前 言
2013年是人民法院贯彻落实党的十八大精神的开局之年，是实施“十二五”规划承上启下的关键一年，是人民法院知识产权审判工作实现新发展的一年。人民法院在以习近平同志为总书记的党中央坚强领导下，在全国各级人民代表大会及其常务委员会的有力监督下，坚持以邓小平理论、“三个代表”重要思想、科学发展观为指导，认真贯彻习近平总书记系列重要讲话精神，忠实履行宪法法律赋予的职责，紧紧围绕“让人民群众在每一个司法案件中都感受到公平正义”的目标，牢牢坚持服务大局、司法为民、公正司法，全面加强知识产权审判工作，积极实施国家知识产权战略，发挥知识产权司法保护的主导作用，深化知识产权司法体制改革，推进司法公开，提高司法公信，提升司法能力，为推进平安中国、法治中国建设，为建设创新型国家、社会主义文化强国和全面建成小康社会作出了积极贡献。
一、突出加强司法保护导向，积极发挥审判职能作用
人民法院紧紧围绕党和国家工作大局，高度重视知识产权审判工作，积极履行知识产权审判职能，深入贯彻“加强保护、分门别类、宽严适度”的知识产权司法保护基本政策，依法公正高效审理各类知识产权案件，切实维护知识产权权利人的合法权益，制止、制裁和打击各类知识产权侵权行为，维护公平竞争的社会主义市场经济秩序，司法保护知识产权的主导作用进一步强化。2013年，全国地方人民法院共审结各类知识产权一审、二审案件114075件。
（一）知识产权民事审判成果显著，有效发挥保护产权、激励创新的作用
2013年，人民法院准确把握全面深化改革对司法保护知识产权提出的新目标、新要求，紧紧抓住机遇，明确工作主题，坚持能动司法，知识产权民事审判在保护知识产权、促进自主创新方面的主渠道作用得到进一步发挥。全国地方人民法院共新收和审结知识产权民事一审案件88583件、88286件，分别比2012年上升1.33%和5.29%。其中，新收专利案件9195件，同比下降5.01%；商标案件23272件，同比上升17.45%；著作权案件51351件，同比下降4.64%；技术合同案件949件，同比上升27.21%；不正当竞争案件1302件（其中垄断民事一审案件72件），同比上升15.94%；其他知识产权案件2514件，同比上升13.91%。全年共审结涉外知识产权民事一审案件1697件，同比上升18.75%；审结涉港澳台知识产权民事一审案件483件，同比下降21.21%；审结垄断民事一审案件69件，同比上升40.82%。共新收和审结知识产权民事二审案件11957件和11553件，同比分别上升24.80%和24.33%。共新收和审结知识产权民事再审案件75件和96件（含旧存），同比分别下降56.40%和56.95%。
最高人民法院知识产权审判庭新收知识产权民事案件457件，审结417件，同比分别上升92.82%和69.51%。其中，新收申请再审案件365件，审结341件。
全国各级人民法院依法适用诉前保全措施，及时有效制止侵权行为，维护当事人的合法权益。依法受理与知识产权有关的诉前停止侵权申请案件11件，裁定支持率为77.78%；依法受理诉前证据保全申请案件173件，裁定支持率为97.63%，有效减轻当事人举证负担；依法受理诉前财产保全申请案件47件，裁定支持率为96.97%。如湖北省武汉市中级人民法院在受理微软公司诉北京富基融通科技有限公司侵犯Microsoft Office（微软办公）系列计算机软件著作权纠纷一案中，根据微软公司的诉前证据保全申请，依法采取保全措施，固定了侵权事实，取得了被告服判息诉的良好效果。
人民法院审理的具有较大社会影响的知识产权民事案件有：湖南科力远新能源股份有限公司与爱蓝天高新技术材料（大连）有限公司等侵害发明专利权纠纷案、佛山市海天调味食品股份有限公司与佛山市高明威极调味食品有限公司侵害商标权及不正当竞争纠纷案、百度在线网络技术（北京）有限公司等与北京奇虎科技有限公司等不正当竞争纠纷案、圆谷制作株式会社等与上海音像出版社等侵害著作权纠纷案、圣莱科特国际集团等与华奇（张家港）化工有限公司等侵害商业秘密纠纷案、福建超大现代种业有限公司与安徽省农业科学院水稻研究所确认植物新品种权实施许可合同无效纠纷案等。
（二）知识产权行政审判稳步推进，充分发挥监督执法、促进依法行政的职能
人民法院贯彻落实党的十八大对建设社会主义法治国家，全面推进依法治国作出的重要部署，充分发挥司法审查职能，监督和支持行政机关依法行政，促进提高知识产权行政保护水平，维护行政管理相对人的合法权益。
2013年，全国地方人民法院共新收知识产权行政一审案件2886件, 比2012年下降1.43%,审结2901件（含旧存），同比基本持平。其中，新收专利行政案件697件，同比下降8.29%；商标行政案件2161件，同比上升0.51%；著作权行政案件3件，同比持平；其他行政案件25件，同比上升66.67%。在审结的知识产权行政一审案件中，涉外、涉港澳台案件仍占较大比重，共计1312件，占知识产权行政一审结案数的45.23%。其中，审结涉外案件1143件，涉港案件84件，涉澳案件0件，涉台案件85件。审结的案件全部为专利和商标行政案件，其中商标行政案件占比较大，为80.10%。
全国地方人民法院共新收知识产权行政二审案件1490件，审结1496件（含旧存），同比分别上升4.64%和7.78%。在审结案件中，维持原判1268件，改判146件，撤诉59件，驳回18件，其他方式结案5件。
最高人民法院知识产权审判庭新收知识产权行政申诉案件117件，审结104件，同比分别上升19.38%和6.12%。在审结案件中，驳回80件，占76.92%；裁定提审23件，占22.12%；撤诉1件，占0.96%。新收知识产权行政提审案件19件，审结19件。在审结案件中，维持3件，占15.79%；改判14件，占73.69%；撤诉1件，占5.26%；撤销原判指令立案审理1件，占5.26%。
人民法院审理的具有较大社会影响的知识产权行政案件有：圣象集团有限公司与国家工商行政管理总局商标评审委员会等商标争议行政纠纷案、卡比斯特制药公司与国家知识产权局专利复审委员会发明专利权无效行政纠纷案、武夷山市桐木茶叶有限公司与国家工商行政管理总局商标评审委员会等商标异议复审行政纠纷案、北京鸭王烤鸭店有限公司与国家工商行政管理总局商标评审委员会等商标异议复审行政纠纷案、李隆丰与国家工商行政管理总局商标评审委员会等商标争议行政纠纷案等。
（三）知识产权刑事审判扎实进取，有力发挥惩治犯罪、震慑侵权的功能
人民法院充分发挥刑事审判职能，积极配合打击侵犯知识产权和制售假冒伪劣商品专项行动，有效惩治和震慑了侵犯知识产权犯罪行为，人民法院受理的侵犯知识产权犯罪案件在近五年来首次出现下降趋势。2013年，全国地方人民法院共新收涉知识产权刑事一审案件9331件，比2012年下降28.79%。其中，侵犯知识产权罪案件5021件（假冒注册商标等侵犯注册商标案件3473件，侵犯著作权案件1484件），同比下降35.96%；涉及侵犯知识产权的生产、销售伪劣商品罪案件2455件，同比下降5.83%；涉及侵犯知识产权的非法经营罪案件1686件，同比下降34.83%；涉及侵犯知识产权的其他案件169件，同比上升141.43%。
全国地方人民法院共审结知识产权刑事一审案件9212件，同比下降28%；生效判决人数13424人，同比下降13.49%；给予刑事处罚13265人，同比下降13.52%。其中，侵犯知识产权罪案件4957件，生效判决人数6866人；涉及侵犯知识产权的生产、销售伪劣商品罪案件2390件，生效判决人数3430人；涉及侵犯知识产权的非法经营罪案件1712件，生效判决人数2882人；涉及侵犯知识产权的其他罪名案件153件，生效判决人数246人。在审结的侵犯知识产权罪案件中，假冒注册商标罪案件1546件，生效判决人数2462人；销售假冒注册商标的商品罪案件1496件，生效判决人数2221人；非法制造、销售非法制造的注册商标标识罪案件350件，生效判决人数589人；假冒专利罪案件1件，生效判决人数0人；侵犯著作权罪案件1499件，生效判决人数1490人；销售侵权复制品罪案件15件，生效判决人数33人；侵犯商业秘密罪案件50件，生效判决人数71人。全国地方人民法院共新收涉知识产权刑事二审案件662件，审结627件。
人民法院审理的具有较大社会影响的知识产权刑事案件有：宗连贵等28人假冒注册商标罪案、江西亿铂电子科技有限公司等侵犯商业秘密罪案、陈邦取等3人生产、销售伪劣产品罪案、尤艳等3人侵犯著作权罪案等。
2013年，人民法院知识产权审判工作全面加强，呈现出新特点：
一是案件增幅趋缓，审理难度增大。全国地方人民法院新收民事一审案件增幅由上年的45.99%下降至1.33%；新收行政和刑事一审案件分别由上年的上升20.35%和129.61%至下降1.43%和28%；而全国地方人民法院从2009年至2012年新收一审民事、行政和刑事案件的年平均增幅分别为37.63%、33.05%和48.05%。从新收案件在全国的分布来看，案件基数较大的一些地方人民法院有增长放缓态势，而案件基数较小的一些中西部地区人民法院则呈现较快增长态势。在案件增幅总体趋缓的同时，涉外知识产权民事一审案件增幅较大，同比增长18.75%；涉及前沿科技问题的新类型、疑难复杂案件，涉及知名企业重大利益的品牌保护案件，涉及技术成果商业使用的技术合同案件，以及涉及市场竞争秩序维护的不正当竞争案件等增多，案件审理难度不断加大。如北京锐邦涌和科贸有限公司与强生（上海）医疗器材有限公司等国内首例纵向垄断协议纠纷案、美国礼来公司等与黄孟炜侵害技术秘密纠纷案、华为技术有限公司与IDC公司标准必要专利使用费纠纷案、谷歌公司与王莘侵害著作权纠纷案、中山市隆成日用制品有限公司与湖北童霸儿童用品有限公司侵害实用新型专利权纠纷案、天津天隆种业科技有限公司与江苏徐农种业科技有限公司侵害植物新品种权纠纷案等。
二是审判质效明显提高。全国地方人民法院知识产权民事案件一审结案率保持稳定，为87.95%；再审率由2012年的0.20%下降至2013年的0.09%；上诉案件改判发回重审率为5.84%。全国地方人民法院知识产权行政案件一审结案率为87.04%，比上年提高0.5%；审结的上诉案件的改判发回重审率为9.8%;再审率由2012年的0.21%下降至2013年的0.069%。全国地方人民法院知识产权刑事一审案件结案率为91.66%,处于较高水平。
三是诉讼调解效果显著。人民法院坚持依法调解、自愿调解、规范调解原则，继续加强知识产权纠纷调解工作，不断创新调解工作方法，努力化解矛盾纠纷。健全完善司法调解与人民调解、行政调解相衔接的“三位一体”调解机制建设，将大量矛盾纠纷化解在基层和诉前；继续探索委托调解、行业调解、专家调解等调解方式，多渠道协同解决矛盾纠纷，找准调解案件的突破口，破解调解难题；高度重视关联案件调解工作，实现合作共赢，促进社会和谐。如山西省高级人民法院积极探索化解矛盾纠纷的方式方法，对案情复杂、矛盾尖锐的案件，不是简单机械地坐堂问案，而是深入基层实地走访了解情况，将一批涉及民生的案件有效化解在基层。在人民法院和有关部门的协同努力下，全国法院知识产权民事一审案件平均调解撤诉率达到68.45%。人民法院成功调处的社会关注度高、具有较大影响的知识产权民事案件有：北京长地万方科技有限公司与深圳市凯立德科技股份有限公司等“道道通”电子导航地图著作权侵权纠纷案、宝马股份公司与深圳市世纪宝马服饰有限公司等侵害商标权及不正当竞争纠纷案、香港洪和堂医药有限公司与桂林益佰漓江制药有限公司技术合作开发合同纠纷案、微软公司与安徽省皖仪科技股份有限公司侵害计算机软件著作权纠纷案、高晓松与北京优视米网络科技有限公司等侵害著作权纠纷案等，取得了良好的社会效果和法律效果。
四是司法透明度进一步增强。人民法院积极推进阳光司法，加大司法公开力度，切实保障人民群众对司法工作的知情权、参与权、监督权，提高司法透明度。进一步完善和规范知识产权裁判文书网络公开制度。最高人民法院知识产权审判庭发布了《人民法院知识产权裁判文书上网公布暂行办法》，构建了全国法院知识产权裁判文书上网工作人员体系，实行上网情况定期通报制度，促进提高裁判文书上网率。截止2013年底，通过网络公开的全国各级人民法院生效知识产权裁判文书已达61368份。强化重大案件的深度公开。对于社会关注度高的案件，以“全媒体”形式对案件审理进行全景展示，不断提高公开的深度和力度。奇虎公司与腾讯公司不正当竞争纠纷案、强生公司垄断纠纷案等重大案件的公开审判，赢得社会高度肯定。不断拓宽司法公开渠道。通过直播庭审、邀请人大代表旁听知识产权案件庭审、开展公众开放日活动、发布司法保护状况白皮书和典型案例等方式，全面公开知识产权案件审判情况和各类知识产权审判资讯，回应社会关切。最高人民法院发布了《中国法院知识产权司法保护状况（2012年）》，编辑出版了《中国知识产权司法保护年鉴（2012年）》。北京、河北、上海、江苏、安徽、山东、广东、海南、甘肃、新疆等地高级人民法院也分别发布了本辖区2012年知识产权司法保护状况。强化裁判文书说理性。全面客观公开案件事实、定案证据以及诉辩观点、判决理由，增进群众对司法裁判的了解和理解，使裁判文书真正成为向社会公众展现司法过程、展示司法形象、规范司法行为、宣传法律知识、引领社会风尚的载体，树立正确的社会导向，传递法治正能量。自觉接受监督。广泛听取社会各界对司法保护工作的意见和建议，自觉接受人民群众、检察监督机关、新闻媒体等对司法保护工作的监督。最高人民法院高度重视第十一届全国人民代表大会常务委员会第三十次会议对《最高人民法院关于知识产权审判工作情况的报告》的意见建议，认真研究制定了贯彻落实工作方案，完成了专门报告，确保将全国人民代表大会常务委员会的审议意见落到实处。地方各级人民法院也积极加强与人大代表、政协委员的日常联络，主动通报司法保护工作情况，不断改进司法保护工作。江西省高级人民法院向江西省人民代表大会常务委员会作了关于知识产权司法保护工作情况的专项报告，获得委员们的充分肯定。
五是审判影响力不断提升。人民法院高度重视重大案件的审判工作，依法妥善审理了一批社会关注度高、影响面广、利益纷争大、关乎产业发展方向的案件，切实平等保护各类权利主体和中外当事人的合法权益，得到社会各界和海内外的广泛赞誉，有力提升了司法保护知识产权的影响力。如对确立互联网领域竞争规则有着重大影响的奇虎公司与腾讯公司不正当竞争纠纷上诉案，最高人民法院组成了由副院长奚晓明大法官任审判长的五人合议庭进行审理，向社会全程直播庭审过程，四十余家境内外媒体对此进行了重点报道。这一强大阵容的公开审判和由此引发的持续广泛关注，彰显了人民法院坚定不移加大知识产权司法保护的信心和决心，体现了知识产权司法保护日益深入人心，得到社会公众和权利人的普遍认同。
二、立足创新驱动发展目标，着力实施知识产权战略
加快完善社会主义市场经济体制，转变经济发展方式，实施创新驱动发展战略，加强知识产权保护，是党的十八大在全面建成小康社会的关键时期作出的重大部署。人民法院深刻认识知识产权司法保护工作面临的前所未有的新形势、新任务，牢牢把握机遇，沉着应对挑战，紧紧围绕大局发挥职能作用，深入贯彻实施国家知识产权战略，为保障和促进经济社会发展作出了不懈努力。广东省高级人民法院知识产权审判庭获得“国家知识产权战略实施工作先进集体”荣誉称号。
（一）始终坚持服务大局，不断完善知识产权司法保护政策
正确的司法保护理念和政策对于加强知识产权司法保护，确保依法公正高效审理各类知识产权案件具有重要的指导作用。2013年，人民法院继续深入贯彻“加强保护、分门别类、宽严适度”的司法保护基本政策，根据国家科技政策、经济政策、产业政策、文化政策、贸易政策等的发展变化，及时调整和完善司法政策体系；根据各类知识产权的属性、功能、特点和实践需要，不断丰富和完善具体司法政策内容。围绕增强创新驱动发展新动力，提高自主创新能力，进一步加强专利权保护，重点加强对基础前沿研究、战略性新兴产业、现代信息技术产业等领域的技术成果保护，推动技术突破和技术创新。围绕培育品牌竞争新优势，促进品牌创新，进一步加强商标权保护，加大对驰名商标的保护力度，坚决制止假冒商标、恶意抢注等商业标识侵权行为。围绕推动文化繁荣和产业发展，进一步加强著作权保护，重点加强对优秀文化资源、文化创新成果和新型文化业态的保护，鼓励自主创新。围绕营造公平诚信的市场环境，促进激发市场活力，进一步加强竞争保护，重点打击仿冒、虚假宣传、侵犯商业秘密等不正当竞争行为，有力促进了现代市场体制的完善。围绕充分维护权利人利益，进一步加大损害赔偿力度，强化举证妨碍制度的运用，正确把握法定赔偿和酌定赔偿的关系，提高损害赔偿计算的科学合理性。在知识产权刑事审判工作中，特别重视运用财产刑加大对侵犯知识产权犯罪的惩处力度，从经济上剥夺犯罪分子再犯罪的能力和条件。如河南省高级人民法院在审理宗连贵等28人制售假冒“金龙鱼”、“鲁花”注册商标食用油案中，对被告人判处2704万元的罚金，有力震慑了犯罪行为，净化了市场环境。
（二）始终坚持改革创新，不断优化知识产权司法保护体制机制
深化知识产权司法改革，坚持改革创新，是激发人民法院知识产权司法保护活力，确保公正司法的有力制度保障。2013年，人民法院积极推动知识产权领域改革创新，不断优化知识产权审判体制和工作机制。进一步优化知识产权案件管辖布局。根据专利案件不断增长的趋势，最高人民法院发布《关于修改<最高人民法院关于审理专利纠纷案件适用法律问题的若干规定>的决定》，适当下放专利案件管辖权，指定符合条件的基层人民法院管辖第一审专利纠纷案件。同时，集中布局专利等技术类民事案件的管辖法院，按需灵活布局驰名商标等特殊类型案件管辖法院，知识产权案件管辖布局更加科学合理。截至2013年底，全国具有专利、植物新品种、集成电路布图设计和驰名商标案件管辖权的中级人民法院分别为87个、45个、46个和45个；具有一般知识产权案件管辖权的基层人民法院为160个，具有实用新型和外观设计专利纠纷案件管辖权的基层人民法院为7个。稳妥推进知识产权审判“三合一”试点。增强“三合一”试点工作的系统性、整体性和协同性，积极引导地方人民法院稳步推进试点进程。截至2013年底，共有7个高级人民法院、79个中级人民法院和71个基层人民法院开展了试点工作。进一步完善技术事实查明机制。细化司法鉴定、专家辅助人、专家咨询等技术事实查明机制的操作程序，建立和完善鉴定人、技术专家出庭参与庭审的工作机制，强化对鉴定意见、专家意见的程序和实体审查，不断提高技术事实认定科学性。浙江省高级人民法院制定技术专家工作办法，聘请20位技术专家帮助解决技术事实认定难题。湖北省高级人民法院建立三个专家库，为审判专业问题提供智力支持。优化人民陪审员工作。规范人民陪审员参与案件审理的方式、流程，改进参审机制，增选适应知识产权审判工作需要的专家型陪审员，保障人民陪审员依法行使职权，提高了参审效果。广西壮族自治区南宁市中级人民法院加大专家陪审员参审力度，有58件涉及复杂技术问题的案件吸收专家陪审员陪审，有力提升了审判质效。
（三）始终坚持司法为民，不断拓展知识产权司法服务
人民法院在知识产权审判工作中认真贯彻执行党的群众路线，自觉践行司法为民工作宗旨，深入基层，深入群众，倾听群众呼声，了解群众诉求，不断完善司法便民利民举措。加强维权和诉讼指导。强化对权利义务、举证责任、诉讼风险等事项告知工作，引导权利人管控侵权、理性维权。如湖北省黄石市中级人民法院定期向当地企业发放“法律风险提示卡”、《企业知识产权保护风险提示手册》等，引导企业建立维权应对机制和诉讼引导机制。加大证据保全和依职权调取证据的力度，凡是符合证据保全或者调查收集证据条件的，均及时采取相关措施，切实减轻权利人的举证负担。因地制宜开展巡回审判。河南省高级人民法院在全省法院系统开展了知识产权案件集中巡回审判工作，巡回审理案件400余件，成功审理了一大批案情复杂、当事人对立情绪大的知识产权案件，包括人大代表、政协委员、高校师生在内的2万余名社会各界人士旁听了巡回庭审，取得良好效果。安徽省滁州市中级人民法院在知识产权纠纷较多的市县积极探索开展巡回审判，充分发挥司法审判的指引功能。新疆维吾尔自治区高级人民法院伊犁哈萨克自治州分院在霍尔果斯特殊经济开发区设立法官巡回工作站，每月定期派法官前往工作站现场开展工作。开展法律咨询服务。吉林、福建、安徽、贵州等地人民法院积极延伸审判职能，将知识产权保护关口前移，深入重点企业，科技工业园区等开展“送法上门”服务，了解企业知识产权保护需求，帮助企业解决在知识产权创新、管理、运用、保护等方面遇到的法律问题，提升企业创新驱动意识、风险防范意识和司法保护意识，增强企业防范、化解经营风险，实现创新发展的能力，受到企业的欢迎。加强司法建议工作。发挥司法建议的指引、导向功能，对在开展知识产权司法保护工作中发现的突出问题、共性问题、高发问题等，积极向相关部门发出司法建议，促进问题的实质解决。如湖北省高级人民法院针对网吧著作权侵权纠纷，向当地人民政府、版权等部门发出司法建议，引导知识产权使用者合法、规范经营，促进行业健康有序发展。贵州省高级人民法院针对公证文书因程序瑕疵导致效力不被采信的问题，向省司法厅发出司法建议，敦促其规范公证行为。海南省高级人民法院向省人民政府发出特色商标资源保护的司法建议，促进对特色商标资源加强保护。山西、上海等地高级人民法院也不断加大司法建议工作力度，为相关部门完善知识产权运用、管理和保护提供有力服务。
（四）始终坚持强化保护，不断加大知识产权司法宣传力度
司法宣传是人民法院让社会了解知识产权司法保护工作的重要渠道，是传播司法保护法治精神的重要载体，也是提高全社会尊重知识，保护知识产权理念的重要环节。2013年，人民法院准确把握知识产权司法保护工作规律，突出知识产权司法保护工作特点，创新宣传工作形式，围绕宣传工作重点，充分发挥人民法院自有媒体、新闻媒体、微信微博等宣传媒介的作用，调动各方力量，形成宣传合力，增强宣传效果。精心筹划和开展“4·26”世界知识产权日宣传周活动。最高人民法院发布了2012年中国法院知识产权司法保护10大案件、10大创新型案件和50件典型案例、《最高人民法院知识产权案件年度报告（2012年）》，生动形象地向社会展现了人民法院加大知识产权司法保护力度的成果。地方人民法院也通过发布知识产权司法保护状况、公布案例、召开新闻发布会、走上街头发放知识产权宣传册等形式，积极开展宣传活动，回应人民群众对知识产权司法保护工作的关切。如内蒙古自治区高级人民法院组织全区法院开展了“实施知识产权战略，支持创新驱动发展”知识产权宣传周活动，深入企业和校园开展法制宣传；江苏省法院系统在宣传周期间，共召开9场新闻发布会，组织社会各界1800余人次旁听庭审，走访企业100余家，发放各类宣传材料5000册。新疆维吾尔自治区高级人民法院生产建设兵团分院围绕“知识产权助推经济转型”主题，开展了内容丰富、形式多样、贴近群众的知识产权宣传活动；安徽省合肥市中级人民法院走进“种子一条街”现场开庭审理植物新品种案，邀请种子管理站人员和种子经营户旁听审判，以案讲法，增强司法宣传的感染力和影响力。
（五）始终坚持协同发展，不断加强知识产权合作与交流
在当今经济全球化深入发展，文化多样化、社会信息化持续推进的大背景下，加强知识产权保护必须坚持走合作共赢、协同发展之路。加强部门协作，形成保护合力。2013年，人民法院继续统筹协调知识产权司法保护和行政保护的关系，进一步加强与行政执法部门的合作，构建知识产权立体保护格局。安徽、江西、广西等地高级人民法院积极推进知识产权保护联动机制建设，建立信息共享平台。河南省高级人民法院加强与知识产权部门的协作，积极拓展知识产权纠纷调解新途径。加强国际交流，提升国际形象。最高人民法院派员参加了中美、中欧、中俄、中瑞知识产权工作组会议以及中瑞、中韩自贸区谈判等国际会议，全面展示我国保护知识产权取得的成果，表明中国坚持不懈地加强知识产权司法保护的立场和决心。精心接待美国、日本、欧盟等高层代表团近百人来访，积极回应外方关切，澄清有关误解，宣传我国知识产权司法保护成就，塑造良好国际形象。为进一步畅通交流渠道，扩大交流成果，最高人民法院设立了知识产权司法保护国际交流（上海）基地，依托上海市高级人民法院接待了美国、日本、韩国、加拿大、瑞士等代表团来访，得到来宾的高度评价。
三、围绕提高司法公正公信，大力加强审判监督管理
公正司法是法治中国建设的重要环节，是人民法院的生命线，也是确保司法公信力的基础。2013年，人民法院紧紧围绕公正司法，提升司法公信力这条主线，进一步健全完善司法保护规范，进一步强化审判管理和监督机制，进一步加大审判调研指导工作力度，着力提高知识产权审判质量和效率，确保对每一起案件的审理，都经得起法律、历史和人民的检验。
（一）健全完善司法保护规范，促进司法保护标准协调统一
进一步加强司法指导。为正确适用修改后的民事诉讼法，保障专利案件审判工作的有序进行，2013年1月，最高人民法院发布《最高人民法院关于印发中华全国专利代理人协会推荐的专利代理人名单的通知》，规范专利代理人参与专利民事诉讼活动。为确保新修订的商标法的正确贯彻实施，最高人民法院及时起草发布了《最高人民法院关于商标法修改决定施行后商标案件管辖和法律适用问题的解释》。进一步加强审判指导。2013年3月，最高人民法院在陕西省西安市召开了全国法院第三次知识产权审判工作会议，会议深入学习贯彻党的十八大和第十二届全国人民代表大会第一次会议精神，总结了五年来人民法院知识产权审判工作取得的成绩和经验，分析了当前知识产权审判工作面临的形势，明确了当前和今后一段时期全国法院知识产权审判工作的指导思想和工作任务，研究了当前知识产权审判法律适用方面应当注意的问题。会议的召开为2013年以及今后一个时期做好知识产权审判工作指明了方向，具有非常重要的意义。2013年4月，最高人民法院在江苏省苏州市召开了全国法院知识产权审判庭庭长研讨班，紧密结合知识产权审判实际，突出加强司法公正、增强司法公信力和推进依法治国的主题，着重对知识产权审判工作面临的形势、需要准确把握的司法政策等进行了研讨，达到了统一思想、推动工作的目的。为贯彻落实全国法院第三次知识产权审判工作会议精神，浙江、福建、山东、广东等地高级人民法院也召开了全省法院知识产权审判工作会，对做好2013年的知识产权审判工作进行了安排和部署，确保了知识产权审判工作的规范有序进行。编撰审判指导资料。最高人民法院编辑出版了《知识产权审判指导》、《知识产权审判动态》、《商标审判的回顾与展望》等书刊，梳理重要规范性文件及指导意见、工作综述、统计数据、调研成果、典型案例等业务资料，成为开展业务指导工作的快捷途径。北京市高级人民法院制定下发了《专利侵权判定指南》，统一指导协调全市法院专利执法标准。
（二）大力加强审判调研，拓展统一法律适用新途径
知识产权司法保护工作面对的是创新活动最为活跃的经济、科技、文化和艺术领域，新问题新情况层出不穷，知识产权司法保护不断面临新要求和新挑战。加强对知识产权案件和审判工作的调研指导，及时统一裁判标准，及时有效回应知识产权司法保护新需求，是实现知识产权审判工作科学发展的重要手段。2013年，人民法院紧紧围绕知识产权审判工作的重点难点问题，创新调研方式，找准调研工作着力点，大力开展审判调研，及时总结新经验，解决新问题，取得了丰硕成果。最高人民法院围绕专利侵权判定标准、专利授权确权行政案件审理标准、商标法律适用、商标授权确权行政案件审理标准、驰名商标和服务商标保护、商业秘密保护、涉卡拉OK经营者著作权纠纷法律适用等问题进行了专题调研，为起草和推出相应的司法解释做准备。2013年1月，最高人民法院在福建省厦门市召开了全国互联网领域新技术、新商业模式及商业竞争状况调研会。2013年7月，最高人民法院在贵州省遵义市中级人民法院设立“最高人民法院白酒产业知识产权司法保护调研基地”，调研基地的设立将更有助于发现行业性知识产权司法保护问题，推动行业产业健康发展。为进一步推进调研工作的开展，最高人民法院筹备首届全国知识产权优秀调研成果评选活动，完成对193篇调研报告的初评。地方各级人民法院也紧密结合审判工作实际，开展了内容丰富的调研活动。重庆市高级人民法院与有关单位联合举办了“互联网环境下商标侵权与垄断问题国际研讨会”、“云计算环境下计算机软件版权司法保护高层论坛”；天津市高级人民法院开展了“天津市文化创意企业知识产权保护状况”调研活动；广东省高级人民法院围绕“探索完善司法证据制度破解知识产权侵权损害赔偿难”问题进行调研，并在14家中、基层人民法院开展试点工作。北京、河北、辽宁、上海、江苏、广西、云南、陕西、青海、宁夏等地高级人民法院也围绕地方知识产权审判重点、难点问题进行了专题调查研究，有力指导了审判工作的开展。
（三）强化审判管理，完善科学有效的监督评价机制
建立有权必有责、用权受监督、失职要问责、违法必追究的管理体系，以严格的管理监督审判权的运行，规范自由裁量权的行使，防止权力失控、行为失范，是公正司法的重要制度保障。2013年，各级人民法院建立健全并认真落实保证审判质量和效率的各项制度机制，不断总结并及时推广有利于提升审判质量和效率的各种经验和做法，知识产权审判质量和效率有了明显提升。加强审判流程管理，对审判工作的重要流程和重要环节进行跟踪监督，实行结案定期通报制度，加强均衡结案，提升审判质效。陕西省高级人民法院实现网上办案，规范从收案、开庭、合议到宣判的全部程序，确保审判过程的每一个环节有章可循，有据可查。强化审判质量，对疑难复杂案件，通过召开审判长联席会、全体法官会议、专家论证会等方式研究讨论，确保审判质量。开展案件质量评查，强化精品意识。健全完善案件质量评查机制，细化评查标准，明确错案的认定标准和责任追究机制，及时发现问题，纠正错误，坚决守住防范冤假错案的底线。开展裁判文书评查和评比，提高裁判文书质量，有效杜绝文书差错等错误，使裁判文书成为体现裁判过程、展现裁判依据、接受社会监督的载体。为推动提高裁判文书质量，最高人民法院筹备第三届全国知识产权优秀裁判文书评选活动，完成对483份裁判文书的初评工作。
四、坚持推进基层基础建设，不断提升司法队伍素质
坚持司法为民、公正司法，提升司法公信力，关键在队伍，重点在基层。人民法院始终高度重视加强知识产权审判队伍建设，以实现让人民群众在每一个司法案件中都感受到公平正义为目标，以正规化、专业化、职业化为方向，全面提高队伍建设科学化水平，努力建设一支政治坚定、业务过硬、作风优良、公正廉洁的高素质知识产权法官队伍。
（一）加强知识产权审判机构建设
完善的机构设置是做好知识产权审判工作的前提。2013年，人民法院认真贯彻落实《关于贯彻实施国家知识产权战略若干问题的意见》，继续大力加强知识产权专门审判机构建设，打牢知识产权审判的基层基础。西藏自治区在林芝、山南、那曲、阿里四个中级人民法院设置了知识产权专门审判机构；福建省在鼓楼、思明、晋江三个基层法院成立了知识产权审判庭；湖北省在襄阳、宜昌、黄石、黄冈、荆门等中级人民法院成立了知识产权审判庭，通过专门审判机构的建设，促进知识产权审判的专业化发展。北京市海淀区人民法院设立了全国首家以审理知识产权案件为主的基层法院派出法庭，为保障中关村国家自主创新示范区建设提供助力。与此同时，各级人民法院继续加强审判组织人员配备，选派执法办案综合能力强的法官充实知识产权审判队伍，为推进知识产权审判工作提供良好的人才支持。
（二）加强司法能力建设
不断提高知识产权法官做好服务人民群众、维护公平正义、化解矛盾纠纷、引导社会舆论的司法能力和水平是适应新形势下知识产权审判工作快速发展的迫切需要。人民法院始终坚持把提升知识产权法官司法能力作为推进知识产权司法保护工作的重要环节抓紧抓好，充分运用专题培训、专题研讨、在职培养、交流挂职、庭审观摩、建立知识产权保护实践基地等形式，不断加大学习教育培训力度，不断扩大学习教育培训覆盖面。加强政治理论学习。各级人民法院认真抓好党的十八大精神和习近平总书记一系列重要论述的学习，引导广大知识产权法官坚定理想信念，牢固树立社会主义法治理念，培育和践行社会主义核心价值观，不断增强社会主义道路自信、理论自信、制度自信，打牢公正司法的思想基础。加强业务培训。最高人民法院继续以国家法官学院知识产权培训课程为载体，开展对全国法院知识产权法官的业务培训活动；加强对中西部地区法院知识产权法官的培训力度，选派知识产权法官参加西部巡回讲师团巡回授课活动。黑龙江省高级人民法院推行知识产权专业领域培养计划，并组织法官讲坛活动，努力培养专家型法官；湖北省高级人民法院开展队伍建设“五个一”活动，打造学习型审判队伍；云南省高级人民法院举办法官沙龙，并组织来院交流的国家知识产权局专利复审委员会审查员赴全省具有专利案件管辖权的中级人民法院巡回授课；浙江省高级人民法院与省法官学院联合举办知识产权审判业务培训班和业务骨干培训班，加强对审判人员的业务培训力度；重庆市高级人民法院积极组织院校交流活动，实现资源对接、优势互补，提高审判专业化水平；内蒙古自治区高级人民法院举办了全区法院知识产权审判业务培训班，对法官进行知识产权前沿问题培训；北京市高级人民法院积极探索实训制培训模式，加强对青年法官的培养，为知识产权审判工作可持续发展打下了坚实基础。该院审判委员会专职委员、知识产权审判庭庭长陈锦川被中国版权协会授予“中国版权事业卓越成就者”奖。
（三）加强司法作风建设
司法作风是司法公正的外在体现，直接关系到人民群众对司法公正的感受与评价。2013年，人民法院以党的群众路线教育活动为契机，狠抓知识产权审判队伍司法作风建设，要求每一位审判人员要有直面问题的勇气，以整风的精神查找工作作风中的缺点和不足，按照“照镜子、正衣冠、洗洗澡、治治病”的总要求，诚恳开展批评和自我批评，认真解决群众反映强烈的突出问题，坚决贯彻落实中央关于改进工作作风、密切联系群众的八项规定和最高人民法院制定的六项措施，把司法为民的要求落到实处。狠抓司法作风建设，从严加强管理，有力提升了广大知识产权审判人员的宗旨意识、公仆意识，确保了知识产权审判队伍的先进性、纯洁性。
（四）加强司法廉洁建设
廉政建设始终是人民法院队伍建设的一项硬任务。2013年，各级人民法院以“踏石留印、抓铁有痕”的劲头，狠抓反腐倡廉建设，完善廉政风险防控体系建设，强化管理监督责任，加大问责追究力度，通过开展集中式教育、警示教育、召开专题民主生活会、谈心会等形式，教育和引导全体知识产权审判人员按照“为民、务实、清廉”的要求，珍惜权力、慎用权力、用好权力，不被各种诱惑所动，不为各种干扰所惑；通过认真开展司法巡查、审务督查等方式，加强管理力度，堵塞管理漏洞，把权力牢牢关进制度的笼子里，确保法官清正、法院清廉、司法清明。
结 束 语
2014年是贯彻落实党的十八届三中全会精神，完成“十二五”规划，统筹稳增长、调结构、促改革的关键一年。人民法院要在以习近平同志为总书记的党中央坚强领导下，始终高举中国特色社会主义伟大旗帜，以邓小平理论、“三个代表”重要思想、科学发展观为指导，坚持依法正确履行职责，坚持司法为民、公正司法，坚持以改革创新精神推动知识产权司法事业发展，积极发挥司法保护知识产权的主导作用，继续加大知识产权司法保护力度，锐意进取，攻坚克难，为开创知识产权审判工作新局面，推动实施创新发展战略，实现中华民族伟大复兴的中国梦作出新的更大贡献！
Intellectual Property Protection by Chinese Courts in 2013
Introduction
2013 is the initial year which the people’s courts applied the principles of the 18th Party Congress. It is also a critical year to ensure continued efficient and effective implementation of the twelfth Five-Year Plan, and a year which intellectual property adjudication forges new frontiers.
The people’s court have done well under the competent leadership of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party (CPC) headed by General Secretary Xi Jinping, the keen supervision of people’s congresses at all levels and their Standing Committees, and the valuable guidance of the Deng Xiaoping Theory, the “Three Represents” concepts and the scientific development approach.
The courts’ foci were to carry out the essential messages of President Xi’s series of important speeches and the responsibilities as required by the Constitution and the law; and to centre on the goal that “the people perceive equality and justice in every judicial case”, and also on the macro perspective, justice for the people and judicial impartiality.
The people’s courts endeavoured to strengthen comprehensively intellectual property adjudication, implement the national intellectual property strategy and enable intellectual property holders to benefit from the courts being the primary enforcer of intellectual property protection. The courts also deepened judicial reform of the intellectual property system, pressed ahead with greater transparency, better credibility and improved capabilities. All in all, the people’s courts have contributed significantly to a safer China governed by the rule-of-law, enabled China to forge ahead in reinventing itself as an innovative country and a socialist cultural giant, and in advancing towards becoming a complete xiaokang society.
I. Emphasised the priorities of judicial protection and leveraged the role of the courts
The people’s courts based their work on the party and the national priorities, and regarded intellectual property adjudication in earnest and its delivery with enthusiasm. There was profound observance of the basic judicial policy for intellectual property protection, which is “greater protection, classification of cases, appropriate stringency”, and lawful, fair and effective adjudication of different types of intellectual property cases, so that the legitimate rights of intellectual property holders were protected, intellectual property infringements were stopped and sanctioned, and fair competition within the economic order of a socialist market economy preserved. The courts have thus furthered their dominant role as protectors of intellectual property. In 2013, the number of first and second instance intellectual property cases concluded by the local people’s courts totalled 114,075 cases.
(i) Accomplished notable achievements in adjudication of civil cases relating to intellectual property, and enabled effective leveraging of the courts’ role in intellectual property protection and in driving innovation
In 2013, the people’s courts have accurately discerned the new goals and new demands on judicial protection of intellectual property under the comprehensive and deepened reform framework, and have seized opportunities, defined their work agenda and adhered to judicial activism. Civil litigation is increasingly important as a key means in protecting intellectual property and promoting indigenous innovation.
Compared to 2012, the number of first instance civil intellectual property cases accepted and disposed by local courts grew by 1.33% and 5.29% to 88,583 and 88,286 cases respectively. Within each intellectual property branch, the case numbers and percentage change compared to last year were as follows:
Newly accepted cases: 9,195 patent cases, 5.01% lower; 23,272 trademark cases, 17.45% higher; 51,351 copyright cases, 4.64% lower; 949 cases involving technology agreements, 27.21% higher; 1,302 cases involving unfair competition (of which, 72 were first instance civil cases involving monopoly disputes), 15.94% higher; 2,514 cases involved other intellectual property disputes, 13.91% higher.
Disposed cases:1,697first instance cases involving foreign parties, 18.75% higher; 483 first instance cases involving parties from Hong Kong, Taiwan or Macao, 21.21% lower; 69 first instance civil cases involving monopoly disputes, 40.82% higher.
For second instance cases involving civil intellectual property disputes, 11,957 cases were accepted and 11,553 cases disposed, respectively 24.80% and 24.33% higher than last year.
For reopened (zaishen) cases involving civil intellectual property disputes (including carried-over cases), 75 were newly accepted and 96 were concluded cases, which were 56.40% and 56.95% respectively lower than last year.
The Supreme People’s Court (SPC)’s intellectual property division accepted 457 civil cases involving intellectual property disputes and concluded 417 cases, which were 92.82% and 69.51% higher than last year. Of the 365 newly accepted applications for retrial, 341 were disposed.
The people’s courts of all levels have relied upon pre-trial preservation measures to promptly and effectively end infringements, and protect the lawful rights of the parties concerned.
The courts have accepted 11 cases involving application for preliminary injunction relating to intellectual property disputes; 77.78% were granted approvals.173 applications for pre-trial preservation of evidence were accepted, and 97.63% were granted approval, which have reduced the burden of proof on the parties concerned.47 applications for pre-trial preservation of property were accepted, and 96.97% approved.
For example, in the computer software copyright infringement case of Microsoft vs. e-Future Information Technology Inc., where e-Future was alleged to have infringed upon Microsoft’s Microsoft Office series of software, Microsoft had applied for pre-trial preservation of evidence and its application approved. The case was handled by the Wuhan Intermediate People’s Court at Hubei Province. The court approved preservation of the facts of infringement. Subsequently, the respondent accepted the court’s decision and did not continue with the suit.
High profile cases include: Hunan Keliyuan New Energy Co., Ltd vs. Ailantian High Technology Materials (Dalian) Co., Ltd, involving infringement of invention patent; Foshan Haitian Flavouring and Food Company Ltd vs. Foshan Gaoming Wei Pole Condiments Limited involving trademark infringement and unfair competition; Baidu Online Network Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd etc. vs. Beijing Qihoo Technology Ltd, involving unfair competition; Tsuburaya Productions Co., Ltd etc. vs. Shanghai Audio & Video Publishing House, involving copyright infringement; SI Group Inc. etc. vs. Sino Legend (Zhangjiagang) Chemical Co., Ltd etc., involving trade secrets dispute; Fujian Chaoda Modern Seed Industry Co.,Ltd vs. Rice Research Institute of the Anhui Academy of Agricultural Sciences, involving determination of invalidity claims of a licensing agreement on plant breeders’ rights etc.
(ii) Adjudicated intellectual property-related administrative actions, and fully exercised the courts’ function in supervising enforcement of the law and ensuring lawful administration
The people’s courts have carried out the important work arrangements as required by the 18th Party Congress to build a socialist rule-of-law country and to fully advance governance of the country based on law. The courts have also exercised fully their judicial review powers to supervise and support administrative authorities to administer according to law, therefore facilitated better administrative protection of intellectual property and protected the lawful rights of administrative counterparties.
In 2013, the local courts accepted 2,886 intellectual property-related administrative cases of first instance, 1.43% lower than last year, and disposed 2,901 cases (including carried forward cases), basically no change from last year. Of those accepted, the breakdown by intellectual property branch and percentage change compared to last year is as follows: 697 patent cases, 8.29% lower; 2161 trademark cases, 0.51% higher; 3 copyright cases, no change from last year; 25 cases of other categories, 66.67% higher.
Among the disposed first instance cases, those involving foreign parties or Hong Kong, Macao or Taiwan parties continued to represent a substantial percentage. Total number of cases was 1,312, representing 45.23% of the concluded intellectual property-related first instance administrative cases, of which, 1,143 cases involved foreign parties, 84 Hong Kong parties, 0 Macao parties and 85 Taiwan parties. All disposed cases were either patent or trademark related disputes, of which the latter account for a substantial percentage of 80.10%.
Total intellectual property-related administrative cases of second instance accepted and concluded by the local courts was 1,490 and 1,496 respectively, 4.64% and 7.78% more than last year. Of the concluded cases, 1,268 were affirmed, 146 reversed, 59 withdrawn, 18 dismissed; 5 other cases were disposed of through other methods.
SPC’s intellectual property division accepted 117 applications for retrial of administrative cases and concluded 104, 19.38% and 6.12% respectively more than last year. Of the concluded cases, 80 cases or 76.92% were dismissed; tishen orders (similar to certiorari) were issued for 23 cases or 22.12%, 1 case or 0.96% were withdrawn. 19 new tishen cases were accepted, and 19 cases were disposed. Of those disposed , SPC affirmed the original decision for 3 cases, or 15.79%, and reversed the decision for 14 cases, or 73.69%; 1 case, or 5.26%, withdrew; in 1 case, or 5.26%, the original ruling was revoked and an order issued to docket the case for hearing.
High profile administrative cases include:Power Dekor Group Co., Ltd vs. Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration of Industry & Commerce (SAIC) etc., involving a trademark administrative dispute; Cubist Pharmaceuticals, Inc. vs. Patent Review Board, State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO), involving an administrative dispute on the invalidation of a patent invention; Wuyishan City’s Tongmu Tea Leaves Co., Ltd vs. Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration of Industry & Commerce (SAIC) etc., involving an administrative dispute on the review of a trademark opposition; Beijing Yawang Roasted Duck Shop Co., Ltd vs. Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration of Industry & Commerce etc., involving an administrative dispute on the review of a trademark opposition; Li Longfeng vs. Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration of Industry & Commerce etc., involving a trademark administrative dispute etc.
(iii) Improved and strong criminal adjudication of intellectual property disputes to effectively sanction crimes and deter infringement
The people’s courts have exercised fully their adjudication powers for intellectual property crimes, and have cooperated with the relevant authorities in special actions to fight intellectual property crimes and crimes involving the manufacturing and sale of counterfeit or inferior goods. Through their relentless efforts, the courts’ have succeeded in punishing and deterring criminal behaviour relating to intellectual property infringement. For the first time in five years, the number of intellectual property crimes adjudicated by the people’s courts has reduced.
In 2013, for intellectual property-related criminal cases of first instance handled by local courts, new filings reduced by 28.79% to 9,331 cases, including 5,021 infringement cases (3,473 involved infringement of registered trademarks, such as use of counterfeit marks, and 1,484 cases involved copyright infringement), 35.96% lower than last year; 2,455 were infringement cases involving the production and sale of counterfeit or inferior goods, 5.83% lower than last year; 1,686 were infringement cases involving illegal business operations, 34.83% lower than last year; 169 were cases of other nature, 141.43% higher than last year.
The number of intellectual property-related criminal cases of first instance concluded by the local courts has decreased by 28%, to 9,212 cases. The number of persons against whom judgments were effective totalled 13,424, 13.49% lower than last year, including 13,265 who were given criminal sanctions, 13.52% lower than last year. Of the concluded cases, 4,957 involved intellectual property infringement, and the number of persons against whom judgments were effective totalled 6,866; 2,390 cases involved production and sale of counterfeit and inferior goods (involving intellectual property infringement), and the number of persons against whom judgments were effective totalled 3,430; 1,712 cases involved illegal business operations (involving intellectual property infringement), and the number of persons against whom judgments were effective totalled 2,882; 153cases were of other nature (involving intellectual property infringement), and the number of persons against whom judgments were effective totalled 246.
For concluded and disposed intellectual property-related criminal cases, 1546 cases involved counterfeiting trademarks, and the number of persons against whom judgments were effective totalled 2462; 1,496 cases involved the production and sale of counterfeit and inferior goods, and the number of persons against whom judgments were effective totalled 2,221; 350 cases involved illegal manufacturing and sale of illegally manufactured marks of registered trademarks, and the number of persons against whom judgments were effective totalled 589; 1 case involved counterfeiting patent, and the number of persons against whom judgments were effective was 0; 1,499 cases involved copyright infringement, and the number of persons against whom judgments were effective was 1,490; 15 cases involved the sale of infringing reproductions, and the number of persons against whom judgments were effective was 33; 50 cases involved infringement of trade secrets, and the number of persons against whom judgments were effective was 71.
Newly accepted second instance criminal cases involving intellectual property infringement totalled 662, and the number of disposed cases was 627.
High profile intellectual property-related criminal cases were: Zong Liangui case involving 28 people in trademark counterfeit; Jiangxi Yibo E-Tech Co., Ltd etc. case involving infringement of trade secret; Chen Bangqu etc. case involving 3 people in the sale of counterfeit and inferior goods; You Yan etc. case involving 3 people in copyright infringement.
In 2013, the people’s courts have comprehensively strengthened their adjudication of intellectual property cases, and new traits have emerged:
First, slower increase in the number of cases, and greater adjudication difficulty. The increase in the number of first instance civil cases received by all the local people’s courts have fell from the previous year’s 45.99% to 1.33%. Newly received first instance administrative and criminal cases have also seen a changed trend, from the respective increases of 20.35% and 129.61%, to a decrease of 1.43% and 28%. From 2009 to 2012, the increases in newly accepted first instance civil cases, administrative cases and criminal cases were 37.63%, 33.05% and 48.05% respectively.
Based on the distribution of newly accepted cases, local people’s courts that have a larger case base are seen to experience a slower increase in the number of new cases, whereas those with a smaller case base, such as courts located in the central and western regions, experience a faster increase. Although the courts at large experienced a slower increase in the number of new cases, the number of first instance civil cases of intellectual property disputes involving foreign parties has grown considerably, with year-on-year increase of 18.75%.
The following types of cases have increased in numbers, therefore continued increase in the level of adjudication difficulty: new types of cases or complicated and problematic cases involving cutting-edge technology; brand protection cases involving the major interests of famous companies; technological contract cases involving the commercial use of technological outcomes; and unfair competition cases involving maintaining the market’s competition order. Some of these are: Beijing Ruibang Yonghe Technology and Trade Co., Ltd vs. Johnson & Johnson Medical (Shanghai) Ltd etc., involving a first vertical monopoly agreement dispute in China; Eli Lilly & Co. of U.S.A. etc. vs. Huang Mengwei, involving a dispute on infringement of technical secret; Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd vs. IDC Co., involving a royalty dispute over the licensing of standard-essential patents; Google Inc. vs. Wang Shen, involving a copyright infringement dispute; Zhongshan Longcheng Daily Product Co., Ltd. vs. Hubei Tongba Children's Appliances Co., Ltd, involving a dispute on utility patent infringement; Tianjin Tianlong Science & Technology of Agriculture Co.,Ltd vs. Jiangsu Xu Agricultural Seed Technology Co., Ltd, involving a dispute on infringement of new plant variety etc.
Second, substantial improvement in adjudication quality and efficiency. Clearance rate of civil intellectual property case of first instance at the local courts was stable, at 87.95%; reopen (zaishen) rate fell from 2012’s 0.20% to 0.09%; appeal cases reversed or remanded for retrial (chongshen) was at 5.84%.Clearance rate of administrative intellectual property cases of first instance at local courts was 87.04%, increased by 0.5% from last year; appeal cases reversed and remanded for retrial was at 9.8%, reopen rate fell from 2012’s 0.21% to 0.069%. The percentage of criminal intellectual property cases of first instance concluded within time limit was 91.66%, a rather high figure.
Third, effectiveness of judicial mediation evident. The people’s courts have observed the adjudication tenets of lawful, voluntary and regulated mediation to beef up mediation for intellectual property disputes, and have continued to seek creative ways in mediation for dispute resolution. The coordinated “three-in-one” mediation mechanism, which aligns judicial mediation with people’s mediation and administrative mediation, was streamlined and improved, so that many conflicts and disputes were settled at the grass-root level and at pre-litigation. The courts also continued to explore other mediation methods “mediation by appointment” (weituo tiaojie), “mediation by industry associations” (hangye tiaojie) and “mediation by experts” (zhuanjia tiaojie), to create a multi-channel coordinated mediation mechanism and find the correct breakthrough point to resolve problems encountered during mediation. There was also focus on mediating related cases to facilitate cooperation to the advantage of multiple parties and for greater social harmony.
For example, for complex cases involving serious disputes, the Shanxi High People’s Court did not simply sit within the courtroom and hear a case; instead, in its many attempts to find ways to resolve disputes, judges would perform fieldwork to better understand a case’s context, which enabled them to resolve cases involving important livelihoods at the grass-root level.
Cooperation between the people’s courts and the relevant authorities had enabled the withdrawal rate of first instance civil cases involving intellectual property disputes to reach 68.45%. High profile cases that were successfully mediated by the courts were:Beijing Changdi Mapping Technologies Co., Ltd vs. Careland Technology (Shenzhen) Co.,Ltd etc., involving a copyright dispute on alleged plagiarism of the “Dao Dao Tong” GPS Electronic Map; BMW vs. Shenzhen Century Baoma Apparel Co. Ltd, involving trademark infringement and unfair competition practices;Hong Kong Hung Wo Tong Medicament Ltd vs.Guilin Yibai Lijiang Pharmaceutical Co.,Ltd, involving a dispute on technical cooperation agreement; Microsoft Inc. vs. Anhui Wanyi Science & Technology Co., Ltd, involving copyright infringement of computer software; Gao Xiaosong vs. Beijing Youshi Meters Network Technology Co., Ltd, involving copyright infringement etc.. The courts’ work has resulted in encouraging social and legal outcomes.
Fourth, greater judicial transparency. The people’s courts have worked towards “sunshine justice” by improving judicial openness to ensure the people’s right to know, right to participate and right to supervise judicial endeavours are ensured.
· Improved and regulated publication system for written judgements involving intellectual property cases. SPC’s intellectual property division has issued the Supreme People’s Court’s Provisional Guidelines for Online Publication of Written Judgements for Intellectual Property Cases, and has set up a staff system for online publication and implemented a regular reporting system for online publication, so as to ensure judgements are duly published online. As at end 2013, 61,368 legally effective written judgements for intellectual property disputes issued by the people’s courts of all levels have been published.
· Stepped up disclosure of details for major cases. For cases of major social concern, adjudication should be shown using all possible and appropriate media formats to improve the depth and extensiveness of disclosure. In major cases such as the unfair competition case of Tencent Inc. vs. Qihoo 360, and the Johnson & Johnson monopoly case, the courts employed open trials and the society has responded positively.
· Continued to widen channels of judicial openness. Live telecast, inviting deputies to people’s congresses to observe court proceedings, organise open days for the public, publishing white paper on judicial protection and collections of typical cases etc. are means which the courts disclose information on intellectual property adjudication to respond to social concerns. SPC has published the Intellectual Property Protection by Chinese Courts in 2012, and compiled and published the Yearbook on Intellectual Property Protection in China (2012). The high people’s courts of Beijing Municipality, Hebei Province, Shanghai Municipality, Jiangsu Province, Anhui Province, Shandong Province, Guangdong Province, Hainan Province, Gansu Province and Xinjiang Autonomous Region etc. have also released publications on intellectual property protection in their respective jurisdictions.
· Elaborated legal reasoning in written judgements. The courts have disclosed comprehensively and objectively the case facts, evidence relied upon for decision and arguments by each party, and decision rationale, so as to improve the public’s comprehension of the court’s ruling. This would also enable the written judgement to demonstrate the entire judicial process, present a positive judiciary’s image, regulated judicial behaviour. Other objectives include disseminating legal knowledge and taking the lead in the society to establish the correct social behaviour and transmit the positive rule-of-law ethos.
· Accepted supervision on own initiative. The courts have solicited widely from different social sectors opinions and recommendations on judicial protection, and have taken the initiative to accept supervision by the general public, the prosecutorial and supervisory authorities and the media for their work on judicial protection. SPC attaches great importance to the opinions and recommendations on the Report on Intellectual Property Adjudication by the Supreme People’s Court presented at the 13th meeting of the Standing Committee of 11th National People’s Congress, and has studied and developed implementation plans and completed a special report to ensure that the standing committee’s review recommendations are implemented. Local people’s courts of all levels have also communicated frequently with people’s congresses’ deputies and members of the local people's political consultative conferences to update them on the progress of judicial protection and improve their work. The High People’s Court of Jiangxi Province has made a special presentation on the progress of its work on judicial protection of intellectual property, and was commended by the deputies for their good work.
Fifth, continued increase in adjudication impact. The people’s courts attach high priority to adjudication of major cases, and have heard a series of cases of great social concern, extensive impact and significant disputed interest, and involve the direction of industry development. In doing so, the courts have ensured equal protection of the lawful rights of different categories of rights- holders and of local and foreign parties. The courts’ work is recognised and commended by the society at large and at home and abroad, and the impact of judicial protection of intellectual property has been significantly increased.
For example, in the case of Tencent Inc. vs. Qihoo 360 involving unfair competition, and which requires determination of competition rules in the internet domain, SPC put together a five-judge panel, whereby Xi Xiaoming, vice-president of the SPC, was the presiding judge. The entire hearing was telecast live, and more than forty domestic and foreign media companies gave extensive coverage. The strong adjudication team and open hearing, as well as the sustained and wide attention drawn, indicates the confidence and determination on the part of the people’s courts to step up judicial protection of intellectual property. The public’s response also demonstrates considerable popular resonance, whether on the part of the social public or holders of intellectual property rights.
II. Grounded in the goal of innovation-driven development, and focused on implementing the intellectual property strategy
The 18th Party Congress has laid out a major strategy at the critical juncture of China’s plan to build a complete xiaokang society, which encompasses accelerating the building of a more robust socialist market economy, remodelling the growth strategy, implementing an innovation-driven development strategy, and strengthening intellectual property protection. The people’s courts are fully aware of the unprecedented circumstances and new tasks they face in protecting intellectual property, and took full advantage of the opportunities presented before them, met the challenges, and leveraged their official roles to serve the larger interests. They have implemented the national intellectual property strategy, and have relentlessly contributed to ensuring and facilitating economic and social development. The High People’s Court of Guangdong Province has been awarded the honour of “Progressive Team in Implementation of the National Intellectual Property Strategy”.
(i) Persisted in serving the larger interests, and continued to improve upon the policies pertaining to judicial protection of intellectual property
A correct mind-set and appropriate policies are important guideposts for strengthening judicial protection of intellectual property, and for ensuring fair and efficient adjudication of different types of intellectual property cases.
In 2013, the people’s courts have redoubled efforts in implementing the basic policy of “greater protection, classification of cases, appropriate stringency” in judicial protection, and have promptly adjusted and improved upon judicial policies and systems based on changes in the national policies relating to science & technology, economics, industry, culture and trade etc. Based on the nature, function, characteristics and practical needs of the various intellectual property branches, specific judicial policies were enhanced and improved.
The courts have:
§ Focused on building up the momentum on innovation-driven development and improving the capacity for indigenous innovation by strengthening patent protection, and by concentrating on strengthening protection of the technological outcomes of essential and cutting-edge research, emerging strategic industries and modern information technology industries, so as to drive technological breakthroughs and innovation.
§ Focused on nurturing new competitive brand advantages to promote brand innovation by strengthening protection of trademarks and famous marks, and made determined efforts to check infringing behaviours as use of counterfeit marks and malicious trademark squatting.
§ Focused on promoting cultural prosperity and industrial development by strengthening copyright protection, and targeted at protecting splendid cultural resources, cultural innovation outcomes and new cultural forms to encourage indigenous innovation.
§ Focused on creating a fair and credible market environment to induce market dynamism by stepping up competition protection, cracking down on unfair competitive behaviour as counterfeit activities, false publicity, infringement of trade secrets, therefore, facilitated development of a robust and modern market regime.
§ Focused on defending the full rights of rights-holders by increasing the amount of damages awarded, strengthening application of evidence spoliation system and appropriately managing the relationship between statutory damages and discretionary damages for to improve reasonableness in calculation of damages. For criminal cases, focus especially on property sanctions to impose more severe punishment for intellectual property crimes, so as to deprive criminals of the ability and the capacity to recidivate. For example, in the Zong Liangui etc. case involving 28 persons in the use of counterfeit marks for Arawana (“Jin Long Yu”) and Luhua cooking oil brands, the High People’s Court of Henan Province fined the defendants for 27.04 million yuan. This was an effective deterrent and has improved the market environment.
(ii) Persisted in reform and innovation, and continued to improve upon the intellectual property-related adjudication system and work mechanisms
To inject dynamism in the people’s courts intellectual property adjudication operations and ensure that effective institutional safeguards are in place, deepened judicial reform and reform and innovation are necessary. In 2013, the people’s courts have vigorously implemented reform and driven innovation in the intellectual property regime, and have made continued improvements in the adjudication system and work mechanisms.
§ Further optimised jurisdiction for intellectual property cases. Due to continued increase in the number of patent disputes, SPC issued the Decision on Amending the “Several Rules Regarding the Application of Law When Adjudicating Patent Disputes”, which provides for appropriate decentralising of jurisdictional powers for patent cases, and for designating basic people’s courts that meet specific criteria as the first instance court for patent disputes. Also, to streamline jurisdiction for a more tenable structure, certain courts were selected as the court of competence for civil cases relating to patent and technology disputes, and special cases such as those involving well-known marks are flexibility assigned to certain courts based on need.
As at end 2013, 87 intermediate people’s courts have jurisdiction for patent cases, 45 for new plant varieties, 46 for topographies for integrated circuits, and 45 for well-known marks; 160 basic courts are given jurisdiction for general intellectual property cases, and 7 basic courts for adjudicating utility and design patent disputes.
§ Steadily advanced pilot projects for “three-in-one” adjudication of intellectual property disputes. The courts have worked to improve the “three-in-one” pilot project to establish a more systematic, wholesome and synergistic regime, and have guided the local people’s courts to proceed steadily with the pilot project. As at end 2013, the number of participating courts includes 7 high people’s courts, 79 intermediate people’s courts and 71 basic people’s courts.
§ Further improved the technical fact-finding mechanism. The courts have refined the operation procedures for the technical fact-finding mechanisms for forensic examination, expert assistant (zhuanjia fuzhuren) and expert advice, established and improved the work mechanisms for participation in court hearings for expert witnesses and technical experts, and strengthened the procedural and substantive review of forensic opinion and expert opinion. As such, technical fact-finding is increasingly scientific in terms of approach.
The High People’s Court of Zhejiang Province has developed working guidelines for technical experts, and employed 20 technical experts to help resolve the problems relating to technical fact-finding. The High People’s Court of Hubei Province has set up three expert databanks to provide intellectual support for adjudication-related professional issues.
§ Optimised the work of people’s assessors. The participation methods and processes of people’s assessors in hearing cases were standardised, their participation mechanism improved, and additional expert assessors as needed for adjudication of intellectual property cases selected. Thus, the courts have ensured that the people’s assessors exercise their official powers according to law, and effectiveness of their participation improved. The Nanning Intermediate People’s Court in Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region has increased its use of expert assessors. Participation of expert assessors in hearing 58 cases involving complex technical issues has improved adjudication quality.
(iii) Persisted in pursuing justice for the people, and continued to expand the scope of judicial services for intellectual property
The people’s courts have conscientiously observed the party’s mass line in intellectual property adjudication, and have taken the initiative to practise justice for the people as a work objective by going into the grass-root level, getting to know the masses, listening to the voices of the people and understanding them, and have continued to improve judicial measures to provide convenience and benefits for the people.
§ Greater guidance on defending rights and litigation procedures. The courts have provided more information on matters such as rights and duties, burden of proof and litigation risks, and have helped rights-holders manage infringement problems and defend their rights rationally.
For example, the Huangshi Intermediate People’s Court of Hubei Province regularly distributes the “Legal Risks Warning Card”, “Handbook on the Risks in Intellectual Property Protection” etc. to local businesses, and has helped companies set up their “rights-protection response mechanism” and “litigation guidance mechanism”. The courts have also stepped up efforts in preserving evidence and in collecting evidence ex-officio. Whenever the circumstances satisfy the conditions for evidence preservation or investigation and collection of evidence, the courts would promptly take the appropriate measures to reduce the burden of proof on the part of the rights- holders.
§ Organised circuit tribunals as needed. The High People’s Court of Henan Province has progressively organised circuit adjudication for intellectual property cases. More than 400 cases were heard by the circuit tribunal, thus have successfully dealt with many intellectual property cases of immense complexity, or that the parties were highly antagonistic. More than 2o,000 persons from all walks of life, including deputies to people’s congresses, members of political consultative conferences, teachers and students of tertiary institutions have observed the circuit tribunal. The impact was encouraging.
The Chuzhou Intermediate People’s Court of Anhui Province actively explored the possibility of setting up a circuit tribunal in cities and counties with higher intellectual property cases, and has given full play to its guiding role of the justice system.
The Yili Prefecture branch court of the High People’s Court of the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region has set up a circuit work station for judges at the Korgos Economic and Technological Development Zone, where judges are sent to the work station monthly to adjudicate on-site.
§ Launched legal advisory services. The people’s courts of Jinlin , Fujin, Anhui and Guizhou extended their adjudication responsibilities by moving the gantry of intellectual property protection forward, thus providing “home delivery of legal services” for key enterprises, science & technology parks. The courts reached out to businesses to understand their needs for intellectual property protection, and helped them solve legal issues relating to the creation, administration, operation and protection of intellectual property. Additionally, they also helped businesses raise their awareness to be innovation-driven and in risk-prevention, so as to strengthen their ability to prevent and defuse operational risks and develop their capabilities in innovation and development. The courts’ efforts were well-received by the businesses.
§ More active in providing judicial recommendations. The courts have provided guidance and direction in the form of judicial recommendations for striking, common and recurrent problems. The recommendations were given to the relevant departments to enable substantive resolution of the problems.
For example, the Hubei High People’s Court has provided judicial recommendations to the local government on copyright infringement of internet cafés, so as to guide intellectual property users to operate lawfully and facilitate the industry’s healthy development. The Guizhou High People’s Court addressed the problem of notarised documents being inadmissible as a result of procedural flaws by giving its judicial recommendations to the provincial judicial office, bring to the office’s attention the need for regulated notarisation. The Hainan High People’s Court submitted to the provincial government judicial recommendations on protection of special trademark resources to help improve their protection. The high people’s courts of Shanxi and Shanghai have also progressively become more active in providing judicial recommendations. In doing so, the courts have effectively served the relevant authorities and have helped them improve the use, administration and protection of intellectual property rights.
(iv) Persisted in strengthening protection, and continued to step up judicial publicity on intellectual property rights
Judicial publicity is an important channel through which the people’s courts enable the society at large to understand how judicial protection of intellectual property works. It is also an important vehicle to promote the rule-of-law spirit in judicial protection, as well as a key avenue to elevate the society’s respect for knowledge and increase awareness of the concept of intellectual property protection.
In 2013, the people’s courts managed to gain insight into the work involving judicial protection of intellectual property and focused on the key aspects of the work. For publicity, they have developed innovative publicity formats, focused on key publicity efforts, and have leveraged the role of publicity media such as media owned by the people’s courts, the news media, micro-message (Weixin) and microblog (Weibo). The courts have mobilised the strengths of different parties to create publicity synergies, thereby augmenting the effectiveness of the publicity. A publicity week was carefully planned around 4.26 World Intellectual Property Day.
SPC published the Ten Major Cases, Ten Major Innovative Cases and Fifty Typical Cases on Judicial Protection of Intellectual Property for 2012, and the Supreme People’s Court’s Annual Report on Intellectual Property Cases (2012) to present to the general society a lively and vivid picture of the results of increased judicial protection of intellectual property. Local courts have also taken an active stance in generating publicity and in response to the public’s interest in judicial protection of intellectual property by publishing updates on judicial protection of intellectual property and cases adjudicated, organised press conferences, and by going on the streets and distributing publicity pamphlets.
For example, the High People’s Court of Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region organised a publicity week under the theme “Implement the Intellectual Property Strategy, Support Innovation-Driven Development”. Legal awareness publicity activities extended to company offices and school grounds;
During the publicity week, the courts in Jiangsu Province organised 9 press conferences, set aside more than 1,800 places for observation of court hearing, and visited more than 100 companies, during which more than 5,000 publicity pamphlets were given out.
The Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps Branch Court of the High People’s Court of the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region organised a series of rich, interesting and people-friendly publicity activities based on the theme “Intellectual Property Helps Remodel Economic Growth”.
The Hefei Intermediate People’s Court of Anhui Province visited the “Seed Street” (“Zhongzi Yitiaojie”) to hear a case on new plant varieties. It invited management staff of the seed management station and seed sellers to observe the hearing. By using cases to teach the law, judicial publicity was more effective in communicating messages and influencing mind-sets.
(v) Persisted in synergistic development, and continued to vitalise intellectual property cooperation and exchanges
With deepening economic globalisation, greater cultural diversity and increasing information accessibility, increased intellectual property protection must stay on the path of cooperation for mutual benefits and joint development.
§ Strengthened inter-departmental coordination and cooperation to form combined protection forces. In 2013, the people’s courts have continued to coordinate the relationship between judicial protection and administrative protection of intellectual property by escalating cooperation with the administrative and law enforcement departments to establish a multi-dimensional protection regime.
The high people’s courts of Anhui, Jiangxi and Guangxi provinces have worked rigorously to establish a joint mechanism in intellectual property protection and an information-sharing platform. The High People’s Court of Henan Province have stepped up coordination and cooperation with the intellectual property administrative authorities to expand avenues for resolution of intellectual property disputes.
§ Strengthened international exchanges to raise our international profile. SPC has sent representatives to participate in intellectual property work groups meetings between China and the United States, Europe, Russia and Switzerland, as well as in international meetings on negotiations of China-Switzerland and China-Korea free trade zones. In doing so, we have shown our intellectual property achievements, and demonstrated China’s position and determination to continue strengthening intellectual property protection. The courts have received nearly 100 high level delegates from the United States, Japan and European Union, and have responded positively to the concerns of the foreign visitors, clarified misunderstandings and showcased on achievements in judicial protection of intellectual property; therefore, established a positive international profile.
To widen exchange channels and amplify the exchange outcomes, SPC has established an International Exchange (Shanghai) Base for Judicial Protection of Intellectual Property, and have relied upon the support of the Shanghai High People’s Court to receive delegations from the United States, Japan, Korea, Canada and Switzerland, and have received high commendations from the guests.
III.Focused on achieving greater judicial impartiality and credibility, and buttressed adjudication supervision and administration
Judicial impartiality is an important aspect in establishing the rule of law in China. It is the lifeline of the people’s courts and the fundament for establishing judicial credibility. In 2013, the people’s courts have focused hard on judicial impartiality and judicial credibility as the main guideposts to improve the norms for judicial protection, strengthen adjudication administration and supervision mechanism, and intensify guidance for adjudication and research. These undertakings would improve the quality and efficiency of intellectual property adjudication, and ensure that every case heard, could stand up to the test of the law, of history and of the people.
(i) Established robust judicial protection regulations, and facilitated uniformity in the standards employed in judicial protection
§ Further strengthened judicial guidance. To ensure that the amended Civil Procedural Law is correctly applied and that patent cases are adjudicated smoothly, SPC issued on January 2o13, the Supreme People’s Court Notice Regarding Printing the List of Patent Agents Recommended by the All-China Patent Agents Association to regulate participation of patent agents participating in civil procedures involving patent dispute.
To ensure that the newly amended Trademark Law is correctly implemented, SPC has promptly drafted and published the Supreme People’s Court’s Interpretations of Issues Regarding Jurisdiction and Scope of Application of Law during Adjudication of Trademark Disputes after the Implementation of the Decision on the Amendment of the Trademark Law.
§ Further strengthened adjudication guidance. In March 2013, SPC convened the 3rd National Work Conference on Intellectual Property Adjudication in Xi’an of Shanxi Province. The conference adopted the principles and spirit of the 18th Party Congress and the 1st session of the 12th National People’s Congress. Participants reviewed the results and experiences of the people’s courts in adjudication of intellectual property during past five years, analysed the current situation, and identified the guiding principles and tasks pertaining to intellectual property adjudication now and during the subsequent period. Issues that require particular attention when applying the law during intellectual property adjudication were also studied. The conference was extremely meaningful, as it has provided a clear direction for intellectual property adjudication for 2013 and for a short period of time in the future.
In April 2013, SPC held a national workshop for chief judges of intellectual property tribunals of all courts. The workshop centred on the practicalities of intellectual property adjudication and focused on the themes of judicial impartiality, improving judicial credibility and advancing governance of the country based on law. The workshop also discussed the current situations facing intellectual property adjudication and the need to grasp accurately judicial policy, and was able to unify minds and drive progress.
To ensure implementation of the spirit of the 3rd National Work Conference on Intellectual Property Adjudication, the high people’s courts of Zhejiang, Fujian, Shandong and Guangdong etc. also convened intellectual property work meetings for all the courts within the province to plan and delegate work pertaining to intellectual property adjudication in 2013, so as to ensure that adjudication is carried in a regulated and orderly manner.
§ Developed adjudication instruction materials. SPC has published books and materials as Instruction Manual on Intellectual Property Adjudication, Trends in Intellectual Property Adjudication, and Reflections and Prospects in Trademark Adjudication, which have reviewed operational materials as important normative documents and instructional opinions, work overview, statistics, research outcomes, typical cases, which have provided the quickest route to providing instructions of adjudication operations. The Beijing High People’s Court has developed and released a Manual on Determination of Patent Infringement, which has standardised and coordinated the law enforcement standard for patent cases in Beijing.
(ii) Intensified adjudication research, and expanded avenues to standardise application of the law
Judicial protection of intellectual property must face the most vibrant sectors of all creative activities: economic, scientific, culture and arts; hence, new issues continue to emerge, and judicial protection perpetually faces new demands and challenges. The important means with which adjudication of intellectual property employs a scientific approach is to strengthen research guidance for intellectual property cases and their adjudication, and to promptly standardise adjudication criteria and respond to the new needs in judicial protection of intellectual property.
In 2013, the people’s courts directed their attention to key and difficult aspects in intellectual property adjudication to find creative ways and research anchor points, organise adjudication research, review experiences and resolve new issues. The efforts were fruitful. SPC centred on establishing the criteria for determining patent infringement, adjudication standards in granting and validating patents rights for administrative cases, application of the Trademark Law, standards in granting and validating trademark rights for administrative cases, protection of well-known marks and service marks, protection of trade secrets, and application of the law for copyright disputes involving Karaoke operators etc., and conducted thematic researches in preparation for drafting the corresponding judicial interpretations.
In January 2013, SPC organised in Xiamen, Fujian Province, a national seminar on internet new technology and new business models and competition.
In July 2013, SPC established in Zunyi City Intermediate People’s Court in Guizhou, a “Supreme People’s Court Intellectual Property Judicial Protection Research Base for the Spirits Industry”. The research base will better enable discovery of issues relating to judicial protection of intellectual property, hence healthy development for the industry. To further facilitate research, SPC organised the first national award for excellence in intellectual property research outcome, and has completed the preliminary selection from 193 research reports.
Based on the practical realities, local people’s courts also organised different research activities. For example, the Chongqing High People’s Court collaborated with the relevant authorities to jointly organise the “International Conference on Trademark Infringement and Monopoly in the Internet Environment”, and the “High-Level Forum on Judicial Protection for Computer Software Copyright in the Cloud Computing Environment”. Tianjin High People’s Court organised the research activity on “Intellectual Property Judicial Protection of Cultural and Creative Businesses in Tianjin”. The Guangdong High People’s Court conducted research based on the theme of “Exploring and Improving the Judicial Evidentially System to Resolve the Difficulty in Determining Damages for Intellectual Property Infringement”, and carried out pilot studies in 14 basic and intermediate people’s courts.
The high people’s courts of Beijing, Hebei, Liaoning, Shanghai, Jiangsu, Guangxi, Yunnan, Shanxi, Qinghai and Ningxia also conducted research on specific themes based on key and difficult issues at the local level. This had be useful in providing guidance for adjudication operations.
(iii) Strengthened adjudication management, and improved upon the supervision and evaluation system to establish a scientific and effective system
An important institutional safeguard for judicial impartiality is the establishing of a management system that aligns accountability with powers, that supervises the use of powers, that misconduct is held accountable, and that violation of the law will be punished, which operates under a strict adjudication management and supervision powers, and which regulates the exercise of discretionary rights to prevent losing the control of powers and deviation from behavioural norms.
In 2013, the people’s courts of all levels have established, improved and implemented systems and mechanisms to ensure adjudication quality and efficiency, and have continued to review and promptly promoted experiences and practices that could help improve adjudication quality and efficiency. Indeed, the quality and efficiency of intellectual property adjudication have evidently improved.
The courts have also tightened management of the adjudication process, tracked and monitor the major processes and major areas in adjudication, and implemented regular reporting of case disposal. They have also improved on the timing of case disposal to ensure that conclusion of cases is evenly distributed throughout the year. These measures have improved the quality of adjudication.
The Shanxi High People’s Courts have implemented online case-handling, such that the entire process of receiving and hearing a case, panel deliberation and announce of decision is regulated, such that every phase in the adjudication process is traceable and evidence-based.
The courts have also:
§ Improved upon the quality of adjudication by organising joint meetings of presiding judges, full bench meetings and expert assessment meetings for difficult and complex cases, so as to ensure quality of adjudication. Quality reviews for are conducted to instil in judges the mindfulness of exquisiteness in quality.
§ Improved the review and evaluation mechanism for case quality, refined the evaluation standards, specified the criteria for determining miscarriage of justice and for accountability and recourse, so as to discover problems in time, correct errors, and prevent any miscarriage of justice.
§ Assessed, reviewed and compared written judgements to improve their quality, and have effectively prevented clerical errors etc., such that written judgements become the vehicle that embody the entire adjudication process, the grounds of judgement, and enablers of social supervision. To encourage better quality writing, SPC has initiated selection activities for 3rd National Excellence in Written Judgements for Intellectual Property Case, and have completed the preliminary selection from 483 written judgements.
IV. Focused on strengthening the basics at the grass-root level, and continued to improve upon the quality of the judicial team
Justice for the people, judicial impartiality and improving judicial credibility, are goals that hinge upon the team of people and whose key lie within the grass-roots. The people’s courts have always attached a high priority to strengthening the intellectual property adjudication team, so that the people would experience equity and justice for every case handled by the judiciary. The team of adjudicators would be proper and professional and armed with the required expertise. Hence, the courts have focused on building the team by adopting a scientific approach, so that the intellectual property adjudication team would be politically firm, professionally sound, with a good attitude and of high integrity.
(i) Strengthened institutional-building
A robust institution is the prerequisite for good intellectual property adjudication. In 2013, the people’s courts have conscientiously carried out the Opinions on Several Issues Concerning Implementation of the National Intellectual Property Strategy, and have continued to step up efforts in establishing specialised adjudication authorities for intellectual property cases, so as to lay a firm foundation for adjudicating intellectual property cases at the basic level.
In Tibet Autonomous Region, the intermediate people’s courts in Linzhi, Shannan, Naqu and Ali have established specialised intellectual property adjudicatory organs. In Fujian Province, the basic courts in Gulou, Siming and Jinjiang have established intellectual property tribunals. In Hubei Province the intermediate people’s couts of Xiangyang, Yichang, Huangshi, Huanggang and Jingmen have established intellectual property tribunals, such that specialised adjudicatory organs would facilitate the professional development of intellectual property adjudication. In Beijing’s Haidian District, the people’s court has set up the first basic court dispatch tribunal focusing mainly on hearing intellectual property cases. This was to lend strength for the establishment of a National Indigenous Innovation Demonstration Zone within Zhongguancun.
At the same time, the people’s courts of all levels have continued to build up their manpower for the adjudication team, as judges who are well-rounded in capabilities were selected to strengthen the intellectual property adjudication team and to ensure that intellectual property adjudication is supported by a strong talent pool.
(ii) Strengthened capacity-building
Under the new circumstances, where intellectual property adjudication has developed rapidly, there is urgent demand for intellectual property judges to improve their judicial skills and standard to serve the people well, ensure equity and justice, as well as to resolve conflicts and disputes and shape public opinion. The people’s courts have always focused their efforts on improving the capabilities of intellectual property judges as an important means to improve judicial protection of intellectual property. The means replied upon include organising training and seminars on specific themes, on-the-job training, exchanges and temporary job postings, observation of hearings, and setting up practice bases for intellectual property protection, so as to continue to step up the intensity and extensiveness of education and training.
§ Strengthened learning of political theory. The people’s courts of different levels have captured the essence of the spirit of the 18th Party Congress and of President Xi Jinping’s series of important discourse to guide intellectual property judges to be steadfast in their beliefs, develop a socialist rule-of-law concept, and nurture and practise the core values of socialism. This would strengthen their self-confidence in their pursuit of socialism, in their theoretical belief and in the system, and would lay a firm foundation for concept of judicial impartiality.
§ Strengthened training of professional skills. SPC continued to use the intellectual property training course provided by the National Judges College as vehicle to organise training for intellectual property judges. It has increased training for judges located in the central and western regions, and have deployed intellectual property judges to conduct touring lectures in the western region.
The Heilongjiang High People’s Court has introduced specialised intellectual property training, and has organised judges’ forum to train expert judges in the field of intellectual property; the Hubei High People’s Court has organised the “Five Ones” capacity-building activity, so as to build a team of intellectually-inclined judges; the Yunnan High People’s Court has held judges’ salons, and has specially organised reviewers from the Patent Review Board of SIPOto conduct touring lectures in intermediate people’s courts that have jurisdiction for adjudicating patent cases; the Zhejiang High People’s Court and the provincial judges’ college have jointly organised training courses on intellectual property adjudication and training courses for key personnel, so as to increase the level of training for adjudicators.
Also, the Chongqing High People’s Court has actively organised exchange activities with tertiary institutions as a way to align resources and fill each other’s needs and lacks and to raise the level of professionalism in adjudication; the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region’s High People’s Court has organised trainings to hone professional skills in intellectual property adjudication, so as to train judges on the most current issues in intellectual property; the Beijing High People’s Court has explored the “practical training system” (shi xun zhi) as a training model to improve training for younger judges and has laid a solid foundation for the sustainable development of intellectual property adjudication. Judge Chen Jinchuan, member of the court’s judicial committee and Chief Judge of the Intellectual Property Tribunal, has been received the “Award of Excellence in Copyright Achievement”
(iii) Strengthened nurturing of judicial attitude
Judicial attitude is the external embodiment of judicial impartiality, which directly concerns the feeling and evaluation of the people toward judicial impartiality.
In 2013, the people’s courts took the opportunity presented in the activity on educating judges on the party’s mass line to incorporate education on nurturing of judicial attitude. Every adjudicator must have the courage to face problems, and to look at themselves critically to discover their flaws and inadequacies. Based on the overall requirement to “look at yourself, tidy yourself, clean yourself and cure yourself”, criticisms and self-criticisms were carried out, such that the most striking problems as reflected by the general public were addressed. Judges have strictly observed the eight-point regulations concerning improving working attitudes and close contact with the masses, as well as the six measures as required by the SPC, so that justice for the people is truly implemented. The courts were stringent in enforcing the proper judicial attitudes and imposed strict disciplines, which have translated into improved awareness of the sense of purpose and sense of responsibility as public servants on the part of the intellectual property adjudicators. This has ensured the adjudication team for intellectual property are advanced in mind-sets and pure in spirit.
(iv) Strengthened judicial integrity
Integrity has always been a key task as part of capacity-building for judges in the people’s courts. In 2013, every level of the people’s courts were working vigorously to fight corruption, and to build a more robust system of integrity risk prevent system by strengthening responsibility in management supervision and stepping up accountability and recourse. By organising centralised education, educating about consequence, and conferences on special themes as democratic living and heart-to-heart discussions, the courts were able to teach and guide intellectual property adjudicators that they should uphold the requirement to be “practical and upright for the people; that they should treasure power, be careful when using power, using their powers well; that they should not be moved by temptations or enticed by distractions; that they should be diligent in initiating judicial inspection and supervision of adjudication operations to tighten administration and plug administration gaps. In doing so, power abuse would be locked away, and the judges would be upright, the courts would be clean, and justice would be fair.
Conclusion
2o14 is the critical year to carry out the principles and spirit of the 3rd Plenary Session of 18th CPC Central Committee and to see to fruition the 12th Five-year plan. This is also the critical year to stabilise growth, restructure the economy and drive reform. Under the strong leadership of party central committee led by General Secretary Xi Jinping, the people’s courts must persist in the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics, and be guided by the Deng Xiaoping Theory, the “Three Represents” and the scientific approach to development. They must adhere to discharging their responsibilities lawfully, to delivering justice for the people, to achieving judicial impartiality, and must perform intellectual property adjudication based on the spirit of reform and innovation. They must also continue to expand the mainstream role of judicial protection for intellectual property rights and level of protection for intellectual property. They must stay determined and enterprising, resolute and unrelenting. And they must contribute even more to opening new pages in intellectual property adjudication, to forging ahead with the innovation-driven development strategy, and to realising the China dream in the pursuit of renaissance of the Chinese nation.