The person shown here is a basic user of this site. He or she may be contacted directly for language-related services.
|
Working languages: Chinese to English
| Esempi
Legal and Business Translation
NA Local time: 02:30 EST (GMT-5)
Native in: English  | |
Freelancer,  Verified site user | | Blue Board: Perkins (Michael Perkins) | | Translation, Editing/proofreading | | Specializes in: | | Business/Commerce (general) | Finance (general) | | General / Conversation / Greetings / Letters | Government / Politics | | History | Law: Contract(s) | | Law (general) | Poetry & Literature |
| Also works in: | | Accounting | Advertising / Public Relations | | Art, Arts & Crafts, Painting | Cinema, Film, TV, Drama | | Management |
More Less | Chinese to English - Standard rate: 0.08 USD per word / 20 USD per hour
| | PRO-level points: 28, Questions answered: 18, Questions asked: 72 | Sample translations submitted: 2 | Chinese to English: Demurrer | Source text - Chinese
对《管辖权异议书》的抗辩意见
（案件编号：[200X]粤高法民四初字第X号）
答辩人（原告）：XXXX有限公司
地址：广州市XXXX路XXX号3座32楼
法定代表人：王XX，董事长
被答辩人（被告）：XXXX保险公司广东省分公司
地址：广州市XXXX号
法定代表人：XX，总经理
题述一案已由广东省高级人民法院依法受理，但被答辩人为了逃避人民法院对本案纠纷的公正审理，对广东省高级人民法院受理本案纠纷的管辖权提出异议，并认为广东省高级人民法院无权受理本案纠纷。答辩人认为，本案保单所约定的仲裁条款既不符合国际商事仲裁通行惯例对仲裁协议的基本要求，也不符合我国法律对仲裁协议基本内容的相关规定，故应属无效仲裁协议，广东省高级人民法院对本案依法享有正当管辖权，具体理由如下：
一、本案保单约定的仲裁条款不符合国际商事仲裁通行惯例对仲裁协议的基本要求。
仲裁协议是指在国际或国内商事交往过程中，双方当事人对他们之间将来可能发生或业已发生的争议交付仲裁解决的一种书面协议。各国立法及有关国际条约虽然对仲裁协议的概念定义不尽相同，但对于一项有效的仲裁协议应当具备的内容都有共同的基本要求。依据国际通行惯例，一项有效的仲裁协议至少应当具备：
1、提交仲裁的事项；
2、仲裁地点和仲裁机构；
3、仲裁规则；
4、裁决的效力。
例如，《联合国国际贸易法委员会仲裁规则》第一条所规定的“示范仲裁条款”即是：
“由于本合同而发生的或与本合同有关的任何争议、争端或请求，或有关本合同的违约、终止、无效应按照目前有效的联合国国际贸易法委员会仲裁规则予以解决。
附注——当事人双方得要求加入；
（一）任命机构应为……（机构或个人的名称或姓名）；
（二）仲裁员人数应为……（一人或三人）；
（三）仲裁地点应为……（城镇或国家）；
（四）仲裁进程中所用的一种或多种语言应为……”
再如，中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会制定的“示范仲裁条款”为：“凡因本合同引起的或与本合同有关的任何争议，均应提交中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会，按照申请仲裁时该会现行有效的仲裁规则进行仲裁。仲裁裁决是终局的，对双方均有约束力。”
与上述“示范仲裁条款”相对照，本案保单虽然有仲裁的表述，但并没有具体、明确的仲裁机构名称和仲裁规则，也没有确定的仲裁地点，对仲裁的效力也未涉及。因此，本案保单中所载的仲裁条款应属无效的仲裁协议，对合同双方不具有合同约束力。
二、本案保单约定的仲裁条款也不符合我国法律对仲裁协议的相关规定。
本案保单“明细表”部分“司法管辖”条款都规定：本案保单应以中华人民共和国法律进行解释。
我国《仲裁法》第65条规定：“涉外经济贸易、运输和海事中发生的纠纷的仲裁，适用本章规定。本章没有规定的，适用本法其他有关规定”。根据该规定，关于仲裁协议的效力，由于“涉外仲裁”一章没有作出规定，故应适用《仲裁法》其他有关规定。
《仲裁法》第16条第2款规定：“仲裁协议应当具有下列内容：
（一）请求仲裁的意思表示；
（二）仲裁事项；
（三）选定的仲裁委员会。”
《仲裁法》第十八条又规定：“仲裁协议对仲裁事项或者仲裁委员会没有约定或者约定不明确的，当事人可以补充协议；达不成补充协议的，仲裁协议无效”。
依据上述规定，明确的仲裁事项和仲裁机构是我国法律对合法有效的仲裁协议的基本要求。
依据最高人民法院《关于适用〈中华人民共和国民事诉讼法〉若干问题的意见》第146条规定，当事人在仲裁条款或协议中选择的仲裁机构不存在，人民法院有权依法受理当事人一方的起诉。而在本案保单所载的仲裁条款中，双方根本没有选择和约定争议将提交哪一个仲裁委员会裁决，本案当事人对于仲裁机构的确定也从未达成过任何补充协议。因此，本案保单所载的仲裁条款实际上无法履行，不是法律意义上的合法有效的仲裁协议，广东省高级人民法院依据《仲裁法》及上述最高人民法院的司法解释对本案享有正当管辖权，有权依法对本案进行审理。
鉴于本案保单所载的仲裁条款对仲裁的机构、规则及地点等事项没有约定，不具备法律规定的有效仲裁条款的基本要素，答辩人请求法院驳回被答辩人关于管辖权异议的无理要求，依法行使对本案的正当管辖权。
此呈
广东省高级人民法院
答辩人：XXXX有限公司
诉讼代理人：
XX XXX
日期：二00X年X月十三日
| Translation - English
Demurrer Regarding “Objection to Jurisdiction”
(Case No: [200X] Guangdong Province _____ No.4)
Claimant (Pleader): XXXX Co., Ltd.
Address: XXnd Floor, Tower X, XX Road, Guangzhou
Legal Representative: Wang XX, Chairman
Respondent (Pleadee): XX Insurance Company of China (Guangdong Subsidiary)
Address: XX Road, Guangzhou
Legal Representative: XX, General Manager
The case cited has already been accepted for hearing by the High People’s Court of Guangdong; however, the Respondent, in an attempt to evade impartial hearing of this dispute by the People’s Court, has raised objection to the jurisdiction of the High People’s Court of Guangdong over this case, and deems that the High People’s Court of Guangdong has no authority to hear the dispute. The Claimant deems that the arbitration clauses contained in the insurance policy under dispute neither conform to the basic requirements for an arbitration agreement as determined by current conventions on international commercial arbitration, nor conform to relevant regulations in PRC law on the basic content of an arbitration agreement; and therefore should constitute an invalid arbitration agreement. The specific reasons for which the High People’s Court of Guangdong should legally have rightful jurisdiction over this dispute are as follows:
I. The arbitration clauses stipulated in the insurance policy currently under dispute do not conform to the basic requirements for an arbitration agreement as determined by current conventions on international commercial arbitration.
Arbitration agreement refers to a written agreement between two parties regarding the referral to an arbitrator of any dispute that may occur or have already occurred between them in the course of the international or domestic commercial exchange they have undertaken. Although the legislation of individual countries and relevant international treaties do not concur completely on the definition of an arbitration agreement, they put forward the same basic requirements regarding the content a valid arbitration agreement should possess. According to current international customs and usage, a valid arbitration agreement at the minimum should indicate:
1. Matters for arbitration;
2. A location for arbitration and an arbitrating agency;
3. Prescribed arbitration procedure;
4. The binding nature of the arbitration judgement.
For example, Article 1 of “The Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law” provides the following as “a model arbitration clause”:
“Any dispute, controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this contract, or the breach, termination or invalidity thereof, shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules as at present in force.
Note - Parties may wish to consider adding:
i. The appointing authority shall be ... (name of institution or person);
ii. The number of arbitrators shall be ... (one or three);
iii. The place of arbitration shall be ... (town or country);
iv. The language(s) to be used in the arbitral proceedings shall be ...”
Similarly, the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission has provided the following “model arbitration clause”:
"Any dispute arising from or in connection with this Contract shall be submitted to China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission for arbitration which shall be conducted in accordance with the Commission's arbitration rules in effect at the time of applying for arbitration. The arbitral award is final and binding upon both parties."
When contrasted with the preceding examples of a “model arbitration clause”, the insurance policy under dispute, while containing a formulation on arbitration, is found to lack any reference to the actual and specific name of an arbitration agency and a prescribed arbitration procedure; likewise, it does not refer to a specific arbitration location, nor does it refer to the binding nature of the arbitrated judgement. For these reasons, the arbitration clauses contained in the insurance policy under dispute should be considered an invalid arbitration agreement that is not contractually binding to either party of the contract.
II. The arbitration clauses contained in the insurance policy currently under dispute also do not conform to relevant regulations in PRC law on arbitration agreement.
The clauses on judicial jurisdiction in the “Detailed List” of the insurance policy currently under dispute all stipulate: the present insurance policy shall be interpreted in accordance to PRC law.
Article 65 of the PRC Arbitration Law provides: “The provisions in this chapter apply to arbitration of disputes arising from foreign economic cooperation and trade, transportation and maritime matters. Matters not covered by this chapter shall be handled according to other relevant provisions of this law.” According to this regulation, with regard to the validity of an arbitration agreement, where the chapter on “Arbitration Involving Foreign Interests” does not contain a relevant stipulation, other relevant provisions of the Arbitration Law should be used.
Article 16, Clause 2 of the Arbitration Law provides:
“An arbitration agreement shall contain the following:
1. The expression of application for arbitration.
2. Matters for arbitration.
3. The arbitration commission chosen.
Article 18 of the Arbitration Law also provides:
“Whereas an agreement for arbitration fails to specify or specify clearly matters concerning arbitration or the choice of arbitration commission, parties concerned may conclude a supplementary agreement. If a supplementary agreement cannot be reached, the agreement for arbitration is invalid.”
According to the aforementioned regulations, PRC law establishes clear and explicit arbitration details and a specified arbitration agency as the basic requirements of a legal and binding arbitration agreement.
According to the provisions of Article 146 of “Opinions on Several Questions Related to the Application of ” by the Supreme People’s Court, when the arbitration agency chosen by the parties in the arbitration clauses or in the agreement does not exist, the People’s Court has the authority to legally hear one party’s claim. Furthermore, in the arbitration clauses contained in the insurance policy currently under dispute, both parties have clearly not chosen or designated an arbitration commission to which disputes shall be submitted for arbitrated judgement; nor have the parties in this dispute ever completed any supplementary agreement regarding the designation of an arbitration agency. For this reason, the arbitration clauses contained in the insurance policy currently under dispute cannot in practice be applied, and do not constitute a legal and binding arbitration agreement as defined by law. Therefore, the High People’s Court of Guangdong, on the basis of “The Arbitration Law” and the aforementioned legal interpretations of the Supreme People’s Court, has just jurisdiction over this dispute and has the authority to hear this dispute in accordance to law.
In consideration of the fact that the arbitration clauses contained in the insurance policy currently under dispute fail to stipulate items such as arbitration agency, arbitration procedures and arbitration location, it does not possess the basic essential elements of a binding arbitration agreement. The Claimant requests that the court reject the Respondent’s unreasonable request regarding objection to jurisdiction, and in accordance to law exercise its legitimate jurisdiction with regard to this case.
Hereby submitted to:
The High People’s Court of Guangdong
Claimant: XXXX Co., Ltd.
Guardian ad litem: ______________________
XX, XX
Date: June X 200X
| Chinese to English: Types of patent licenses and the relevant regulations
Detailed field: Law: Patents, Trademarks, Copyright | Source text - Chinese
中国专利实施许可制度，是中国专利制度的一个重要组成部分。但是，目前中国并无一个专门的部门法来统一规范这一制度，对其规定、要求以及相应的各种规范，散落于中国专利法、合同法以及相关的司法解释中。
根据中国专利法第12条的规定，任何单位或者个人实施他人专利的，应当与专利权人订立书面实施许可合同，向专利权人支付专利使用费。被许可人无权允许合同规定以外的任何单位或者个人实施该专利。
关于专利实施许可合同的种类，最早在1989年3月15日由当时的国家科学技术委员会发布的《中华人民共和国技术合同法实施条例》中规定。在该实施条例的第69条中规定，专利实施许可合同可以采取独占实施许可、排他实施许可、普通实施许可等形式；…。但是，在1999年的合同法中却没有了上述规定，在2000年的专利法中也没有提及，只是在2004年11月30日由最高人民法院通过的《关于审理技术合同纠纷案件适用法律若干问题的解释》中重新进行了规定。根据此司法解释的第25条的规定，专利实施许可合同包括以下方式：（1）独占实施许可合同，是指让与人在约定许可实施专利的范围内，将该专利仅许可一个受让人实施，让与人依约定不得实施该专利；（2）排他实施许可，是指让与人在约定许可实施专利的范围内，将该专利仅许可一个受让人实施，但让与人依约定可以自行实施该专利；（3）普通实施许可，是指让与人在约定许可实施专利的范围内许可他人实施该专利，并且可以自行实施该专利。
| Translation - English
China’s patent licensing system is a key component of the country’s patent system. However, at present there is no special departmental law that unifies or standardizes the licensing system. Instead, the various regulations, requirements and standards governing patent licensing are found scattered within the PRC Patent Law, the PRC Contract Law and various judicial interpretations.
According to Article 12 of the Patent Law, any entity or individual exercising the patent rights of another party shall conclude a written patent license contract with the patentee and pay the patentee a fee for the use of the patent. The licensee may not authorize any entity or individual other than those designated in the contract to use the patent.
The earliest provisions regarding the types of patent license contracts are found in the PRC Technical Contract Implementing Regulations issued by the State Science and Technology Commission on March 15, 1989. Article 69 of the Implementing Regulations stipulates that patent license contracts can adopt various forms of licensing, including exclusive licensing, sole licensing and simple licensing. However, that stipulation is not included in the Contract Law promulgated in 1999, nor is it referred to in the Patent Law promulgated in 2000. It finally reappears in a judicial interpretation by the Supreme People’s Court issued November 30, 2004—Several Interpretations Regarding Applicable Law in the Examination of Technical Contract Disputes. . According to Article 25 of the Interpretations, patent license contracts include the following types: (1) exclusive license contracts, under which the assignor assigns the right to use the patent within the scope of the prescribed patent license exclusively to the assignee and the assignor itself is not entitled to use the patent; (2) sole licensing, under which the assignor assigns the right to use the patent within the scope of the prescribed patent license exclusively to the assignee, except that the assignor itself can continue to use the patent in accordance with the provisions of the contract; (3) simple licensing, under which the licensor and the licensee agree that other licensees, including the licensor, shall also be entitled to use the patent.
|
More Less | | Years of translation experience: 6. Registered at ProZ.com: Jan 2004. | | N/A | | N/A | | N/A | | Adobe Acrobat, Adobe Photoshop, DejaVu, Microsoft Excel, Microsoft Word, SDL TRADOS |  CV/Resume (DOC) | | About me I am a Canadian native-speaker of English with fluent speaking ability in Mandarin and Cantonese. Legal translation accounts for sixty percent of my workload; financial translation accounts for another twenty percent; and general translation accounts for twenty percent.
I have handled projects for several large companies, including Bank of America, Bank of China, and Du Pont. I can supply samples of my work upon request. My standard fee is USD0.07 (HKD0.55) per source character. |
|
Keywords: Chinese, legal, financial, business, native-speaker
Profile last updated
Aug 13, 2009 |
The translation workplace 
Expertise