Consistent with its power to grant interim measures in support of arbitration proceedings, the Arbitration Ordinance (Cap 609) (AO) empowers the court to grant freezing injunctions (also known as Mareva injunctions) in support of arbitration proceedings. The considerations as to whether a party will likely obtain such an injunction are similar to those relevant to freezing injunctions in court proceedings. Note: Hong Kong judgments below are not reported by LexisNexis®. Powers of the court to grant interim measures (generally) The court has the power to grant interim measures pursuant to AO, ss 21 and 45. AO, s 21 for example provides that it is not incompatible with an arbitration agreement for a party to request, before or during arbitral proceedings, from a court an interim measure of protection and for a court to grant such measure. AO, s 45 provides that the court may, in relation to any arbitral proceedings which have been or are to be commenced in

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. Consistent with its power to grant interim measures in support of arbitration proceedings, the Hong Kong court is empowered under the Arbitration Ordinance, Chapter 609 (AO) to grant freezing injunctions (formerly known as Mareva injunctions) in support of arbitration proceedings. It is, however, an onerous task for any applicant and should not be taken lightly. For the position under English law, see Practice Note: Freezing injunctions in support of arbitration (England and Wales). Powers of the court to grant interim measures (generally) The court has the power to grant interim measures pursuant to AO, ss 21 and 45. AO, s 21, for example, provides that it is not incompatible with an arbitration agreement for a party to request, before or during arbitral proceedings, from a court an interim measure of protection and for a court to grant such measure. AO, s 45 provides that the

Scope The Arbitration Ordinance (Cap 609) (AO) applies to an arbitration under an arbitration agreement which provides that the seat of arbitration is Hong Kong, regardless of whether the agreement is entered into in Hong Kong. AO applies to both domestic and international arbitrations. In the event that the seat of arbitration is outside Hong Kong, only certain sections of AO apply, including: • stay of court proceedings where the matter is the subject of an arbitration agreement (AO, s 20) • interim measures granted by a court in support of an arbitration (AO, ss 21, 45, 60) • enforcement of emergency relief granted by emergency arbitrators (AO, ss 22A–22B) • enforcement of orders and directions of the arbitral tribunal (AO, s 61) • recognition and enforcement of awards (AO, ss 82–98) The provisions of AO (subject to certain exceptions) also apply to statutory arbitrations under other ordinances, as long as AO is consistent with that other ordinance (AO, s 5). Structure

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. Scope of the Arbitration Ordinance The Arbitration Ordinance, Chapter 609 (AO) applies to an arbitration under an arbitration agreement which provides that the seat of arbitration is Hong Kong, regardless of whether the agreement is entered into in Hong Kong. The AO applies to both domestic and international arbitrations. In the event that the seat of arbitration is outside Hong Kong, only certain sections of the AO apply, including: • the stay of court proceedings where the matter is the subject of an arbitration agreement (AO, s 20) • interim measures by court in support of arbitration in and outside Hong Kong (AO, ss 21, 45, 60) • enforcement of emergency relief granted by emergency arbitrators (AO, ss 22A, 22B) • enforcement of orders and directions of the arbitral tribunal (AO, s 61) • recognition and enforcement of awards (AO, ss 82–98) The

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note was originally written for LexisAdvance® Practical Guidance Hong Kong. Rights and assertion In addition to a copyright, certain other rights may also exist in a work: • moral rights • technological measures applied to computer programs and other copyright works • publication rights • rights in performances • artist’s resale right Moral rights must be asserted to be exercisable. They may be asserted generally, or in relation to specified acts, and by way of either an assignment or licence of copyright, or by a signed instrument. Section 90 of the Copyright Ordinance (Cap 528) (CO) sets out who is deemed to be bound by the assertion. For joint works, each author must assert the right in relation to themselves. Similar provisions apply to films. A film is treated as a work of joint authorship, although only the director is entitled to moral rights (CO, ss 12, 89, 99, 272C and 272J). Moral rights The

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note was originally written for LexisAdvance® Practical Guidance Hong Kong. Nature Intellectual property (IP) rights are recognised as private rights with a certain dimension of public interests. Copyright protection is achieved through prohibiting unauthorised use of copyright works without the owner’s consent, thus copyright is an IP right subsisting in creative works, as specified under section 2 of the Copyrights Ordinance (Cap 528) (CO) as follows: • original literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works • sound recordings, films, broadcasts or cable programmes, and • the typographical arrangement of published editions Different versions of a work may be protected by different copyrights, eg the book and stage versions of a play. The duration and restricted acts of copyright may vary depending on the work. Copyright subsists under CO, which took effect on 27 June 1997. The copyright laws previously in force in Hong Kong prior to the enactment of CO, namely the UK Copyright

Arbitration analysis: This judgment concerns the defendant’s application to stay court proceedings in favour of arbitration pursuant to section 20 of the Arbitration Ordinance (Cap. 609) (the ‘AO’). The present dispute arose over a settlement agreement between the parties (the ‘Settlement Agreement’). The initial contract between the parties (the ‘Contract’) contained an arbitration clause. The court had to determine the effect of the Settlement Agreement on this pre-existing arbitration clause. Applying a commercially-minded approach, the court followed Monde Petroelum SA v Westernzagros Ltd (Monde) and determined that the present dispute arose under the Settlement Agreement. Clause 1.6 of the Settlement Agreement disapplied the arbitration clause in the Contract to such claims. The Settlement Agreement did not otherwise deal with dispute resolution. The court held that the present dispute was not therefore within the ambit of the arbitration clause and the defendant was not entitled to a stay. This is a pragmatic decision which underscores the challenges that can arise when a settlement subsequently breaks down and inconsistent dispute resolution provisions apply. Written by Paul Starr, partner, Felicity Ng, senior associate and Sian Knight, Professional Support Lawyer at King & Wood Mallesons.

Arbitration analysis: In this case, a loan agreement designated litigation as the agreed method of dispute resolution and expressly stated that any variation must be made by written instrument signed by all parties thereto. The applicant attempted to introduce an arbitration agreement/clause by way of an extension letter signed only by the applicant as lender and the respondent as one of the borrowers. The question for the court was whether this arbitration agreement/clause, introduced by way of variation, was valid. An emergency award was rendered in favour of the applicant. The respondent requested the Hog Kong court set aside the enforcement order in respect of that emergency award based on the invalidity of the arbitration agreement. The court found in favour of the respondent and ruled that the term 'parties' in the variation clause could only mean each and every party to the loan agreement, thus the arbitration agreement/clause introduced by variation was invalid. Written by Yi Shun Teoh, senior associate at RPC.

This Practice Note was originally written for LexisAdvance® Practical Guidance Hong Kong. A patent is a statute-created instrument that confers a set of exclusive rights to its proprietor. The exclusive rights when exercised will operate to exclude others from practicing what is within the scope of a patent. The Patents Ordinance (Cap 514) (PO) is the statute that governs the creation, the exclusive rights, the scope and the use of the exclusive rights of a Hong Kong patent. The exclusive rights conferred by a patent and the scope of a patent are set out in PO, Pt X. The scope of a patent is referred to as the extent of protection (PO, s 76). Acts of infringement The exclusive rights conferred by a patent to its proprietor are set out in PO, ss 73 and 74. The proprietor on exercising the rights conferred by these sections can prevent a third party from direct and indirect use of an invention, and the stipulated uses are commonly and collectively referred to as acts of infringement. PO,

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note was originally written for LexisAdvance® Practical Guidance Hong Kong. Hong Kong is a special administration region of the People’s Republic of China (Mainland China). Under the one-country two-system regime, Hong Kong has its own patent laws and a system of patents which is separated from that of Mainland China. The Intellectual Property Department (IPD) of the Hong Kong government is responsible for the administration of application, registration and maintenance of patents. There are two types of patents in Hong Kong, namely: • standard patents, and • short-term patents The Paris Convention and the Patent Co-operation Treaty (PCT) are effective in Hong Kong due to the membership of Mainland China. The agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS) has been implemented in Hong Kong due to the World Trade Organization (WTO) membership of Hong Kong. A short-term patent application can be a priority founding patent application under the Paris Convention or TRIPS but not a standard patent application. Patents

The court has the power under the Arbitration Ordinance (Cap 609) (AO) to grant a range of interim measures in support of arbitration proceedings. These are primarily designed to ensure the arbitral process is respected, the award is not frustrated, to regulate the conduct of the parties and preserve assets or evidence. It is important to note the corresponding powers of the arbitral tribunal to grant interim measures under AO, s 35. Note: Hong Kong judgments below are not reported by LexisNexis®. Power of the court to stay court proceedings in favour of arbitration Under AO, s 20, the court has the power to stay proceedings and refer the parties to arbitration if a party so requests and the action is the subject of an arbitration agreement, unless the arbitration agreement is invalid, inoperative or incapable of being performed. In Hong Kong, the courts consistently give effect to the primacy

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. The Hong Kong court has the power under the Arbitration Ordinance, Chapter 609 (AO) to grant a range of interim measures in support of arbitration proceedings. These are primarily designed to ensure the arbitral process is respected, the award is not frustrated, regulate the conduct of the parties and preserve assets or evidence. It is important to note the corresponding powers of the arbitral tribunal to grant interim measures under AO, s 35. Note: Hong Kong judgments below are not reported by LexisNexis® UK. Power of the court to stay court proceedings in favour of arbitration The court has the power to stay its proceedings and refer the parties to arbitration if a party so requests and the action is brought in a manner which is the subject of an arbitration agreement,