中国法院知识产权司法保护状况（2010年）

前 言

2010年，人民法院在党的坚强领导和人大有力监督下，高举中国特色社会主义伟大旗帜，以邓小平理论和“三个代表”重要思想为指导，深入贯彻落实科学发展观，严格履行宪法和法律赋予的知识产权审判职责，大力推进社会矛盾化解、社会管理创新、公正廉洁执法三项重点工作，积极主动服务大局，深入贯彻实施国家知识产权战略，充分发挥司法保护知识产权的主导作用，不断加强知识产权司法保护，较好地完成了各项知识产权审判任务，为加快经济发展方式转变、建设创新型国家和全面建设小康社会提供了有力的知识产权司法保障。

2010年，中国法院知识产权审判事业又迈上了一个新台阶。

一、依法履行宪法和法律职责，

知识产权案件审判工作有新进展

2010年，人民法院严格依法履行知识产权审判职责，始终坚持以执法办案为第一要务，重视研究知识产权案件呈现的新特点，突出审判重心，创新审判方式，加强监督指导，集中精力审理案件，不断提高知识产权案件审判水平，公正高效审理好各类知识产权案件，司法保护知识产权的主导作用得到进一步发挥。

一年来，人民法院审理的案件覆盖所有的知识产权法律领域，民事审判、行政审判及刑事审判的职能得到全面发挥。知识产权案件总体呈现出以下特点：案件数量不断增多，新类型案件不断增多，重大复杂疑难案件不断增多，涉外案件不断增多，案件审理难度不断加大，社会关注度不断提高等。

知识产权民事审判在知识产权司法保护中的主渠道作用继续发挥。2010年，人民法院以贯彻实施侵权责任法、新修订的专利法及其司法解释、新修订的著作权法、反垄断法等法律为契机，围绕促进自主创新能力和核心竞争力的提高，加强专利保护；围绕促进自主品牌的形成和品牌经济的发展，加强商标权益保护；围绕促进新商业模式的发展和文化创意产业的繁荣，加强著作权的保护；围绕完善市场结构和维护公平竞争，加强竞争案件的审判；围绕营造良好的贸易和投资环境，加强平等保护。人民法院受理的知识产权民事案件继续迅猛增长，司法解决知识产权纠纷的主渠道作用更加明显。全国地方法院共新收和审结知识产权民事一审案件42931件和41718件，比上年增长40.18%和36.74%，新收一审案件诉讼标的总金额达到794801.33万元。其中，新收专利案件5785件，比上年增长30.82%；商标案件8460件，比上年增长22.50%；著作权案件24719件，比上年增长61.54%；技术合同案件670件，比上年下降10.31%；竞争案件1131件（其中垄断民事一审案件33件），比上年下降11.78%；其他知识产权案件1966件，比上年增长14.17%。全年共审结涉外知识产权民事一审案件1369件，比上年增长0.59%；审结涉港澳台知识产权民事一审案件278件，同比上年下降21.25%；审结垄断民事一审案件23件。全年共新收和审结知识产权民事二审案件6522件和6481件，分别比上年增长22.13%和18.01%；再审案件111件和109件，分别比上年增长11%和1.87%。最高人民法院新收和审结知识产权民事案件313件和317件，其中新收申请再审案件198件，审结206件（含旧存），切实维护了全国知识产权司法的统一。

知识产权民事案件的审判质量和效率不断提高。全国地方法院知识产权民事案件一审结案率从2009年的85.04%上升到2010年的86.39%；上诉率从2009年的48.82%上升到2010年的49.65%；再审率从2009年的0.33%下降到2010年的0.27%；上诉案件改判发回重审率从2009年的6.00%下降到2010年的4.57%。全国地方法院知识产权一审民事案件审限内结案率由2009年的97.38%上升到2010年的97.93%。

有效发挥诉前临时措施保护知识产权的独特作用。2010年，人民法院准确把握诉前停止侵权和诉前财产保全的适用条件，依法稳妥地裁定采取措施。全国地方法院依法慎重受理与知识产权有关的诉前临时禁令申请案件，共计55件，裁定支持率89.74%；受理诉前证据保全申请案件294件，裁定支持率97.46%。注意依法积极采取证据保全措施，切实减轻当事人的举证负担。受理诉前财产保全申请案件126件，裁定支持率97.41%。如福建省福州市中级人民法院在涉台知识产权审判中慎用诉前禁令等措施，帮助台湾企业实现“软着陆”，做到“不影响生产、不影响形象、不影响稳定”，产生了良好的社会效果。

人民法院审理的不少案件，不仅涉及错综复杂的具体法律适用问题，还涉及到相关经济、社会和文化领域的价值判断和司法导向问题。这些案件较为典型地反映了当前知识产权案件影响力大、审理难度大、法律适用争议大、社会关注度高等特点。如伊莱利利公司诉江苏豪森药业股份有限公司侵犯发明专利权纠纷案、王群诉上海世博会法国馆侵犯发明专利权纠纷案、程润昌诉龚举东等侵犯实用新型专利权纠纷案、陈建诉富顺万普印务有限公司著作权纠纷案、微软公司诉大众保险股份有限公司侵犯著作财产权纠纷案、（法国）拉科斯特股份有限公司诉（新加坡）鳄鱼国际机构私人有限公司等侵犯商标专用权纠纷案、中国天府可乐集团公司（重庆）诉重庆百事天府饮料有限公司等侵犯技术秘密纠纷案、北京百度网讯科技有限公司诉中国联合网络通信有限公司青岛市分公司等不正当竞争纠纷案、林金山诉福建省农业科学院果树所等植物新品种权属纠纷、华润矽威科技公司诉南京源之峰科技公司侵犯集成电路布图设计专有权纠纷案等。

知识产权行政审判支持和监督依法行政的功能得到进一步强化。2010年，知识产权行政一审收结案数大幅上升，主要集中在商标行政案件。全国地方法院新收一审知识产权行政案件2590件，同比上升25%；审结2391件，同比上升21.31%。其中，新收专利案件551件，同比下降17.51%；商标案件2026件，同比上升47.23%；著作权案件2件，同比下降50%；其他案件11件。最高人民法院新收和审结知识产权行政案件60件和56件。商标行政案件上升的主要原因是申请商标评审委员会评审案件大幅上升、评审案件起诉率升高以及商标评审委员会集中清理积压案件等。在审结的案件中，维持1776件，占74.28%；撤销330件，占13.80%；撤诉162件，占6.78%；驳回诉讼请求87件，占3.64%；驳回起诉30件；移送4件，以其他方式结案1件。

一审涉外、涉港澳台知识产权行政案件大幅上升，共计1004件，占知识产权行政一审结案的41.99%。其中，审结涉外知识产权行政一审案件815件，涉港案件98件，涉澳案件11件，涉台案件80件。

二审知识产权行政案件数量增幅较大。全国法院新收知识产权行政二审案件394件，审结240件，其中维持原裁判206件，改判20件，发回重审1件，撤诉9件，驳回4件。产生较大社会影响的案件有日本本田技研株式会社与国家知识产权局专利复审委员会、石家庄双环汽车股份有限公司等外观设计专利权无效行政纠纷案、山西杏花村汾酒厂股份有限公司与国家工商行政管理总局商标评审委员会、第三人安徽杏花村集团有限公司“杏花村”商标异议复审行政纠纷案等。

知识产权刑事审判惩治和震慑犯罪的功能得到进一步发挥。2010年，一审知识产权刑事案件增幅较大，全国法院新收一审案件3992件，同比上升9.58%。其中侵犯知识产权罪1294件（假冒注册商标等侵犯注册商标案件1153件），同比上升26.99%；生产、销售伪劣商品罪案件中涉及侵犯知识产权的596件，同比下降6.73%；非法经营罪案件中涉及侵犯知识产权的2078件，同比上升6.62%；其他案件24件。

全国法院共审结涉及知识产权侵权的一审刑事案件3942件，同比上升7.7%；判决发生法律效力6001人，其中有罪判决6000人。在审结案件中，以侵犯知识产权犯罪判决的案件1254件，生效判决人数1966人，同比分别上升24.53%和22.49%；以生产、销售伪劣商品犯罪（涉及侵犯知识产权）判处案件609件，生效判决人数926人；以非法经营罪（涉及侵犯知识产权）判处的案件2054件，生效判决人数3068人；以其他犯罪判处的涉及侵犯知识产权的案件25件，生效判决人数41人。在以侵犯知识产权犯罪判决的案件中，以假冒注册商标罪判决的案件585件，生效判决人数1028人；以销售假冒注册商标的商品罪判决的案件345件，生效判决人数459人；以非法制造、销售非法制造的注册商标标识罪判决的案件182件，生效判决人数253人；以假冒专利罪判决的案件2件，生效判决人数3人；以侵犯著作权罪判决的案件85件，生效判决人数142人；以销售侵权复制品罪判决的案件5件，生效判决人数10人；以侵犯商业秘密罪判决的案件50件，生效判决人数71人。其中刘兆龙假冒注册商标罪等案件引起社会的普遍关注。

强化案件调解，注重矛盾化解。人民法院认真执行最高人民法院下发的《关于进一步贯彻“调解优先、调判结合”工作原则的若干意见》。在案件审理中，坚持合法自愿原则，对依照法律可以调解、根据案情能够调解、调解处理效果更好的案件，首先选择调解方式解决纠纷。注重规范调解工作，正确处理调判关系，对不宜调解以及调解不成的，及时依法作出裁判。坚持在拓展调解领域、规范司法调解程序、注重调解质量和提高调解效率上下功夫。

2010年，人民法院知识产权诉讼调解工作朝制度化、规范化、理性化方向发展，诉讼调解工作上了一个新的水平。全国知识产权民事一审案件平均调解撤诉率达到66.76%，同比上升5.68个百分点。最高人民法院成功调撤知识产权疑难案件24起。如法国拜尔农科股份公司诉安徽华星化工股份有限公司涉外专利侵权案、西安强生公司与上海强生公司商标侵权纠纷案等，这些案件的成功调解不仅使当事人满意，而且在社会上产生了非常好的反响。上海、天津等地高级人民法院出台了进一步加强知识产权民事纠纷调解的指导性意见。广东、河北、四川、河南、广西、贵州等地省高级人民法院以及北京市第二中级人民法院、福建省福州市中级人民法院等不断探索和总结出了一整套规范化的调解方法。

以公开促公正，以公正赢公信。人民法院坚持“阳光司法”，通过公开确保公正。进一步明确立案、庭审、执行、听证、文书、审务六个方面必须公开的内容、程序和方法，创造性地通过新闻发布会制度、法院开放日活动、网络直播等多种方式提高知识产权审判的透明度，促进了知识产权审判的公正，规范了知识产权司法自由裁量权的行使，赢得了知识产权司法的公信力，真正做到“阳光司法”。最高人民法院在“12·4”公众开放日首次选定旁听知识产权案件庭审。湖南省法院系统建立人大代表旁听庭审和庭审网络直播长效机制，定期邀请人大代表旁听知识产权案件庭审。辽宁省法院系统普遍配备了信息化、智能化程度较高的知识产权审判法庭，将庭审互联网直播进行常态化管理。福建、云南等地高级人民法院以及福州、昆明等地中级人民法院通过网络直播让更广泛的民众能够及时了解知识产权案件的庭审情况。

推出知识产权保护白皮书制度，全面展示人民法院知识产权司法审判工作。2010年4月，最高人民法院首度发布《中国法院知识产权司法保护状况（2009年）》白皮书（中英文），在对改革开放30年以来的知识产权司法保护工作进行简要介绍的同时，全面回顾总结了人民法院2009年的知识产权司法保护工作，充分展示了中国法院知识产权司法保护所取得的成就，彰显了中国对知识产权进行保护的决心和信心。这是最高人民法院首次以白皮书的形式向国内外全面公开介绍人民法院知识产权司法保护状况，是人民法院进一步贯彻落实国家知识产权战略和加强知识产权司法保护工作的重要举措。天津、重庆、山东、广西、四川、甘肃、河北等地高级人民法院发布2009年度知识产权保护白皮书，江苏省高级人民法院发布2009年度知识产权司法保护蓝皮书，这些白皮书（蓝皮书）的公布对当地的知识产权审判情况进行了全面系统的介绍，让全社会了解知识产权审判，接受社会的检验和监督，确保知识产权司法的公平正义。

最高人民法院在继续办好“中国知识产权裁判文书网”的同时，“知识产权司法保护子网站”在最高人民法院官方网站上正式开通，这两个网站成为人民法院司法保护知识产权成果的权威信息发布平台。通过这两个网站，社会公众可以及时了解和掌握人民法院知识产权司法保护的动态和信息。截至2010年底，已经有41696份生效知识产权裁判文书通过“中国知识产权裁判文书网”公开。各地法院继续通过地方法院网及时公开各类知识产权审判工作信息。

二、关注经济社会发展的知识产权司法需求，

贯彻实施国家知识产权战略有新突破

2010年，人民法院始终坚持能动司法理念，找准知识产权审判工作服务经济社会发展大局的切入点，紧紧围绕国家关于加快经济发展方式转变和保持经济平稳较快发展的战略部署，继续深入贯彻实施国家知识产权战略，为促进经济社会又好又快发展提供坚强有力的知识产权司法保障。

始终坚持知识产权能动司法理念，积极服务国际国内大局。党的十七大提出加快经济发展方式转变的重大战略任务之后，2010年7月，最高人民法院发布《关于为加快经济发展方式转变提供司法保障和服务的若干意见》。该《意见》明确提出要妥善审理各类知识产权案件，保障和服务推动自主创新，加强对重点领域知识产权的司法保护，促进战略性产业发展，促进自主品牌的形成和品牌经济的发展，维护企业的核心竞争力，维护公平竞争的市场秩序，促进文化创新，繁荣文化市场等。

2010年2月，为积极应对后国际金融危机时期知识产权审判出现的新情况、新挑战，最高人民法院组织召开“后国际金融危机时期知识产权司法保护研讨会”，深入研究如何充分发挥知识产权审判职能，减弱和化解国际金融危机给我国经济社会带来的不利影响。4月，为贯彻落实党中央关于深入推进三项重点工作的决策部署和全国高级法院院长会议精神，最高人民法院在河南洛阳召开全国法院知识产权审判工作座谈会，认真研究部署新形势下的知识产权审判工作，明确新形势下知识产权审判的主要任务和工作措施。会后，全国各高级人民法院结合当地工作实际，迅速召开会议部署贯彻落实会议精神。

为确保上海世博会、广州亚运会和亚残运会等国家重大活动的顺利开展，人民法院积极主动为这些重大活动提供知识产权司法保障和服务。最高人民法院组成专门调研组，赴上海市高级人民法院和上海世博会事务协调局就世博知识产权司法保护问题进行调研，指导相关地方法院妥善审理相关知识产权案件。上海市高级人民法院出台了专门的关于审理涉世博知识产权案件适用法律的指导意见，明确涉世博知识产权纠纷的法律适用标准，制定了知识产权审判服务保障世博工作方案。广州市中级人民法院与亚组委及其法律顾问单位举办“加强亚运会知识产权保护座谈会”，全面了解亚运会知识产权保护的司法需求，并就加强亚运会知识产权保护提出司法建议。

人民法院积极响应国务院组织的“打击侵犯知识产权和制售假冒伪劣商品”专项行动，加大打击侵犯知识产权犯罪的力度。加强与检察、公安、工商、版权、海关等部门的合作，形成合力，共同促进中国知识产权事业又好又快发展。积极开展知识产权司法建议工作，为其他部门更好地落实国家知识产权战略提供参考。如山东、湖南等地高级人民法院针对网络环境下公证保全证据的司法建议。广东省高级人民法院在审判中发现一些外国企业有将知识产权作为遏制竞争的商业工具，打压、遏制中国同业竞争者的现象，向相关单位发出司法建议，提出应加强知识产权预警机制建设，建立知识产权涉外应对和维权援助机制。山东省高级人民法院就知识产权审判工作如何保障和服务经济发展方式转变提出了具体意见，明确知识产权司法保护的定位及重点领域。四川省高级人民法院出台专门意见，指导全省知识产权司法工作紧密围绕加快经济发展方式转变开展。

积极推动知识产权领域的司法改革，知识产权审判体制和工作机制进一步完善。人民法院不断强化知识产权司法改革意识，继续抓好国家知识产权战略关于人民法院工作的贯彻落实，积极推动知识产权审判体制和工作机制的改革和完善，知识产权审判体系进一步优化。

稳步推进由人民法院的知识产权审判庭统一受理知识产权民事、行政和刑事案件（即“三审合一”）的试点工作。2010年7月，最高人民法院在江苏省昆山市召开“知识产权审判庭集中审理知识产权民事、行政和刑事案件试点工作座谈会”，来自中央有关部门和部分开展“三审合一”试点法院的代表参加了会议。最高人民法院新增批准福州市中级人民法院、厦门市中级人民法院、深圳市、佛山市、中山市两级人民法院以及福州市鼓楼区人民法院、厦门市思明区人民法院开展“三审合一”试点工作。截至2010年12月底，全国已有5个高级法院、49个中级法院和42个基层法院开展了相关试点。

继续完善知识产权案件管辖布局，进一步优化审判资源配置。2010年1月，最高人民法院发布《关于调整地方各级人民法院管辖第一审知识产权民事案件标准的通知》和《关于印发基层人民法院管辖第一审知识产权民事案件标准的通知》，全面调整和统一明确了各级法院知识产权民事案件级别管辖标准。在严格控制技术类案件和驰名商标案件管辖权法院的同时，适当增加管辖一般知识产权案件的基层法院，鼓励中、基层法院开展跨地区划片集中管辖，探索指定部分基层法院管辖部分专利案件。最高人民法院批复同意江苏省昆山市人民法院开展试点审理实用新型和外观设计专利纠纷案件。至此，已有两个基层人民法院开展了审理实用新型和外观设计专利纠纷案件的试点工作。截至2010年12月底，具有专利、植物新品种、集成电路布图设计案件和涉及驰名商标认定案件管辖权的中级人民法院分别为76个、44个、46个和41个，具有一般知识产权案件管辖权的基层法院达到101个。

相关地方法院根据司法改革的精神，结合当地的实际，制定细化方案，切实抓好民事、行政、刑事案件“三审合一”试点工作以及审判工作。如浙江、内蒙古等地高级人民法院加强与检察院、公安厅协调，就知识产权审判“三审合一”试点工作中刑事司法保护问题出台相关指导性意见，确保试点工作顺利进行。

加强知识产权审判制度创新，努力提高知识产权司法水平。针对知识产权案件技术性、专业性强的特点，最高人民法院始终重视建立和完善司法鉴定、专家证人、技术调查等相关诉讼制度，同时鼓励与指导有条件的法院在专利等技术性案件审判中积极探索开展技术调查的有效方式和具体做法。

2010年4月，最高人民法院与中国科学技术协会联合签署知识产权司法保护合作备忘录，为最高人民法院和中国科学技术协会在知识产权司法保护领域加强合作提供了长期稳定的操作平台，建立最高人民法院特邀科学技术咨询专家库，袁隆平、钟南山等11位两院院士受聘担任最高人民法院科学技术咨询专家。最高人民法院注重发挥科技专家在提供知识产权司法保护宏观政策咨询、提供案件科技专业问题的智力支持和协调解决知识产权纠纷的作用。该项措施作为大力推进知识产权审判改革的一项重大举措，标志着人民法院在完善知识产权纠纷解决机制、提高知识产权司法保护水平方面又上了一个新台阶。上海、江苏、青海、河北、浙江、广西、山西等地高级人民法院积极探索建立和完善案件技术事实查明机制，建立技术专家咨询库，试行专家陪审员和专家证人制度，这些机制和制度的建立在解决专业技术难题方面发挥了重要作用，提高了知识产权案件的审判质量。厦门市中级人民法院尝试建立知识产权审判的保密令制度，较好地解决了诉讼中商业秘密保护问题，解除当事人维权的后顾之忧。

加大知识产权司法保护宣传力度，打造“4·26”世界知识产权日宣传周平台。人民法院以“4·26”世界知识产权日为契机，努力打造“4·26”世界知识产权日宣传周平台，采取切实可行的方式，立体、多视角地广泛宣传我国知识产权司法保护所取得的成就，充分展示知识产权法官的风采，努力树立中国知识产权司法保护的良好形象。2010年“4·26”世界知识产权日宣传周期间，最高人民法院召开了新闻发布会，首度发布了《中国法院知识产权司法保护状况（2009年）》白皮书（中英文），发布了2009年中国法院知识产权司法保护10大案例和50件典型案例、《最高人民法院知识产权案件年度报告（2009）》、《最高人民法院关于审理商标授权确权行政案件若干问题的意见》等重要知识产权司法文件，与中国科学技术协会联合签署知识产权司法保护合作备忘录等。全国地方法院也都根据最高人民法院的要求，在宣传的广度和深度上狠下功夫，既注重宣传的内容，又注重宣传的形式，既重视发挥传统宣传方式的作用，又注意新型宣传方式的利用，既发挥中央媒体的作用，也发挥地方和国外媒体的作用，充分利用报纸、电视台、电台、广播、网站、书刊、标语等载体，组织法官大力宣传知识产权司法保护的重大意义、司法政策和所取得的新成就，对于社会公众提高知识产权意识起到了积极的作用。江苏省法院系统成功举办了江苏知识产权专业化审判十五周年纪念大会暨知识产权保护与利益平衡研讨会，出版《创新与发展——江苏法院知识产权审判十五年成果集》、《辉煌的历程美好的未来纪念画册》。浙江省高级人民法院召开知识产权新闻发布会，回答了来自40家境内外新闻媒体中外记者的提问。湖北省高级人民法院与《科技与法律》媒体合作，开辟宣传司法保护知识产权专栏。新疆生产建设兵团分院在活动期间，发放知识产权知识问答卷6000份，展出展板60多块。海南、西藏等地法院也都采取各种方式，广泛宣传人民法院知识产权保护的成就。

加强知识产权国际交流与合作，提升中国知识产权司法保护的国际影响力。2010年，在国际经济一体化、国际知识产权保护制度国际化进程不断加快的大背景下，人民法院牢固树立国际眼光，加强知识产权国际交流与合作，不断提高知识产权审判水平，注重提升中国知识产权司法保护的良好国际形象。通过外事活动，积极回应外方的关注，澄清有关误解，宣传我国知识产权保护成就，维护国际形象。最高人民法院派员参加中欧知识产权工作组会议、中美商贸联委会知识产权工作组会议、中瑞知识产权工作组会议，积极参加中欧知识产权项目二期的有关活动，全面展示我国保护知识产权取得的成果，表明中国对知识产权司法保护的立场和决心，维护国家利益。人民法院继续通过中美、中欧、中瑞（士）、中俄、中日、中巴等之间的对话及专门的知识产权工作组机制和日本知识产权官民联合访华团等渠道，加强经贸领域的知识产权交流与合作。最高人民法院知识产权法官共接待日本、美国等高层代表团近百人来访，同时在全国法院系统范围内根据工作需要组织优秀法官对美国、日本、欧洲等国进行考察访问，选派法官前往这些国家进行培训和交流。浙江省高级人民法院接待了美国知识产权法律协会成员和美国联邦巡回上诉法院法官，与他们就感兴趣的知识产权司法保护进行了深入交流。

三、统一知识产权法律适用尺度，

审判监督和业务指导有新推进

法律适用统一是法律面前人人平等的内在要求，是司法公正和权威的必然体现，是法治国家的根本特征。2010年，人民法院始终高度重视知识产权法律适用的统一，抓准影响裁判公正和司法标准统一的突出问题，不断创新和加强审判管理，进一步健全审判监督和业务指导的工作机制和制度，切实维护知识产权司法公正和统一。

加强知识产权司法政策调控，规范知识产权审判裁量权行使。最高人民法院根据各类知识产权的不同特点和保护需求，明确了分门别类、区别对待和宽严适度的宏观司法政策，进一步明晰和细化知识产权案件的司法政策并通过各种方式保障知识产权案件司法政策的贯彻和落实，有效地发挥了司法政策的宏观调控作用，推进了知识产权审判工作的规范化和统一性。

2010年4月，最高人民法院发布《最高人民法院关于审理商标授权确权行政案件若干问题的意见》。这是最高人民法院首次以规范性文件的方式，对商标授权确权行政案件的若干司法审查标准提出指导性意见。该意见明确了相关法律界限，统一了司法标准，对于人民法院正确履行司法审查职责和规范商标授权确权行为，具有重要意义。同年11月，最高人民法院发布《关于做好涉及网吧著作权纠纷案件审判工作的通知》。该通知针对涉及网吧著作权纠纷案件中存在的突出问题，及时明确了该类案件的审理原则和具体标准，对依法保护当事人的著作权，有效制止侵权行为，促进信息传播和规范传播秩序，推动相关互联网文化产业健康发展发挥了重要作用。

积极探索知识产权案例指导制度，及时发布知识产权典型案例。人民法院始终高度重视典型案例在知识产权审判中的重要示范作用，将典型案例的挑选和推广作为一项重要工作，努力加强案例指导工作的规范化、制度化和长效化建设。2010年4月，最高人民法院发布《最高人民法院知识产权案件年度报告（2009）》。在对2009年最高人民法院审结的已有最终结论性意见的典型知识产权案件进行系统梳理的基础上，挑选出其中的37件典型案例，总结出典型案例裁判文书中已经明确的44个典型法律适用问题，以年度报告的形式向社会集中公布。发布年度报告，是最高人民法院对自身审理的典型案件的集中展示，是创新审判指导方式的探索和尝试，也是推进司法公开、接受各界监督的重大举措。发布2009年度全国法院知识产权司法保护10大案件和50个典型案例，充分发挥案例示范效应。10大案件和50件典型案例覆盖了知识产权民事、行政和刑事三大诉讼领域，包含了专利权、植物新品种权、著作权、商标权及不正当竞争等几乎全部知识产权案件类型。这些典型案件生动地向社会展现了人民法院加大知识产权司法保护力度、维护权利人合法利益、合理确定权利界限的职能作用，有助于社会公众提高知识产权法治观念，推动了自主创新和诚信守法的竞争文化的形成。全国各地法院通过不同形式评选出当地的知识产权典型案例和优秀案例，天津、重庆、山东、安徽、福建、湖南、四川、黑龙江等地省高级人民法院公布当地的十大典型案例。广西壮族自治区高级人民法院建立了典型案例指导制度。陕西省西安市中级人民法院发布了知识产权司法保护经典案例。

加强知识产权审判专题调研，注重提高知识产权司法解释和司法解释性文件的质量。人民法院牢固树立“以调研促审判”理念，高度重视知识产权审判调研工作，为出台高质量的司法解释和司法解释性文件奠定坚实基础。通过召开专题研讨会、请专家讲课、举办法官论坛、实地考察、撰写调研报告、出版书籍等形式不断提高调研的水平，注重成果转换。2010年，最高人民法院组织全国相关法院有针对性地开展了广泛的专题调研活动，及时有效地研究解决了司法实践出现的突出问题，加强了对新类型案件适用法律问题的调查研究。重点开展了网络环境下著作权司法保护、专利授权确权案件审理标准、商标授权确权案件的调研、未经行政许可的境外作品的著作权保护问题、网吧的著作权侵权问题、商业秘密司法保护、“十二五”期间知识产权司法保护制度研究、审理垄断民事纠纷案件适用法律问题、知识产权行政审判中的法律适用问题、探索建立知识产权上诉法院相关问题等多项调研，通过调研活动充分了解和掌握了知识产权领域的司法现状和动态，形成了丰富的调研成果，在调研充分成熟的基础上适时出台知识产权司法解释和司法解释性文件。其中对未经行政许可的境外作品的著作权保护问题、网吧的著作权侵权问题以及商标授权确权案件审理标准在调研的基础上及时提出了专门性的审判指导意见。各地法院也形成了一批有审判指导价值的调研成果。经过多年的养成，注重研究和加强学习已经成为知识产权法官的职业素养。知识产权审判理论专业委员会与其他部门共同主办“纪念《著作权法》颁布20周年暨著作权保护基础理论研讨会”，编辑出版《中国知识产权审判理论研究》（第二辑）。北京市高级人民法院出版《知识产权经典案例》（第5、6卷）及《网络著作权经典案例》三部专著。

拓宽知识产权审判业务指导途径，切实履行知识产权审判业务指导职责。2010年，上级人民法院不断拓宽知识产权审判业务指导途径，通过制定司法解释、发布司法文件、出台指导性意见、开展专项调研、召开专业会议、进行专题培训、创办内部刊物、发布指导性案例等多种形式，切实担负起了对下级人民法院进行知识产权审判业务指导的职责，统一了知识产权司法裁判尺度，规范了知识产权自由裁量权的行使，确保了知识产权司法公正。最高人民法院总结申请再审案件的审判经验，归纳全国法院在审判中出现的问题，就重点问题有针对性地加强对下指导。对类似案件进行研究协调，指导相关法院正确适用法律。对驰名商标司法认定进行专项规范，深入开展认定驰名商标案件的评查，驰名商标司法保护步入规范化轨道。上海市高级人民法院制定知识产权侵权纠纷中适用法定赔偿方法确定赔偿数额的指导性司法文件，明确适用法定赔偿方法的若干基本原则。吉林省高级人民法院组织优秀知识产权审判法官到全省各中级人民法院举办巡回讲座。湖南、宁夏等地高级人民法院建立系列案协调解决机制。山西省高级人民法院建立和完善上下级法院的联系报告制度。天津市高级人民法院编辑《2005—2009年天津知识产权审判大事记》以及《天津法院知识产权审判》。黑龙江、山西、甘肃等地高级人民法院编写了知识产权审判指导等方面的书籍。

四、加强知识产权法官队伍建设，

知识产权法官队伍整体素质有新提高

队伍建设始终是人民法院工作的根本。2010年，人民法院紧密结合知识产权审判工作实际，创新和加强审判管理，加强知识产权法官队伍建设，深入开展“人民法官为人民”主题实践活动，大力培养广大知识产权法官“公正、廉洁、为民”的司法核心价值观，努力建设一支政治坚定、业务过硬、一心为民、公正廉洁的高素质知识产权法官队伍。

始终注重在提升知识产权司法能力上下功夫。不断提高法官队伍的司法能力是保障社会公平正义的必然要求。2010年，人民法院一如既往地将业务学习和培训作为提升知识产权法官队伍司法能力的重要工作抓紧抓好，注重对法官专业知识和审判技巧的提升，深入开展学习型审判庭建设，加强审判管理，完善健全学习和培训制度，注重培养一批专业型、专家型法官。切实将基层基础建设尤其是基层法院的知识产权审判基础建设作为一项紧迫的工作任务抓紧抓好，在业务培训中，除了最高人民法院采取举办会议研讨和培训班等措施以外，高、中级人民法院也担负起了业务培训的责任，创新专业法官培养方式，增强业务培训的针对性和实效性，采取集中培训、上下对口交流、庭审观摩、案件评查等各种形式加强审判指导工作。知识产权法官不断加强自我学习，不仅注重学习知识产权法律新知识，上级法院的司法文件和典型案件裁判，还注重学习科技基础知识。不少法院特别是案件压力较大的法院，注意将具有理工专业知识背景的人员充实到知识产权审判队伍中。最高人民法院在国家法官学院举办了两期全国法院知识产权审判实务培训班，近200名知识产权法官参加了培训。不少法院组织开展各种形式的岗位标兵、办案能手评选活动。江西、青海等中西部地区法院组织法官到东部发达地区观摩学习、跟班学习。上海、湖南、广东等地高级人民法院与国家知识产权局专利复审委员会等知识产权专门机构建立人员长期交流机制。重庆、山东、广东、河北、新疆、内蒙古、广西、辽宁等地省高级人民法院通过各种形式加强对法官的培训。

始终注重在改进知识产权司法作风上下功夫。作风就是形象，作风就是公信力。2010年，人民法院继续深入推进司法作风建设，开展群众观点教育，树立司法为民宗旨，增强知识产权法官的群众观念和意识，保持优良作风。组织开展知识产权法官进社区、进企业、进学校、进团体等活动，充分听取知识界、新兴产业界、企业界、社会团体以及人民群众关于改进知识产权司法保护工作的意见和建议，密切同人民群众的联系。山东、江苏、辽宁、四川、内蒙古、贵州、黑龙江等地省高级人民法院加强与企业联系，了解行业发展的情况，提高企业保护自身知识产权的意识。江西省萍乡市中级人民法院成立知识产权援助中心，为企事业单位和个人提供免费的咨询、建议等服务。天津市和平区人民法院在和平区六号院文化创意产业园区内创建巡回法庭。广大知识产权法官努力树立公正、廉洁、为民的司法核心价值观，不断提高自身的职业道德水平，切实履行好最高人民法院公布的《法官职业道德基本准则》、《法官行为规范》、《人民法院文明用语基本规范》。充分发挥先进典型示范作用，深入学习“群众信服的好法官”陈燕萍、“时代先锋”全国优秀法官龙进品等先进典型。北京市高级人民法院知识产权庭被世界知识产权组织授予“世界知识产权组织版权金奖”。上海市高级人民法院知识产权审判庭荣获“世博会知识产权保护专项行动先进集体”称号。

始终注重在促进知识产权司法廉洁上下功夫。司法廉洁是司法公正的职业道德保障，事关人民司法事业兴衰成败。2010年，人民法院继续强化知识产权法官队伍的廉政建设，制度监督和道德约束并重。进一步强化司法廉洁教育，采取更加有效的形式，避免机械说教，集中开展警示教育，增强拒腐防变意识。严格落实“五个严禁”及各项反腐倡廉制度，铲除滋生腐败的土壤。最高人民法院指导地方各级人民法院进一步增强自觉接受监督的意识，强化监督制约，积极完善监督制约机制，努力促进司法公正廉洁，不断提高司法公信力。

结束语

2011年是国家实施“十二五”规划的开局之年，人民法院将在迎接挑战中紧紧抓住知识产权司法保护事业的重要战略发展机遇。人民法院将始终以邓小平理论和“三个代表”重要思想为指导，牢牢抓住科学发展这个主题，紧紧围绕加快转变经济发展方式这条主线，突出执法办案这个重点，强化队伍建设这个根本，继续深入推进三项重点工作，依法独立公正行使知识产权审判权，深入开展“发扬传统、坚定信念、执法为民”主题教育实践活动，努力推动知识产权审判事业再上新台阶，为促进自主创新能力和国家核心竞争力的提高提供更加有力的知识产权司法保障！

Intellectual Property Protection

by Chinese Courts in 2010

Introduction

In 2010, the people’s courts have, under strong party leadership and effective supervision of the people’s congresses, upheld the great cause of socialism with Chinese characteristics, observed the tenets of the Deng Xiaoping Theory and the “Three Represents” and adhered to the scientific development approach, and have discharged their duty of intellectual property adjudication as mandated by the Constitution and the law to achieve the Three Key Tasks of social conflict resolution, development of innovative social administration practices, and fair and honest enforcement of law, so as to serve the greater needs of the country, carry through the National Intellectual Property Strategy and leverage the justice system as a leading force in creating a more effective intellectual property regime, and have, as a result, accomplished their intellectual property adjudication duties and effectively provided judicial protection for intellectual property to accelerate remodelling of economic development, reinvent our country and build a moderately prosperous society in an all-round way.

In 2010, intellectual property adjudication in China has reached another new ground.

I.　  The courts have executed constitutional and legal duties, and have taken intellectual property adjudication to new heights

In 2010, the people’s courts have conducted intellectual property adjudication according to law, and have placed foremost priority on law enforcement and adjudication, and focused on studying new peculiarities in intellectual property cases. The courts have also concentrated on the key adjudication priorities, employed innovative adjudication methods; strengthened supervision and guidance; and devoted more time and effort to adjudication. As a result, adjudication quality has improved, intellectual property cases were adjudicated fairly and efficiently, and the judicial protection was further established as a leading force in protecting intellectual property rights.

During the past year, the people’s courts have handled cases spanning all aspects of intellectual property law, from civil, to administrative and criminal cases. Overall, there was increase in intellectual property disputes, variety of cases, level of difficulty, seriousness of impact, and the number of foreign-related cases. These have presented greater challenge for adjudication, and have elicited greater concern from the society at large.

Civil litigation continues to be the primary channel of resolution of intellectual property disputes.

In 2010, the people’s courts have relied on the Tort Liability Law, the revised Patent Law and its judicial interpretation, the revised Copyright Law and Anti-Monopoly Law to strengthen patent protection for indigenous innovation and improvement of core competitiveness; strengthen trademark protection for native brand building and development of the brand economy; strengthen copyright protection for development of new business models and the cultural and creative industries; strengthen adjudication of competition cases for better market structure and fairer competition; and strengthen equal protection for a trade- and investment-conducive environment. The substantial increase in intellectual property caseload shows that the courts have increasingly become the primary channel for resolution of intellectual property disputes.

Total new IP-related first instance civil cases admitted and closed by local courts were 42,931 and 41,718 cases respectively, and the respective year on year increases were 40.18% and 36.74%. Total disputed value for new first-instance cases was 7,948,013,300 yuan. Of these cases, 5,785 were patent-related, year-on-year increase was 30.82%; 8,460 were trademark-related, year-on-year increase was 22.50%; 24,719 were copyright-related, year-on-year increase was 61.54%; 670 were technology contract-related, year-on-year decrease was 10.31%; 1,131 was competition-related (33 were monopoly-related civil disputes), year-on-year decrease was 11.78%; 1,966 were other IP cases, year-on-year increase was 14.17%. For IP-related civil cases involving a foreign party, total number of closed cases was 1,369 in 2010, 0.59% more than last year; for those involving a Hong Kong, Macao or Taiwan party, the number was 278, 21.25% fewer than last year. Concluded monopoly-related first instance civil cases totalled 23 cases. Newly admitted and closed intellectual property cases of second instance for the year were 6,522 and 6,481 respectively, and the respective year-on-year increases were 22.13% and 18.01%. For closed but reopened (zaishen) cases, 111 were admitted and 109 were closed, higher than last year by 11% and 1.87% respectively. At the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) level, 313 cases were newly admitted and 317 cases concluded, of which newly admitted cases of application for zaishen were 198, and 206 (including carried over cases) were concluded. The SPC have indeed ensured consistency in the judicial protection of intellectual property.

Adjudication quality and efficiency has continued to improve. Clearance rate of IP-related civil cases at first instance in all local courts rose from 85.04% in 2009 to 86.39% in 2010; appeals rose from 48.82% in 2009 to 49.65% in 2010; zaishen rate fell from 0.33% in 2009 to 0.27% in 2010; cases remanded for retrial (chongshen) and reversal of decisions at appeal also fell from 6% in 2009 to 4.57% in 2010. Clearance rate of IP-related civil cases in trial time limit by the local courts increased from 97.38% in 2009 to 97.93% in 2010. 

The courts have actively relied on the special function of provisional measures to protect intellectual property rights. In 2010, the people’s courts have appropriately orderedpre-trial preliminary injunction and pre-trial preservation of evidence according to law. A total of 55 applications for pre-trial preliminary injunction in IP-related cases were admitted by local courts, 89.74% were approved; 294 applications for pre-trial preservation of evidence were admitted, 97.46% were approved; 126 applications for pre-trial preservation of property were admitted, 97.41% were approved. For example, prudence use of pre-trial preliminary injunction by the Fujian Province Intermediate People’s Court had enabled “soft-landing” of Taiwan enterprises, such that dispute resolution has little or no negative impact on production, or company image, or stability; instead, produced positive social impact.

The people’s courts have handled cases that are not only complex in application of law, but also involved value judgements and judicial philosophies relating to each economic, social or cultural sector.

These cases reflected the characteristics of intellectual property cases, i.e. large impact, difficult to adjudicate, controversial application of law and close public attention. Typical cases include the invention patent infringement case of Eli Lilly and Company (U.S.) v. Jiangsu Haosen Pharmaceutical Company, the invention patent dispute in Wang Qun v. French Pavilion for the 2010 Expo, the utility patent infringement case of Cheng Runcang v. Gong Judong etc., the copyright dispute in Chen Jian v. Wanpu (Fushun) Printing Co., Ltd, the copyright infringement case of Microsoft v. Dazhong Insurance Company Ltd, the exclusive trademark right infringement case of La Chemise Lacoste v. Crocodile International (Singapore) Pte Ltd, technical trade secret infringement in the case of Tianfu Cola Group Corp. v. Chongqing Pepsi-Tianfu Beverage Co., Ltd, unfair competition dispute in the case of Beijing Baidu Netcom Science and Technology Co., Ltd. v. Qingdao Branch of China United Network Communications etc, dispute on ownership of new plant variety in the case of Lin Jinshan v. Fruit Tree Research Institute, Fujian Provincial Agricultural Science Academy, and the case on infringement of exclusive right to layout-designs of integrated circuits in Huarun Xiwei Science and Technology, Ltd v. Peaktek Technology Limited (Nanjing).

The courts have strengthened support and supervision of governance by law through adjudication of cases involving administrative authorities.

In 2010, the number of IP-related administrative cases concluded at first instance increased substantially. Most of such cases were trademark-related. Total IP-related first instance administrative cases newly admitted at the local courts were 2,590 in 2010, 25% more than last year; 2,391 cases were closed, 21.31% more than last year. Of these cases, 551 were newly admitted patent-related cases, where year-on-year decrease was 17.51%; 2,026 were trademark-related, year-on-year increase 47.23%; and 2 were copyright-related, year-on-year decrease 50%. At the SPC level, newly admitted IP-related administrative cases totalled 60, and concluded cases were 56. The reasons for such increase were more applications for review by the Trademark Review Board (TRAB), higher litigation rate among the reviewed cases, and high clearance rate of carried over cases by the TRAB. Of the disposed cases, review decisions were upheld in 1,776 or 74.28% of the cases; 330 cases or 13.80% revoked; 162 cases or 6.78% withdrawn; the claims of 87 cases or 3.64% were dismissed; judicial review application of 30 cases were dismissed; 4 cases were transferred; and 1 case was disposed of through other methods.　 

There was substantial increase in the number of first instance cases involving a foreign party or a Hong Kong, Macao or Taiwan party. The cases totalled at 1,004, representing 41.99% of first instance IP-related administrative cases concluded; 815 of such cases involved foreign parties; 98 Hong Kong parties; 11 Macao parties; and 80 Taiwan parties.

The number of second instance IP-related administrative cases has also increased substantially. Newly admitted cases in all courts totalled 394; 294 were closed, of which, first instance decisions were upheld in 206 cases, decisions reversed in 20 cases, 1 was remanded, 9 were withdrawn, and 4 were dismissed. Cases that produced great social impact were Honda Motor Co., Ltd v. Patent Re-examination Board (PRB) of the State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) & Shijiazhuang Shuanghuan Automobile Co., Ltd etc’s administrative dispute on industrial design patent invalidation, Shanxi Xinghuacun Fen Wine Factory Co., Ltd v. Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (TRAB) of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (SAIC) & Anhui Xinghuacun Group Co., Ltd.’s administrative dispute in a trademark opposition and review case concerning “Xing Hua Cun” trademark.

The courts further capitalised on criminal adjudication as punishment and deterrence of intellectual property criminal offences.

In 2010, IP-related first instance criminal cases experienced a rather significant increase. Total newly admitted first instance criminal cases was 3,992, 9.58% more than last year. IP criminal cases accounted for 1,294 (1,153 were cases involving infringement of registered trademark such as use of counterfeit marks), 26.99% more than last year; IP infringement cases involving production and sale of inferior or counterfeit goods totalled 596, 6.73% lower than last year; IP infringement cases involving illegal business operations totalled 2,078, 6.62% more than last year; cases of other nature totalled 24. 

Total concluded IP-related first instance criminal cases was 3,942, 7.7% more than last year. The number of individuals on whom the courts’ decisions became effective was 6,001, of which, 6,000 were found guilty.

Of the closed cases, 1,254 cases were found related to IP infringement crimes, and the decisions were effective on 1,966 persons, 24.53% and 22.49% higher than last year respectively; 609 cases were found related to the production and selling counterfeit and inferior goods (involving IP infringement), and the decisions were effective on 926 persons; 2,054 cases were found related to illegal business operations (involving IP infringement), and the decisions were effective on 3,068 persons; the remaining 25 were found guilty of other crimes relating to infringement of intellectual property, and decisions were effective on 41 persons.

For cases where the court’s decision was IP crime, 585 cases involved the accused being found guilty of use of counterfeit registered mark, and the decisions were effective on 1,028 persons; 345 cases involved the accused being found guilty of sale of products with a counterfeit mark, and the decisions were effective on 459 persons; 182 cases involved the accused being found guilty of illegal production and sale of illegally produced registered marks, and the decisions were effective on 253 persons; 2 cases involved the accused being found guilty of counterfeiting patent, and the decisions were effective on 3 persons; 85 cases involved the accused being found guilty of copyright infringement, and the decisions were effective on 142 persons; 5 cases involved the accused being found guilty of sale of IP-infringing reproductions, and the decisions were effective on 10 persons; 50 cases involved the accused being found guilty of infringing trade secrets, and the decisions were effective on 71 persons. The most prominent case was the Liu Zhaolong case involving counterfeit registered trademarks.

The courts have increased use of mediation and have focused on conflict resolution.

The people’s courts have observed the Several Opinions on Furthering the Principle of “Mediation as Priority and Combining Use of Mediation & Adjudication” (“tiaojie youxian, tiaopan jiehe”) issued by the SPC, setting forth that use of mediation should be legally based and voluntary; and mediation is priority if permissible by law, possible by case merits, and better in outcome. The courts focused on regulating the mediation process and ensuring appropriate balance of adjudication and mediation. Where mediation was unsuitable or unsuccessful, a decision was issued according to law. The courts continued to put enfforts into exploring greater possibilities for mediation, regulating the judicial mediation procedures, and improving mediation quality and efficiency.

In 2010, court mediation of intellectual property disputes were conducted under better institutional framework, more comprehensive rules and regulations, and greater rationality. Litigation and mediation have attained a new dimension. 66.76% of all IP-related first instance civil cases were successfully mediated and case eventually withdrawn, 5.68 percent higher than 2009. The SPC had also successfully mediated and facilitated withdrawal of 24 difficult intellectual property cases. Examples of such cases were the trademark infringement cases of France Bayer AG, Bayer Crop Science v. Anhui Huaxing Chemical Co., Ltd and Shanghai Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceuticals, Ltd v. Xi’an Qiangsheng Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd, where the parties were satisfied with the outcome, and response from the general public was positive. As part of a continued effort to improve, the high people’s courts of Shanghai and Tianjin have issued guidelines to strengthen mediation of intellectual property-related civil disputes. Also, the prefecture and provincial level high people’s courts of Guangdong, Hebei, Sichuan, Henan, Guangxi and Guizhou, and the Beijing Municipality Second Intermediate People’s Court and the Fuzhou Intermediate People’s Court of Fujian Province have studied and developed a set of systematic mediation methods.

The courts have espoused openness to ensure fairness, and have delivered equity to gain credibility.

The people’s courts believe in “sunshine justice”; that is, ensure fairness through openness. Openness is assured by specifying the content, procedures and methods for accepting cases, trial, execution, hearing, documentation, and court administration, and by using various means, such as press conferences, Court Open Day, web livecast etc, to improve transparency in intellectual property adjudication. In doing so, IP courts have delivered fairness and regulated use of judicial discretion, won public confidence and achieved “sunshine justice”. On Public Open Day on 12 April, SPC chose, for the first time, to allow observation of court proceedings of an IP case by the general public. The Hunan provincial courts have also developed a permanent system for deputies of people’s congresses to observe court proceedings and for live telecast of court proceedings via the internet, where deputies of people’s congresses are regularly invited to observe IP trials. The Liaoning provincial IP courts are equipped with information and technology facilities, where livecast of court proceedings are a regular feature. The high people’s courts of Fujian and Yunnan provinces and the intermediate people’s courts of Fuzhou and Kunming have also relied on web livecast to deliver the latest information on intellectual property trials to the masses..

Greater transparency is further exemplified by the introduction of the white paper on intellectual property protection to update on the people’s courts’ progress in IP adjudication. In April 2010, the SPC published the bilingual white paper entitled Intellectual Property Protection by Chinese Courts in 2009, providing an overview of intellectual property adjudication during the thirty years since China’s reform and opening-up and reviewed the achievements of the people’s courts in 2009. The paper documents the results and successes of judicial protection of intellectual property in China, and reflects China’s determination and confidence in intellectual property protection. This was the first time that the SPC had published the work of the people’s courts in respect of IP protection, and an important step taken by the people’s court to deliver the National Intellectual Property Strategy and to strengthen judicial protection for intellectual property. Similarly, the high people’s courts of Tianjin, Chongqing, Shandong, Guangxi, Sichuan, Gansu and Hebei have also published white papers on intellectual property adjudication, and the High People’s Court of Jiangsu Province published a blue paper entitled Judicial Protection of Intellectual Property 2009. The white and blue papers provided a complete overview of the intellectual property judicial regime at the respective localities, to enable the public to understand IP adjudication and to check and monitor the court’s work; and finally, achieve equality and justice in the IP judicial regime.

Besides maintaining the high quality of the China IPR Judgments & Decisions website, SPC has officially opened a “Judicial Protection of Intellectual Property” sub-website under the SPC’s official website. Both websites will be platforms from which the people’s courts will issue authoritative information on judicial protection of intellectual property. The public will be promptly informed of the latest developments and information of IP protection by the people’s courts. As at end 2010, 41,696 judgements were published on the China IPR Judgments & Decisions website. Local courts have also promptly published information about IP judicial protection on their own websites IP cases that were adjudicated and decided.

II.　 The courts have attended to demands for intellectual property-related judicial services in economic and social development, and have achieved new breakthroughs in implementing the National Intellectual Property Strategy

In 2010, the people’s courts continued to embrace dynamic justice by finding a point of entry where intellectual property adjudication could support socioeconomic development, and by focusing on the national strategy of accelerating transformation of development models and maintaining a steady and relatively fast economic growth. The purpose of doing so is to deliver the National Intellectual Property Strategy, and to eventually provide effective judicial protection for intellectual property for fast and healthy social and economic development.

The courts have adhered to dynamic justice to serve greater international and domestic interests.

After the essential undertaking to remodel growth was raised at the 17th National Congress of the Communist Party of China, the SPC issued the Several Opinions on the Provision of Judicial Protection and Service to Support Accelerated Remodelling of Economic Growth in July 2010. The Opinions specified that adjudication of the various types of intellectual property cases must be appropriately conducted to ensure and serve indigenous innovation, strengthen judicial protection for intellectual property of key sectors, facilitate development of strategic sectors, enable development of native brands and brand economy, protect the core competitive strengths of companies, maintain fair competition and market order, encourage cultural innovation, and promote growth of the cultural sector.

In February 2010, in response to the post-financial crisis situations and challenges in respect of intellectual property adjudication, SPC organised a Seminar on Intellectual Property Protection in a Post-Financial Crisis Era to explore how intellectual property adjudication may be leveraged to reduce or mitigate the adverse effects on our economy and society in a post-crisis era. In April, to advance the three key tasks of social conflict resolution, development of innovative social administration practices, and fair and honest enforcement of law as proposed by the Party Central Committee and to realise the spirit of the meeting of presidents of national high courts, SPC convened a national symposium on intellectual property adjudication in Luoyang, Henan Province. At the workshop, participants discussed and planned the direction of IP adjudication under new circumstances, and clearly set forth the related key responsibilities and work measures. After the workshop, the high people’s courts swiftly convened meetings to ensure implementation of the spirit of the national meeting, based on local circumstances.

To guarantee smooth organisation of major events as the Shanghai World Expo and the Guangzhou Asian Games and Asian Para Games, the people’s courts provided full support for intellectual property protection and judicial services. SPC formed a special investigation team to study World Expo-related IP judicial protection with the Shanghai High People’s Court and the Coordination Bureau of Shanghai World Expo, and to instruct the local courts on appropriate adjudication of relevant IP cases. The Shanghai High People’s Court issued special guidelines on application of law when adjudicating World Expo-related IP cases, defining the standards based on which laws should be applied when adjudicating disputes relating to World Expo intellectual property issues, and setting forth the World Expo work plan for ensuring availability of service for intellectual property protection. The Guangzhou Intermediate People’s Court and the Guangzhou Asian Games Organizing Committee and its legal advisor held the Seminar on Strengthening Intellectual Property Protection for the Asian Games for a comprehensive understanding of the judicial needs for intellectual property protection at the Asian Games, and have submitted judicial recommendations on strengthening IP protection at the games.

The people’s courts have responded readily to the State Council’s special operation to “Crack Down on Intellectual Property Infringement and Manufacturing and Sale of Counterfeit and Inferior Products”, to further control IP criminal infringement. The courts have also cooperated with the procuratorates, and the public security, industry and commerce, copyright and customs departments to develop synergy, so as to enable fast and healthy development of intellectual property in China. Many courts have also provided recommendations for other departments to advance the National Intellectual Property Strategy. For example, the high people’s courts of Shandong and Hunan provided judicial recommendations on preservation and notarisation of evidence in the internet environment. When the Guangdong Province High People’s Court discovered the use of intellectual property by some foreign enterprises as a commercial means to prevent competition, and to suppress and disable their Chinese competitors, it provided judicial recommendations to the relevant authorities, suggesting that they should establish a pre-warning mechanism and a mechanism of response to foreign-related parties and aid for overseas IP right protection. The Shandong Province High People’s Court proposed specific recommendations of how IP adjudication could protect and serve the transformation of economic development models, and defined the part which IP judicial protection plays and the core sectors of protection. The Sichuan Province High People’s Court issued special opinions to guide IP adjudication to focusing on supporting the remodelling of economic development.

The people’s courts have persisted with judicial reform in the intellectual property regime, and have advanced institutional fundamentals for intellectual property adjudication and improved work mechanisms.　

The people’s courts were increasingly aware of the need for judicial reform, and have implemented the National Intellectual Property Strategy by driving restructuring and improvement of the IP adjudication and work regime. 

Part of the judicial reform is a pilot study of “Three-in-One” adjudication, i.e. intellectual property divisions of the people’s courts will administer all IP-related civil, administrative and criminal cases. In July 2010, the SPC convened the “Symposium on Pilot Study of Centralising Adjudication of Intellectual Property Civil, Administrative and Criminal Cases by Intellectual Property Divisions” in Kunshan, Jiangsu Province. Participants included representatives from the relevant central authorities and courts involved in the “Three-in-One” pilot project. New pilot entities later approved by the SPC included the Fuzhou Intermediate People’s Court, Xiamen Intermediate People’s Court, the basic and intermediate people’s courts of Shenzhen, Foshan and Zhongshan municipalities, and the basic courts of Gulou District of Fuzhou municipality and Siming District of Xiamen municipality. As at end December 2010, total pilot entities included 5 high courts, 49 intermediate courts and 42 basic courts.

2010 saw continued efforts to realign jurisdiction for intellectual property disputes and improve further judicial resources. In January 2010, SPC issued the Notice on Adjustment of Jurisdiction Criteria of the Various Levels of People’s Courts for First Instance Intellectual Property Civil Cases and the Notice on Printing and Distribution of Jurisdiction Criteria of the Various Levels of People’s Courts for First Instance Intellectual Property Civil Cases to revise and clarify jurisdiction for different classes of IP civil cases by the various levels of courts. Although jurisdiction for cases relating to technology and well-known marks are strictly restricted, more basic courts are allowed to hear general IP cases, as appropriate. Intermediate and basic courts are encouraged to form jurisdiction blocks crossing jurisdiction boundaries, and to explore the possibility of assigning jurisdiction of certain patent cases to certain basic courts. In its reply (pifu) to the Kunshan People’s Court of Jiangsu Province, SPC agreed to the court’s request to commence a pilot programme on adjudicating patent disputes relating to utility models and designs. As of today, two basic courts have joined the pilot study. As at end December 2010, the number of intermediate people’s courts having jurisdiction for patent disputes stood at 76, 44 for new plant variety, 46 for layout-designs of integrated circuits and 41 for determination of well-known marks; 101 basic courts have jurisdiction for general intellectual property disputes.

In keeping with the spirit of judicial reform, the relevant local courts have also developed detailed programmes based on local circumstances, to ensure success of the “Three-in-One” pilot project and unobstructed delivery of justice. In Zhejiang and Inner Mongolia, for example, the high people’s courts have stepped up cooperation and coordination with local procuratorates and police to develop guidelines on judicial protection for criminal cases pursuant to the pilot.

The courts have strengthened innovation in the adjudication regime for intellectual property cases to improve the quality of IP-related judicial services.

As intellectual property cases require technical expertise, SPC continued to establish and improve judicial systems in respect of forensic evaluation, expert witness and technical investigation etc. At the same time, it also encouraged and guided the appropriate courts in exploring effective approaches and specific methods for conducting technical investigation.

In April 2010, SPC signed a memorandum of cooperation in judicial protection of intellectual property with the China Association for Science & Technology to strengthen cooperation between the parties, based on which, SPC has established a science & technology special advisory expert body comprising eleven academic fellows of the Chinese Academy of Science and Chinese Academy of Engineering, including Yuan Longping and Zhong Nanshan, all of whom will serve as expert advisors in science & technology for SPC. SPC hopes to leverage their expertise to advise on macro policy issues relating to IP judicial protection, answer technical questions relating to the cases in question, and assist in resolving IP disputes. This was an important step toward judicial reform of the IP regime. The high people’s courts in Shanghai, Jiangsu, Qinghai, Hebei, Zhejiang, Guangxi and Shanxi were also exploring the establishment of a technical investigation system for fact-finding in IP cases, and have created technical experts advisory bodies and piloted the expert jury systems and expert witness systems. These systems and mechanisms are important for resolving difficulties involving technical expertise, and have helped improve the quality of adjudication of IP cases. The Xiamen Intermediate People’s Court has also attempted establish a protective order system with respect to IP adjudication to prevent risking loss of confidentiality through disclosure of trade secret by the parties asserting their rights.

The courts have increased publicity on judicial protection of intellectual property by organising Intellectual Property Publicity Week based on the April 26 World Intellectual Property Day.

To maximise the impact of the World Intellectual Property Day on 26 April, the people’s courts have organised the “World Intellectual Property Publicity Week”, during which a series of varied and multidimensional activities were put together to showcase our achievements in IP judicial protection and our IP judges, and create a positive image for judicial protection of intellectual property in China. During the week, SPC organised a press conference and released important judicial documents, such as the bilingual white paper entitled Intellectual Property Protection by Chinese Courts in 2009, the Ten Major Cases in Judicial Protection of Intellectual Property in China in 2009 and Fifty Classical Cases, the Supreme People’s Court Annual Report of Intellectual Property Cases (2009) and the Supreme People’s Court’s Opinions on Several Issues Regarding the Adjudication of Administrative Cases Relating to Granting or Validation of Trademarks and the memorandum of cooperation in judicial protection of intellectual property signed with the China Association for Science & Technology. The local people’s courts have also complied with SPC’s requirements for more intensive and extensive publicity, giving special attention to the content and form of publicity. The publicity vehicles used include traditional and contemporary media at the local and central levels; even foreign media. Newspapers, television, radio, broadcast stations, internet, magazines and posters & banners were fully utilised. Judges were organized to taking part in promoting the importance of judicial protection for intellectual properties and in presenting the courts’ latest achievement justice and policies. The above activities had played a positive role in elevating the general IP awareness among the public.

Activities at the local level are manifold. The courts in Jiangsu Province have successfully organised the 15^th Year Commemorative Seminar of Professional Intellectual Property Adjudication in Jiangsu Province cum Seminar on Intellectual Property Protection and Balance of Interests, and published the Innovation and Development—A Compendium of Fifteen Years of Intellectual Property Adjudication by Jiangsu Courts and the Commemorative Catalogue of Glories Journeys and a Brighter Tomorrow. The Zhejiang High People’s Court organised an intellectual property press conference and answered questions of journalists from more than 40 local and foreign media. The Hubei High People’s Court collab0rated with the Science Technology and Law magazine to start a special column that promotes awareness of IP judicial protection. During the activity period, the Production & Construction Corps Branch of the Higher People’s Court of Xinjiang Uigur Autonomous Region issued 6,000 questionnaires on intellectual property knowledge and put up more than 60 display boards. Courts in Hainan and Tibet also relied on different ways to promote the achievements of the courts in IP protection.

The courts have intensified international exchanges and cooperation to enhance China’s international influence on judicial protection of intellectual property.

In 2010, with increasing integration of the global economy and speeding internationalization of intellectual property systems, the people’s courts have strengthened international exchanges and collaboration, improved on the quality of IP adjudication, and focused on establishing positive international profile on IP judicial protection. Diplomatic activities were good platforms on which the courts could respond to issues of concern to the foreign parties, clarify misunderstandings, publicise our achievements in IP protection, and defend our international image. SPC has sent representatives to participate in the Sino-Europe Intellectual Property Workgroup Conference, the Sino-American Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade (JCCT) IPR Working Group Conference, and the meeting of the Chinese-Swiss Working Group on Intellectual Property. Our courts have actively participated in the EU-China IPR2 Project activities, and have communicated our position and determination to protect intellectual property. The people’s courts continued to intensify intellectual property exchanges and cooperation relating to the economy and trade through dialogues with the US, Europe, Switzerland, Russia, Japan and Brazil, and through special intellectual property working groups, including visits by Japanese intellectual property officials. SPC has received delegations of nearly one hundred senior officials from Japan, US and other countries, and has based on internal needs, arranged outstanding judges to visit countries as the US, Japan and Europe for training and exchanges. The Zhejiang High People’s Court has also received a delegation from the American Intellectual Property Law Association and judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and judges had in-depth discussions with the visitors on IP topics of interest.

III. The courts have established rules for application of intellectual property laws to ensure consistency, and have improved judicial supervision and guidance

Consistency in application of law is embodied in the tenet of all being equal before the law. It is a manifestation of fairness and authority of the justice system, and the fundamental features of a country with rule of law. In 2010, consistent application of intellectual property laws continued to be the people’s courts’ priority. To ensure fairness and consistency in the intellectual property judicial system, the courts have identified problems that affected fairness of decisions and consistency in application of law, persisted at developing innovative methods and strengthening adjudication management to improve institutions and mechanisms for supervision and guidance.

The Courts have intensified implementation of judicial policies to regulate use of discretion during adjudication of intellectual property cases.

Based on the characteristics and needs of different intellectual property cases, SPC has developed a judicial policy that allows differentiated treatment and appropriate protection of intellectual property based on their category. SPC has also relied on various means to ensure observance of IP-related judicial policies, and has effectively leveraged judicial policies as macro regulatory measures for consistency in adjudication.

In April 2010, SPC issued the Opinions on Several Issues Regarding the Adjudication of Administrative Cases Relating to Granting or Validation of Trademarks. This was the first time that SPC issued guidelines on judicial review standards for the granting and validation of trademarks in the form of normative documents. The Opinions define the boundaries of the relevant laws and set uniform judicial standards, and is of significant importance for ensuring proper delivery of judicial reviews and consistency in trademark determination and validation. In November, SPC issued the Notice on Adjudication of Copyright Disputes Relating to Internet Cafés. By identifying the key issues in internet café-related copyright disputes and promptly clarifying the adjudication principles and specific standards for similar cases, the Notice has ensured protection of the parties according to law and effectively prevented infringement of copyrights. It has also enabled dissemination of information and regulated such dissemination, and has facilitated healthy development of the cultural industry on internet.

The courts have explored the case guidance system for the intellectual property legal regime, and have promptly published typical intellectual property cases for reference purposes.

The people’s courts place great importance in the demonstrative value of typical cases in intellectual property adjudication. One of the key tasks of the courts is to select and publish typical cases so that the case referencing could be developed into a standardised and permanent system. In April 2010, SPC released the Supreme People’s Court Annual Report of Intellectual Property Cases (2009). The Annual Report is a compendium of 37 typical intellectual property cases closed and on which final conclusive opinions have been given. Based on the written judgements and decisions of these 37 cases, 44 typical problems on application of law are identified and are publicised in the form of an annual report. The annual report, which condenses the SPC’s experience in adjudicating typical cases, is an attempt at a more innovative method of adjudication guidance, and an importance step toward transparency and acceptance of public supervision. The Ten Major Cases in Judicial Protection of Intellectual Property in China in 2009 and Fifty Classical Cases is a good example of leveraging the demonstrative effect of cases, as it encompasses IP-related civil, administrative and criminal cases, and nearly all IP-related categories as patent, new plant variety, copyright, trademark and unfair competition. These cases, which are vivid examples of how the people’s courts have stepped up protection of intellectual property and the legal rights of IP holders, and how the courts exercise their powers to determine the boundaries of rights, help instil an intellectual property rule of law awareness and create an honest and lawful competition culture. Local courts have also selected and published typical and outstanding cases; the high people’s courts of Tianjin, Chongqing, Shandong, Anhui, Fujian, Hunan, Sichuan and Heilongjiang have also released the ten typical local cases. The High People’s Court of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region has established a case reference system based on typical cases, and the Intermediate People’s Court of Shaanxi Province has also published classic cases on judicial protection of intellectual property.

The courts have strengthened study of IP-related topics to improve the quality of IP-related judicial interpretations and interpretive documents.

The people’s courts firmly believe in “research-based adjudication” and regards research as integral to adjudication of intellectual property cases, and instrumental to producing high quality judicial interpretations and interpretive documents. To this end, the courts have organised seminars, invited experts to speak, held judges’ forum, conducted field studies, written survey reports and published books. In 2010, SPC convened topic-specific seminars for the relevant courts across the country. The seminars provide a platform for prompt resolution of key issues in judicial practice and for strengthening research and study in the application of law for new genres of cases. The courts have also embarked on a series of researches and studies, including judicial protection of copyright in the internet environment; adjudication standards for granting and validation of patents; research and study of granting and validation of trademarks; copyright protection for foreign works without an administrative licence; copyright infringement of internet cafés; judicial protection of trade secrets; study of the judicial protection system for intellectual property during the Twelfth Five-Year Plan period; application of law during adjudication of civil disputes involving monopoly; application of law during adjudication of IP-related administrative cases; and study of the relevant issues relating to the establishment of an intellectual property appeals court, etc. Researches and studies provided the courts insights on the situations and dynamics of the current intellectual property judicial system and fruitful research outcomes. Judicial interpretation and interpretive documents will be issued based on full and thorough researches and studies. After much research and study, special adjudication guidelines were issued to address issues in copyright protection for foreign works without an administrative licence, copyright infringement of internet cafés, adjudication standards for granting and validation of trademarks. The local courts have also amassed research outcomes valuable for guiding adjudication. Over the years, intellectual property judges have developed a professional attitude towards research and learning. The Specialised Committee on Intellectual Property Adjudication Theory have co-organised with other departments the “Seminar on the Commemoration of the 20th Anniversary of the Copyright Law and Fundamental Theory on Copyright Protection”, and published the Study of China Intellectual Property Adjudication Theory (Volume 2). The Beijing High People’s Court also published the Classic Intellectual Property Cases (Volume 5 & 6) and the Classic Cases on Internet Copyright.

The courts have diversified the channels of guidance for intellectual property adjudication to fully discharge their duty of guidance 

In 2010, the superior courts have continued to diversify their tools of guidance, which include judicial interpretation, judicial papers, guidelines, topic-specific research studies, professional meetings, training on special topics, magazines for internal circulation, guiding cases, etc. In doing so, they have undertaken the duties of guidance for intellectual property adjudication, standardised adjudication criteria for intellectual property cases, regulated the exercise of discretion for intellectual property cases, and ensured justice in the intellectual property cases. Additionally, SPC has summarised its experience in adjudicating cases involving application for zaishen and collated the problems encountered by the courts during adjudication, and based on which, increased its guidance for key issues. Similar cases are studied, so as to guide the relevant courts in correct application of law; standard criteria are established for judicial determination of well-known marks and in-depth evaluation of cases involving well-known marks is conducted, to increasingly regulate judicial protection of well-known marks. Also, the Shanghai Municipality High People’s Court has developed a judicial guidance paper on methods to determine the amount of statutory indemnification for disputes involving intellectual property infringement, clarifying methods of application of statutory indemnification under several basic principles; the High People’s Court of Jilin Province has put together a team of high-performing IP judges to lecture at the intermediate people’s courts within the province; the high people’s courts of Hunan and Ningxia provinces have established coordinate mechanisms for kindred cases; the High People’s Court of Shanxi Province has established and improved on the contact-reporting system (lianxi baogao zhidu) between the superior and inferior courts; the Tianjin High People’s Court has authored and published the 2005—2009 Major Events in Tianjin Intellectual Property Adjudication and the Intellectual Property Adjudication by Tianjin Courts; the high people’s courts of Heilongjiang, Shanxi and Gansu have also authored publications on intellectual property adjudication guidance.

IV.The courts have strengthened capacity building for intellectual property judges, and have enhanced judicial competence and quality 

Capacity building is fundamental to the people’s courts. In 2010, the people’s courts have, based on practical needs, strengthened adjudication management and introduced innovative methods, strengthened capacity-building among intellectual property judges, intensified activities based on the theme of “People’s Judges for the People” (“Renmin Faguan Wei Renmin”), and nurtured the core judicial values of “To Justice, In Honesty, For the People”, so as to build a team of intellectual property judges who are firm in political beliefs, professionally sound, people-oriented, and who are fair, honest and superior.

The people’s courts have worked hard at improving the professional skills of judges.

Judges’ skills must be upgraded consistently to guarantee delivery of social justice and quality. In 2010, the people’s courts have continued to focus on the important tasks of professional skills improvement and training of intellectual property judges, including professional knowledge and adjudication skills. The courts have also developed learning-based court sessions, strengthened adjudication management and improve on the learning and training regime, so as to groom a team of professional adjudication experts in our judges. Getting the essential aspects at the basic level, especially establishing IP adjudication infrastructure at the basic courts, was a pressing task. Professional training includes seminars and trainings organised by SPC, as well as trainings conducted by the high people’s courts and the intermediate people’s courts. Strengthening of adjudication guidance includes training that employs innovative methods, that are problem-based and results-driven, that are centralised, that encourage vertical communication between specialised divisions, that include observation of court sessions, and that involves case evaluation and review. Intellectual property judges are active self-learners who are not only constantly acquiring new knowledge in intellectual property law, from judicial papers issued by superior courts and from typical cases and decisions, but also basic knowledge in science and technology. Many courts, especially those with heavy caseloads, are keen to recruiting persons with science and technical expertise into their team of judges. Recently, SPC has organised two training sessions on intellectual property adjudication for all courts at the National Judges’ College. Nearly 200 judges attended the training sessions. Many courts have also organised activities of various forms to nominate star performers and adjudication experts. The courts in the central and western regions, such as those from Jiangxi and Qinghai, have organised study tours for judges to visit the eastern developed regions for observation and mentor-learning. The high people’s courts of Shanghai, Hunan and Guangdong have collaborated with PRB of SIPO and other intellectual property authorities to establish long-term exchange mechanisms. The provincial high people’s courts of Chongqing, Shandong, Guangdong, Hebei, Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia, Guangxi and Liaoning have increased training for judges through various methods.

The courts have worked hard at improving the working style of the intellectual property judges.

Style is image, and style is credibility. In 2010, the people’s courts continued to improve their styles by organising public perspectives education, establishing “justice for the people” as a purpose, cultivating the sense and awareness for the public among intellectual property judges, and by maintaining a positive culture. They have also organised activities for judges to meet the community, enterprises, schools and public groups to hear from the academic community, emerging industries, the corporate world, social groups and the masses opinions and recommendations on judicial protection of intellectual property, and to establish close ties with the general public. The high people’s courts of Shandong, Jiangsu, Liaoning, Sichuan, Inner Mongolia, Guizhou and Heilongjiang have forged closer ties with companies to better understand the development of the various sectors and to increase the awareness among companies to protect their intellectual property rights. In Jiangxi Province, the Pingxiang Municipality Intermediate People’s Court has established an intellectual property legal aid centre that provides free advice and recommendations to companies, public service entities and individuals. The Heping District People’s Court in Tianjin has established a circuit court in the Culture and Creative Industrial Park in Park No. 6 of Heping District. The large pool of intellectual property judges are working hard to cultivate the core values of justice, honesty and service for the people, to improve their professional ethics, and to live the tenets as set forth under the Basic Professional Ethics for Judges, Judges’ Code of Conduct, and Basic Rules on the Civilised Use of Language by the People’s Court. The courts also encourage emulation of Model of Progressiveness (“Xianjin Dianxing”) by learning from Judge Chen Yanping, known for being a “good judge who has won confidence and trust from the people”, and from Judge Long Jinpin, a national outstanding judge who was voted “Pioneer of the Era” (“Shidai Xianfeng”). The Intellectual Property Division of the Beijing Municipality High People’s Court was awarded the “WIPO Copyright Gold Award” by the World Intellectual Property Organisation; and the Intellectual Property Division of the Shanghai Municipality High People’s Court was conferred the title of “Progressive Group by the Special Task on Protection of Intellectual Property at the World Expo”.

The people’s courts have persisted at building a clean and honest team of IP judges.

An honest judicial team ensures observation of professional ethics, which guarantees judicial justice. In 2010, the people’s courts have continued to build an honest team of judges by imposing institutional monitoring and ethical restraints. They have intensified education on judicial honesty, and have relied on more effective methods, avoiding mechanical indoctrination, organised pre-warning education (“Jingshi Jiaoyu”), and enhanced awareness on preventing corruption and degradation. The courts have complied strictly with the “Five Strictly Prohibited Behaviours” and the various anti-corruption regimes. SPC has also instructed people’s courts of various levels to accept supervision, to strengthen supervision mechanisms, and to impose restraints for the building of a fair and honest justice system for improving the credibility of the judicial system.

Conclusion

2011 is the first year of implementation of the Twelfth Five-Year Plan period. The people’s court will confront the challenges and seize strategic opportunities for strengthening judicial protection of IP. They will adhere to the Deng Xiaoping Theory, the “Three Represents”, and the “scientific development approach” to help remodel economic growth. The people’s courts will work to accomplish their core tasks of enforcement of law and disposition of cases, and will strengthen capacity-building, and continue to deliver the Three Key Tasks. They will exercise their powers of intellectual property adjudication independently and fairly, and intensify practical thematic activities based on the tenets of “uphold our tradition, adhere to beliefs, and enforce law for the people”. The people’s courts will bring intellectual adjudication to new heights, and will provide judicial guarantee to support indigenous innovation and the country’s core competitiveness.