Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The organization and writing in the current version is adequate to be published.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. This article is a speculative study of China's green patent system. It is more descriptive than empirical. I have carefully revised the paper based on the opinions of all reviewers. Please review it again.

Reviewer 2 Report

The article is not a scientific paper: there are no research questions, it is not clear what is the innovativeness of the work compared to the state of the art and there is no bibliography. The paper must be completely rewritten.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. Here is my reply.

Point 1: There are no research questions.

Response 1: This paper is a speculative study of China's green patent system. It is more descriptive than empirical. I adjusted the structure of the article, and firstly raised the research question to verify whether China has established a green patent system, and if so, at what stage. This paper mainly adopts the literature analysis method, aiming at the necessity of the green patent system, green patent application, green patent license and the implementation of green principles in patent infringement liability to test the hypothesis presented in this paper.

 

Point 2: it is not clear what is the innovativeness of the work compared to the state of the art and there is no bibliography.

Response 2: Compared to past research, this paper is the first systematic and comprehensive analysis of the implementation of the green principle in the patent system, whether in terms of research breadth or in the depth, and compared with the more abstract conclusions of previous studies (mostly calling for the establishment of a green patent system), the analysis in this paper is more specific and scientific, and can provide enterprises, policymakers with richer information. And there are more references added to analysis of past literature after revision.

 

Point 3: The paper must be completely rewritten.

Response 3: I have carefully revised the paper (almost rewrite it) based on your opinions. Please review it again.

Reviewer 3 Report

This article claims in its conclusion that “China's patent system has established a framework for green patents with green principles.” In fact, China to date has not treated so called green patents any differently to other patents. As the article mentions Australia, Brazil, Canada, Israel, Japan, Korea, the UK and USA offer expedited examination for eligible green technology patent applications. China does not make a similar offer, although it does have the capacity to grant priority for important patents. It has not get extended this priority to green patents.

The article mentions that China has the capacity to refuse patents for inventions which are not in the public interest. It has not yet refused a patent for an invention which has environmentally adverse consequences.

The article is a useful introduction to the relevance of environmental considerations for patenting, but it exaggerates the claim of China in this area.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. Here is my reply.

Point 1: This article claims in its conclusion that “China's patent system has established a framework for green patents with green principles.” In fact, China to date has not treated so called green patents any differently to other patents. As the article mentions Australia, Brazil, Canada, Israel, Japan, Korea, the UK and USA offer expedited examination for eligible green technology patent applications. China does not make a similar offer, although it does have the capacity to grant priority for important patents. It has not get extended this priority to green patents.

Response 1: The purpose of this paper is to verify that China is currently working hard to establish a green patent system. From the textual analysis, China does not currently have a special document on green technology patent application, licensing and protection.

However, Article 3 of the Administrative Measures for the Priority Examination of Patents does specifically mention that green technologies such as energy conservation and environmental protection can apply for accelerated examination. China provides such a policy. This also counts as some differences from other ordinary patents.

Point 2: The article mentions that China has the capacity to refuse patents for inventions which are not in the public interest. It has not yet refused a patent for an invention which has environmentally adverse consequences.

Response 2: This article mentions that it is possible to reject non-green technology patent applications through the patent object exception patent. This is theoretically feasible and should be operated in practice. However, currently SIPO has not disclosed the data on the reasons for patent rejection, so it is impossible to draw the conclusions China has not yet refused a patent for an invention which has environmentally adverse consequences.

Point 3: The article is a useful introduction to the relevance of environmental considerations for patenting, but it exaggerates the claim of China in this area.

Response 3: Indeed, it is too early to say that China has established a green patent system, but this paper analyzes the establishment of a green patent system from the perspective of institutional feasibility and China's determination and efforts to integrate green principles into the patent legal system. The conclusion section of the thesis has been revised.

Reviewer 4 Report

   My opinion is that the topic of the article addresses an interesting issue, but in my opinion, the quality of this paper is not appropriate. The reasons for this are as follows:

1.     Citation requirements not met. Citations are underlined, not as required by the journal.

2.     The structure of the article does not follow the sequence – Introduction, Literature Review, Methodology, Discussion, Conclusion.

3.     The article gives priority to a review of regulations and laws adopted in China regarding green principles and their implementation in patent law. Overall, the article is more descriptive and far from a research requirement.

4.     Moreover, from the literature review, research hypotheses should be formulated, which are lacking.

5.     In places, numerous technical errors stand out, such as on line 187, due to the lack of closing quotation marks, it is not clear whether it is a quote or a specific term.

6.     The lack of a discussion part does not conflict with the author's opinion with other research on the topic of the article.

   My opinion is that the article needs to significantly change its structure. Not to be presented in the form of a description, but rather to examine the effectiveness of changes in China's green compliance legislation in any respect presented by the author. The lack of hypotheses, object and subject of research contributes to the low scientific-practical quality of the article. I feel that the article needs to undergo significant changes to be able to present itself again, and for this reason, my review is negative. However, I note again that this in no way can be ignored the author's work on such a relevant topic for the times in which we live.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

None

Reviewer 4 Report

Getting acquainted with the research and analysis of the authors of the article I would make the following comments:

1. Citations are cited in the proper order required by the journal.

2. The structure of the article has been changed and hypotheses have been inserted, which the author subsequently proves in the exposition.

3. The article is supplemented with literature.

4. The author has corrected the numerous technical errors in the article that was in the first submission.

5. In response to a note under No. 6, the author has added his own opinion in Section 4. The clash of different opinions, which the author improves, leads to the presence of a discussion part in the article.

 

My opinion is that the author of the article has approached responsibly and tried to answer all the weaknesses I put forward in her initial submission. Re-reading the article, with a significant addendum inserted, my opinion is that to become scholarly in the field of green patents and the system related to green principles and patent law provisions.