Starlinger revealed this week that it had taken on copycats in China and won. The packaging machine manufacturer said that it had sued a number of China-based machine manufacturers and their customers, packaging producers, based on infringement of several of its patents. An out-of-court settlement was eventually reached with the case going before both a civil court and a Chinese court specialised in intellectual property. Naturally, Austria-based Starlinger did not say what the settlement involved other than stating that the proceedings had been “...settled with strict obligations for the machine manufacturers.”
It’s unclear how directly the case affected the cement sector. Starlinger did say that the case involved a replica of a proprietary sack conversion line for producing woven plastic sacks. Packaging producers, often in Asia, use Starlinger’s conversion lines to manufacture proprietary block bottom valve sacks made of polypropylene tape fabric for the cement and construction industries, although they are also used for other dry bulk goods such as rice, flour or chemical granulates.
Starlinger’s reasons for going public are interesting given that most companies steer well clear of discussing legal matters openly. In the accompanying press statement Harald Neumüller, the chief strategy officer of Starlinger, used the disclosure to promote his products by saying “Only the best are copied, as the saying goes.” He then went on to underline the company’s strengths in research and development. Yet he also admitted that this was “...little consolation if it has economic consequences for innovative machine manufacturers like us.”
Firstly it should be noted that battles over patents and ideas happen everywhere from time to time. Discussing international copyright theft has become politicised because it plays into the geopolitical rivalry between the US, Europe and China. One US-government commissioned estimate in 2017 reckoned that the US economy was losing US$225 - 600bn/yr due to counterfeit goods, pirated software and theft of trade secrets. This report has been criticised but it gives one an idea of the scale of the concern. However, there are also plenty of prognosticators in the western media who have spent the last two decades warning of a hard landing in the Chinese economy that hasn’t happened.
Bringing this discussion back to cement, following the collapse of the real estate market since 2021, cement output has fallen. Data from the National Bureau of Statistics of China shows that output decreased by 11% year-on-year to 1.33Bnt in the nine months from January to September 2024. This appears to be following a similar decline in local real estate investment. The market is still correcting itself and the government is making gradual changes but there has been no apparent cataclysm so far. China-based equipment suppliers don’t appear to have suffered to the same degree due to their foreign orders.
The standard western narrative is that when European or American companies sold their equipment in China from the 1990s onwards they contended with a rocketing economy and lax intellectual property (IP) enforcement. Such an environment reputedly made it easy for some local companies to copy machinery and sell it more cheaply. At the same time China’s industries legitimately surpassed their competitors leading to criticism about how they did it. Publicly available evidence of this behaviour in the cement sector is limited. One of the few includes action by Haver & Boecker, another packaging machine manufacturer, in the late 2010s. However, anecdotally, the view that IP was stolen in China is prevalent in the west whether it is true or false. No doubt readers will have their own experiences and opinions. None of which would be publishable. The issue has been superseded though as China’s cement sector has become the largest in the world by a considerable margin. The biggest manufacturers of cement plants in the world are now Chinese companies too. They either use their own equipment or buy in western kit depending on what the customer wants. They also own a number of their overseas competitors and more potential acquisitions look likely.
All of this is what makes Starlinger’s admission unusual. It has taken a stand and it may have paid off. At the very least the equipment supplier is wringing publicity out of the affair regardless of how big - or small - the settlement may have been. Others may follow.
