.
Utility model regimes provide exclusive rights to inventions or innovations, similar to utility patent regimes. Compared to utility patents, utility models usually provide a shorter duration of protection. Utility models are cheap, quick, and easy for inventors to gain exclusive protection for their inventions. Hence, more technologies and inventions can qualify for protection under a utility model regime than for protection under a utility patent regime. However, examination under a utility model regime is much less strict than that under a utility patent regime. Utility model claims do not have to meet the same non-obviousness standards as utility patents. Therefore, it is difficult to simply conclude the utility model regime in China is weak or strong. In the forthcoming part, I will explain the efficiency of utility models in addressing the concerns of FDI investors from developed countries, particularly U.S. investors, whose home country does not have a parallel system.
*Runhua Wang. University of Illinois College of Law, J.S.D Candidate, Class of 2016. Special thanks to my parents. Many thanks also to Professor Paul Heald and Professor Jay P. Kesan (University of Illinois College of Law), and JLTP editor Iman Naim (Class of 2016) for their instruction and help.
 See Jason Lange, Chinese Firms Pour Money into U.S. R&D in Shift to Innovation, Reuters (June 21, 2015, 9:17 AM), http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/21/us-usa-china-investment-insight-idUSKBN0P10KD20150621.
 Eva Dou, Intel Capital Invests $67 Million in Eight Chinese Startups, Wall St. J. (Sept. 17, 2015, 8:27 AM), http://www.wsj.com/articles/intel-capital-invests-67-million-in-eight-chinese-startups-1442492847.
 Bob Stembridge, Chinese Utility Models – A Lesser-Known IP Strategy, Indus. Insight, July-Aug. 2010, at 9, available at http://www.iam-media.com/Magazine/Issue/42/Industry-insight/Chinese-utility-models-a-lesser-known-IP-strategy.
 Foreign Direct Investment – the China Story, World Bank (July 16, 2010), http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2010/07/16/foreign-direct-investment-china-story (last visited Oct. 26, 2015).
 Christine Greenhalgh & Mark Rogers, Innovation, IP, and Economic Growth, 258 (2010).
 Beata S. Javorcik, International Technology Transfer and Foreign Direct Investment, in The Evidence and Impact of Financial Globalization 311-319, (Gerard Caprio ed., 2012), available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780123978745000439.
 Carsten Fink & Keith E. Maskus, Why We Study Intellectual Property Rights and What We Have Learned, in Intellectual Property and Development: Lessons from Recent Economic Research 6 (Carsten Fink & Keith E. Maskus eds., 2005).
 Nagesh Kumar, Intellectual Property Rights, Technology and Economic Development: Experiences of Asian Countries, 38 Econ. & Pol. Wkly. 209, 210 (2003), available at http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.469.8086&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
 Rami M. Olwan, Intellectual Property and Development: Theory and Practice 108, 123 (2013).
 Greenhalgh, supra note 5, at 257.
 Olwan, supra note 9, at 125.
 Benjamin Coriat & Luigi Orsenigo, Public Health and the Pharmaceutical Industry: Issues in the Post-2005 TRIPS Agenda, in Intellectual Property Rights: Legal and Economic Challenges for Development 227 (Mario Cimoli et al. eds., 2014).
 Comp. Gen., Strengthening Worldwide Protection of Intellectual Property, No.132699, at 22-25 (1987), available at http://archive.gao.gov/d2t4/132699.pdf.
 See Keith E. Maskus, The Role of Intellectual Property Rights in Encouraging Foreign Direct Investment and Technology, supra note 7, at 48.
 Pager refers to this as a “damage control” policy “that seek[s] to minimize or offset the costs of having a patent system pose significant, disproportionately burdensome obstacles to local innovation.” See Sean A. Pager, Patents on a Shoestring: Making Patent Protection Work for Developing Countries, 23 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. 755, 803-04 (2006-07); see also Jerome H. Reichman, Intellectual Property in the Twenty-First Century: Will the Developing Countries Lead or Follow? 46 Hous. L. Rev. 1116, 1119 (2009). (“‘[I]f they open their domestic markets to trade, they face political and economic pressure to protect foreign IP.’” (quoting Robert L. Ostergard, Jr.)).
 Josh Lerner et al., Venture Capital and Private Equity: A Casebook 242 (5th ed. 2012).
 Uma Suthersanen, et al., Utility Models and Other Alternatives to Patents, in Innovation Without Patents: Harnessing the Creative Spirit in a Diverse World 18 (Edward Elgar ed., 2007).
 See Lionel Bently & Brad Sherman, The United Kingdom’s Forgotten Utility Model: The Utility Designs Act of 1843, 3 Intell. Prop. Q. 265 (1997); see also Tabrez Ahmad & Pratic Priyadarshi Choudhury, Law of Patents Utility Model Protection: Harnessing the Backwaters of IP, 5 (2012), http://ssrn.com/abstract=1981780.
 See Ahmad, supra note 22 at 6.
 Mark D. Janis, Second-tier Patent Protection, 40 Harv. Int’l. L.J. 151, 156 (1999).
 See id. at 158. The duration is three years from the application date, and it is renewable for an additional three-year term.
 See id. at 155, 162-63.
 Jerome H. Reichman, Legal Hybrids Between the Patent and Copyright Paradigms, 94 Colum. L. Rev. 2432, 2457 (1994).
 Id. at 165 n.73; see also Jerome H. Reichman, Charting the Collapse of the Patent-Copyright Dichotomy: Premises for a Restructured International Intellectual Property System, 13 Cardozo Arts & Ent. L.J. 475, 500 (1995).
 Ahmad, supra note 22, at 5
 Janis, supra note 24, at 161.
 Robert Hart, The European Union’s Proposed Protection for Utility Models: The Implications for Computer Programs, 3 Int’l Intell. Prop. L. & Pol’y, 50-1, 50-1 (1998). Hart concludes that the characteristics of a second-tier regime are quickness, simple registration, less stringent requirements than for patents, low cost, and temporary protection pending the grant of a patent, and most of these characteristics have been covered by classical utility model regimes.
 Heather Ann Forrest, Utility Model: Widening the Economic Divide between Legacy and New EU Member States, 32 Int’l Bus. L. 216, 217 (2004).
 See Hart, supra note 34, at 50-1, 50-2; see also Commission Green Paper: The Protection of Utility Models in the Single Market, COM (1995), 370 final (July 18, 1995). The Proposed Directive in the Commission of the European Community proposed that “utility model protection is better suited than patent protection to technical inventions involving a specific level of inventiveness.”
 Pager, supra note 16, at 803-04.
 Hong Liu & Jun Wei, Technology Transfer to China: The Patent System, 5 Santa Clara Computer & High Tech. L J. 363, 373 (1989). The authors looked at an earlier draft of China’s Patent Law that says: “‘Working a patent’ means the manufacture of the invention, utility model or design, or use of the patented process.” Gradually, it becomes general knowledge that people in China call all three kinds of inventions patents. The current draft of the 2009 Patent Law in China still states that “inventions-creations” means inventions, utility models and designs” in Article 2.
 Zhuanli Fa(专利法)[Law on Patent](promulgated by the Standing Comm. Nat’l People’s Cong., Dec. 27, 2008, effective Oct. 1, 2009) P.R.C. Laws, Dec. 27, 2008, art. 2 (China).
 Xiaoqing Feng, The Interaction Between Enhancing the Capability for Independent Innovation and Patent Protection: A Perspective on the Third Amendment to the Patent Law of the P.R. China, 9 Pitt. J. Tech. L. & Pol’y 1, 24 (2009).
 Mark Shiqian Zhai, The Chinese Utility Model Patent is Destroying Innovation in China, 39 Aipla Q. J. 413, 415 (2011).
 Zhuanli Shencha Zhinan (专利审查指南)[The Guide of Patent Examination, “the Guide”](promulgated by SIPO., Jan. 21, 2010, effective Feb. 1, 2010) §1 ch. 2 art. 6.1 (China).
 Id. at art. 6.3; see also Zhuanli Fa(专利法)[Law on Patent](promulgated by the Standing Comm. Nat’l People’s Cong., Dec. 27, 2008, effective Oct. 1, 2009) P.R.C. Laws, Dec. 27, 2008, art. 2 (China).
 Zhuanli Fa(专利法)[Law on Patent](promulgated by the Standing Comm. Nat’l People’s Cong., Dec. 27, 2008, effective Oct. 1, 2009) P.R.C. Laws, Dec. 27, 2008, art. 42 (China).
 Id. at art 22. Inventiveness is equivalent to the non-obviousness requirement of USPTO (U.S. Patent and Trademark Office) because of the difference of translation.
 Feng, supra note 40, at 52
 Liu & Wei, supra note 38, at 367; see also Zhuanli Shencha Zhinan (专利审查指南) [The Guide of Patent Examination] (promulgated by SIPO., Jan. 21, 2010, effective Feb. 1, 2010) §1 ch. 2 art. 7.4 (China).
 Zhuanli Fa (专利法)[Law on Patent] (promulgated by the Standing Comm. Nat’l People’s Cong., Dec. 27, 2008, effective Oct. 1, 2009) P.R.C. Laws, Dec. 27, 2008, art. 40 (China).
 Id. at art. 61; see also Zhuanli Fa Shishi Xize (专利法实施细则) [The Rules for the Implementation of the Patent Law (“the Rules”)] (promulgated by St. Council, 2010) P.R.C. Laws, Jan. 22, 2010, art. 56 (China); see also, Zhuanli Shencha Zhinan (专利审查指南) [The Guide of Patent Examination] (promulgated by SIPO., Jan. 21, 2010, effective Feb. 1, 2010) § 5 ch. 5 art. 2.3 (China).
 Zhuanli Fa Shishi Xize (专利法实施细则) [The Rules for the Implementation of the Patent Law, “the Rules”] (promulgated by St. Council, 2010) P.R.C. Laws, art. 24, 51 (China); see also Zhuanli Shencha Zhinan (专利审查指南) [The Guide of Patent Examination] (promulgated by SIPO., Jan. 21, 2010, effective Feb. 1, 2010) §1 ch. 2 art. 7.3 (China).
 Zhuanli Fa Shishi Xize (专利法实施细则) [The Rules for the Implementation of the Patent Law (“the Rules”)] (promulgated by St. Council, 2010) P.R.C. Laws, Jan. 22, 2010, art. 22 (China); see also Liu & Wei, supra note 38, at 364; see also Zhuanli Shencha Zhinan (专利审查指南) [The Guide of Patent Examination, “the Guide”] (promulgated by SIPO., Jan. 21, 2010, effective Feb. 1, 2010) § 5 ch. 5 art. 2.3 (China). The novelty requirement of utility models could be softer than that of utility patents in the detail regulation of “the Guide.”
 Feng, supra note 40, at 55.
 Zhuanli Fa (专利法) [Law on Patent] (promulgated by the Standing Comm. Nat’l People’s Cong., Dec. 27, 2008, effective Oct. 1, 2009) P.R.C. Laws, Dec. 27, 2008, art. 22 (China).
 Feng, supra note 40, at 55.
 Edward W. Tracy, et al., A Practical Patent Strategy for U.S. Companies Doing Business in China, 3 Landslide 14, 15 (2010-2011).
 Id. See also Fa, supra note 54, at art. 9.
 Hui Lian (廉惠), Shiyong Xinxing Bohui Anjian Shizheng Fenxi (实用新型驳回案件实证分析) [An Empirical Study of Rejected Applications of Utility Models], 8 Intell Prop. 77, 78-79 (2011).
 “The Guide” includes the search of both local and international prior arts in the process of preliminary examination for utility models, but excludes the process of testing non-obviousness, which is required only in the pending of an application of a utility patent. “The Guide” shows the three types of preliminary examination for the three types of patent filing separately in Part I, and mentions less about the search for novelty in the same part. However, even though it expresses the details of examination of novelty of utility models in Part II, “The Substantive Examination,” the Patent Law of China only requires this procedure in Article 35. Therefore, because the test of utility is a forward step of testing novelty, which is defined in Part 2.3, Article 3 of “the Guide,” we learn that the nature of the substantive examination is to test non-obviousness of an invention.
 See Suthersanen, supra note 18, at 12. Suthersanen separates the classical utility model regime from second-tier protection, like in Germany, Austria, and the proposal from the EU Commission, and the type of utility model regimes which are closest to the utility patent regime. She calls these types “Three Dimensional Regime,” “German Regime,” and “Patent Regime.”
 Id. at 13. The formalities include correct documentation, name, and address of applicant and agent.
 See Hart, supra note 34, at 50-52.
 See Janis, supra note 24, at 191.
 Id. at 161. Janis shows the pattern for the PTO and judicial system to emphasize the inventive step requirement for patents since the mid-twentieth century in the U.S.
 Ruifang Chen, The Utility Model System and Its Benefits for China—Some Deliberations Based on German and Japanese Legislation, 14 IIC: Int’l Rev. Intell. & Competition L. 493, 505 (1983).
 Id. at 162-63. (“In order to comply with the European Patent Convention of 1978, Germany abolished its relatively strict ‘technical step forward’ standard for inventiveness, replacing it with the less rigorous erfinderische Tdtigkeit standard . . . . The inventiveness standard for utility models . . . was adjusted to erfinderischer Schritt . . . to correspond to an even lower standard.”)
 Janis, supra note 24, at 168.
 Rudolf Krasser, Developments in Utility Model Law, 26 IIC: Int’l Rev. Intell. & Competition L. 950, 951 (1995).