中国法院知识产权司法保护状况（2011年）

前 言

人民法院作为国家审判机关，充分发挥司法保护知识产权的主导作用，在依法调整知识产权关系、维护知识产权权利人合法权益、惩治侵犯知识产权犯罪和维护社会主义市场经济秩序等方面，负有重要神圣职责。2011年是“十二五”时期的开局之年，是社会主义法治建设加快推进的重要一年，是人民法院知识产权司法事业取得长足进步的一年。人民法院在以胡锦涛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委会有力监督下，适应中国特色社会主义法律体系形成后的新要求，忠实履行宪法和法律赋予的知识产权审判职责，深入推进社会矛盾化解、社会管理创新、公正廉洁执法三项重点工作，依法公正高效廉洁司法，着力提升队伍素质、审判质量和司法公信力，各项知识产权司法工作取得新进展，为推动经济发展、文化繁荣和科技创新做出了积极努力。

关于2011年人民法院知识产权审判工作，正如最高人民法院院长王胜俊所指出的：随着经济社会的发展，知识产权审判工作的地位和作用越来越重要。近年来，各级人民法院高度重视这项工作，坚持能动司法，围绕中心，服务大局，坚持开拓创新，大胆探索，坚持队伍业务两手抓，为我国经济社会发展和建设创新型国家作出了重大贡献。

一、依法履行审判职责，始终抓好执法办案第一要务

2011年，人民法院知识产权司法保护工作始终坚持以执法办案为第一要务，将案件审理工作作为各项工作的重中之重，依法公正高效审理各类案件，在案件审理中始终严把事实认定关、法律适用关和司法政策关，努力实现法律效果和社会效果的统一，案件审理的质量和效率得到进一步提高，知识产权司法公信力得到进一步提升。

——始终注重发挥知识产权民事审判在保护知识产权中的主导作用。2011年，人民法院始终高度重视知识产权民事案件的审理工作，切实发挥民事审判在保护知识产权中的主导作用。在案件审理中，人民法院通过依法加大知识产权保护力度，制止各类知识产权侵权行为，保障知识产权权利人利益的充分实现，维护生机勃勃的创新机制。同时，通过科学界定知识产权保护范围和合理确定保护强度，防止知识产权滥用，促进知识传播和运用，拓展创新空间，构建公平合理的发展环境，使知识产权的市场价值和竞争优势转化为现实生产力和市场竞争力。围绕促进自主创新能力和国家核心竞争力的提高，不断加强专利权保护；围绕促进自主品牌的形成和品牌经济的发展，不断加强商业标志权益保护；围绕促进新商业模式的发展和文化创意产业的繁荣，不断加强著作权保护；围绕完善市场结构和维护公平竞争，不断加强对公平竞争的保护。全国地方人民法院共新收和审结知识产权民事一审案件59612件和58201件，同比分别增长38.86%和39.51%。其中，新收专利案件7819件，比上年增长35.16%；商标案件12991件，比上年增长53.56%；著作权案件35185件，比上年增长42.34%；技术合同案件557件，比上年下降16.87%；不正当竞争案件1137件（其中垄断民事一审案件18件），比上年上升0.53%；其他知识产权案件2193件，比上年增长11.55%。共审结涉外知识产权民事一审案件1321件，同比下降3.51%；审结涉港澳台知识产权民事一审案件635件，同比增长128.42%。共新收和审结知识产权民事二审案件7642件和7659件（含旧存），同比分别增长17.17%和18.18%；共新收和审结再审案件294件和224件，同比分别增长164.86%和105.50%。2011年，最高人民法院新收和审结知识产权民事案件305件和311件（含旧存），其中新收申请再审案件255件，审结262件（含旧存）。

案件审判质量和效率进一步提高。全国地方人民法院知识产权民事案件一审结案率从2010年的86.39%上升到2011年的87.61%；上诉率从2010年的49.65%下降到2011年的47.02%；再审率从2010年的0.27%上升到2011年的0.51%；上诉案件改判发回重审率从2010年的4.57%下降到2011年的3.66%。全国地方人民法院知识产权一审民事案件审限内结案率由2010年的97.93%上升到2011年的98.57%。

全国各级人民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130件，裁定支持率98.23%；受理诉前证据保全申请案件186件，裁定支持率93.42%。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20件，裁定支持率100%。

产生较大社会影响的案件有珠海格力电器股份有限公司与广东美的制冷设备有限公司、珠海市泰锋电业有限公司发明专利权纠纷案，广州市红太阳机动车配件有限公司与安徽江淮汽车集团有限公司、安徽江淮汽车股份有限公司确认不侵犯商标专用权纠纷案，衣念（上海）时装贸易有限公司诉浙江淘宝网络有限公司、杜国发侵害商标权纠纷案，尚杜·拉菲特罗兹施德民用公司与深圳市金鸿德贸易有限公司、湖南生物医药集团健康产业发展有限公司侵犯商标专用权、不正当竞争纠纷案，腾讯科技（深圳）有限公司、深圳市腾讯计算机系统有限公司与北京奇虎科技有限公司、北京三际无限网络科技有限公司、奇智软件（北京）有限公司不正当竞争纠纷案，北京开心人信息技术有限公司与北京千橡互联科技发展有限公司、北京千橡网景科技发展有限公司不正当竞争纠纷案等。

——始终履行好知识产权行政审判监督和支持知识产权行政执法的职能作用。2011年，人民法院依法公正高效审理行政案件，不断促进知识产权行政争议实质性解决。2011年，全国地方人民法院新收一审知识产权行政案件2433件，同比下降6.06%；审结2470件，同比上升3.30%。其中，新收专利案件654件，同比上升18.69%；商标案件1767件，同比下降12.78%；著作权案件2件，与2010年相同；其他案件10件。最高人民法院知识产权庭新收和审结知识产权行政申诉案件102件和101件。在审结的案件中，驳回73件，占72.28%；裁定提审20件，占19.80%；裁定指令再审3件，占2.97%；撤诉3件，占2.97%；发函1件，占0.99%；其他结案方式1件。最高人民法院新收和审结知识产权行政提审案件13件和11件。在审结的案件中，维持1件，占9.09%；改判10件，占90.91%。

一审涉外、涉港澳台知识产权行政案件大幅上升，共计1237件，占知识产权行政一审结案的50.08%。其中，审结涉外知识产权行政一审案件986件，涉港案件116件，涉澳案件3件，涉台案件132件。

二审知识产权行政案件数量增幅较大。全国地方人民法院新收知识产权行政二审案件1333件，审结1266件，其中维持原裁判1134件，改判67件，发回重审3件，撤诉42件，驳回14件，撤销原裁定指令立案审理2件，其他结案方式4件。

产生较大社会影响的案件有韦廷建与天丝医药保健有限公司、国家工商行政管理总局商标评审委员会商标撤销复审决定行政纠纷案，北京双鹤药业股份有限公司与湘北威尔曼制药有限公司、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，法国卡斯特兄弟股份有限公司与中华人民共和国国家工商行政管理总局商标评审委员会、李道之商标撤销复审行政纠纷案等。

——始终重视充分发挥知识产权刑事审判惩治和震慑侵犯知识产权犯罪的职能作用。2011年，人民法院进一步加大知识产权刑事司法保护力度，积极参与打击侵犯知识产权和制售假冒伪劣商品专项行动，知识产权刑事审判惩治和震慑侵犯知识产权犯罪的功能得到有效发挥。一审知识产权刑事案件增幅较大，全国地方人民法院新收一审案件5707件，同比上升42.96%。其中侵犯知识产权罪3134件（假冒注册商标等侵犯注册商标案件2417件），同比上升142.19%；生产、销售伪劣商品罪案件中涉及侵犯知识产权的774件，同比上升29.87%；非法经营罪案件中涉及侵犯知识产权的1747件，同比下降15.93%；其他案件52件。

全国地方人民法院审结一审案件5504件，同比上升39.62%，生效判决人数10055人，其中给予刑事处罚7892人。在审结案件中，以侵犯知识产权犯罪判决的案件2967件，生效判决人数5384人，同比分别上升136.60%和173.86%；以生产、销售伪劣商品犯罪（涉及侵犯知识产权）判处案件750件，生效判决人数1509人；以非法经营罪（涉及侵犯知识产权）判处的案件1735件，生效判决人数3032人；以其他犯罪判处的涉及侵犯知识产权的案件52件，生效判决人数130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1060件，生效判决人数2163人；以销售假冒注册商标的商品罪判决的案件863件，生效判决人数1507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370件，生效判决人数691人；以假冒专利罪判决的案件1件，生效判决人数2人；以侵犯著作权罪判决的案件594件，生效判决人数852人；以销售侵权复制品罪判决的案件30件，生效判决人数75人；以侵犯商业秘密罪判决的案件49件，生效判决人数94人。产生较大社会影响的案件有鞠文明、徐路路、华轶侵犯著作权罪案等。

知识产权案件总体呈现出以下特点：一是新收案件增幅较大。2011年，全国地方人民法院共新收知识产权民事一审案件59612件，同比增长38.86%；共新收知识产权行政一审案件2433件，同比下降6.06%；共新收刑事一审案件5707件，同比上升42.96%。二是重大疑难复杂和新类型案件增多。案件普遍呈现出涉外案件比重较大，国际关注度高；因法律规定较为原则需要明确具体界限的疑难案件所占比重不断增多；裁判结果对当事人切身利益有重大影响的案件不断增多。三是随着创新型国家建设进程的加快，对自主创新成果的保护需求日益强烈，专利案件数量持续上升；专利案件涉及的经济利益越来越大，发明专利案件和涉及药品、通信和环保等高科技领域的案件明显增多；争议金额和判赔数额越来越高；涉及自主知识产权的专利纠纷增多，起诉外国公司和外资企业的案件开始增多；涉外专利纠纷比重较大，对审判进程和裁判结果的国内外关注度越来越高。四是随着企业创造和保护自主品牌意识的明显增强，涉及商业标志的争议越来越多。商标授权确权诉讼争议明显增加；商标侵权诉讼程序与授权确权程序交叉关联案件明显增多；涉及知名企业的重要品牌的案件明显增多；商业标志类权利冲突纠纷持续增多。五是随着文化创意产业的蓬勃发展，版权保护已经超出传统的文化意义而更多地向经济意义拓展。著作权案件持续大幅增长，始终占有知识产权案件总数的一半有余；网络成为版权保护的主战场；串案和关联案件较多；与网络技术开发和应用有关的版权纠纷受到业界的高度关注，加强版权保护与促进新商业模式发展的利益平衡空前重要。六是随着市场竞争程度的日益激烈和商业行为模式的多样化，越来越多的市场竞争行为需要依法予以界定和规范。法律明文禁止的不正当竞争行为有所减少，但挑战法律边界的行为屡见不鲜，需要适用反不正当竞争法的原则条款判断的案件越来越多；反垄断法的实施使一些长期以来司空见惯行为的合法性受到质疑，一些非为个人利益得失而重在检验法律和挑战界限的试探性、挑战性纠纷进入司法程序，通过司法解决垄断纠纷受到越来越多的关注。

——着眼于妥善化解矛盾，始终坚持“调解优先、调判结合”原则。在案件审理中，人民法院始终坚持正确处理调解和判决的关系，注重规范调解行为，不断提高调解质量。坚持有利于解决纠纷、有利于化解矛盾、有利于实现案结事了的标准, 根据每起案件的具体情况，合理选择处理案件的方式，有效化解社会矛盾。始终坚持合法自愿原则进行调解，坚决避免脱离实际设定调解率指标、违背当事人意愿强调硬调等做法，不能调解以及调解不成的及时作出裁判。健全诉讼与非诉讼相衔接的矛盾纠纷解决机制，推动完善人民调解、行政调解、司法调解相结合的大调解工作体系，加强人民调解协议司法确认工作，支持调解组织、仲裁机构、行业协会充分发挥作用，共同化解社会矛盾。天津、山东、辽宁、湖北、安徽、陕西、新疆、贵州、海南、宁夏、青海、西藏等地高级人民法院以及兵团法院结合当地实际，不断探索建立符合本地区的诉讼调解纠纷解决机制。北京市高级人民法院在不断深化与中国互联网协会调解中心、中国作家协会建立的纠纷化解机制的同时，与北京市知识产权局签订知识产权纠纷司法委托调解合作协议，制定司法调解与行政调解相配合的指导意见。在湖南省高级人民法院协调下，长沙县人民法院、长沙市（县）仲裁委建立了与长沙经济技术开发区非诉讼纠纷解决制度对接的机制。福建省法院系统充分发挥专家调解员、人民陪审员、行业协会、诉讼代理人等社会资源参与调解的作用，构筑大调解格局。四川省法院系统积极构建司法调解、人民调解与行政调解“三位一体”的大调解格局。上海市法院系统利用上海版权纠纷调解中心、中国互联网协会等平台成功调解知识产权案件120余起，普陀区法院首次委托上海版权纠纷调解中心成功调解68件。全国知识产权民事案件一审调撤率达到72.72%，同比上升4.13个百分点。

——着力深化司法公开，司法公信力不断提升。人民法院切实抓好各项审判公开制度在知识产权审判工作中的落实，不断促进案件审理的公开、公正、透明，确保“阳光司法”，切实保障案件当事人和社会公众的知情权，确保公正司法阳光照耀在知识产权审判的每个角落。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审判工作透明度，不断提升司法公信力。最高人民法院采取一系列措施积极推进司法公开，发布《中国法院知识产权司法保护状况（2010年）》（中英文），举办全国法院知识产权司法公开座谈会，培训全国法院知识产权裁判文书上网工作信息员，开通升级改版的“中国知识产权裁判文书网”，实现全国法院知识产权裁判文书及时上网，不断提升网络的使用功能。截至2011年底，已经有40175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。继续丰富最高人民法院官方网站“知识产权司法保护子网站”的内容，并及时进行改版。上海市高级人民法院开通“上海法院知识产权司法保护网”。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。江苏省法院系统全面推行庭审“三同步”（庭审同步录音录像、同步记录、同步显示庭审记录）、裁判文书上网和庭审网络直播工作。北京、天津、重庆、山东、广东、广西、四川、甘肃、河北、江苏、海南、新疆等地高级人民法院发布2010年度知识产权司法保护状况白皮书或者蓝皮书。安徽、吉林、青海、西藏等地高级人民法院以及兵团法院推进建立健全知识产权司法公开机制。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，对庭审网络直播进行常态化管理。浙江省高级人民法院不断完善专业型人民陪审员制度，在知识产权行政管理部门中选任专业型人民陪审员参与知识产权审判，出台关于知识产权审判专业型人民陪审员管理的若干意见。

二、立足党和国家工作大局，始终贯彻实施国家知识产权战略

2011年，人民法院结合知识产权审判工作实际，始终坚持能动司法，找准积极服务党和国家工作大局的结合点和切入点，服务领域进一步拓宽，服务能力和水平进一步提高，国家知识产权战略得到进一步深入贯彻落实，为“十二五”时期经济长期平稳较快发展提供更加有力的知识产权司法保障。

——紧紧围绕党和国家工作大局能动司法，为促进经济社会科学发展服务。人民法院知识产权司法工作紧紧服从服务于国内国际两个大局，着眼于服务经济结构战略性调整以及科技进步和自主创新，更好地为加快转变经济发展方式服务。始终高度关注国内国际形势的发展变化，充分发挥知识产权司法保护服务经济社会科学发展的功能作用。以推动加快形成先导性、支柱性产业为重点，进一步加强专利等技术类案件审判工作，切实提高产业核心竞争力；以加强驰名商标司法保护为重点，加强商标审判工作确保品牌经济发展；在防止滥用驰名商标保护制度的同时，依法充分保护驰名商标；以推动新兴产业发展，全面提高信息化水平和增强国家文化软实力为重点，加强涉及软件、数据库、网络等著作权案件的审判工作；以维护公平竞争和规范市场秩序为重点，进一步加强竞争案件的审判工作；以加大侵权惩罚力度和降低维权成本为重点，加快知识产权司法保护制度建设，加强对自主创新品牌、基础前沿领域、核心关键技术和文化创意产业知识产权的司法保护；积极参与打击侵犯知识产权和制售假冒伪劣商品的专项治理活动，促进自主创新能力和国家核心竞争力的提高。组织开展“加强知识产权司法保护，促进经济发展方式转变”年度主题活动，为加快转变经济发展方式提供坚强知识产权司法保障。最高人民法院制定为推动社会主义文化大发展大繁荣服务的意见，出台加强文化创造者权益保护和科技成果保护等30项措施，指导地方各级法院加大知识产权司法保护力度。山东省高级人民法院出台了进一步加强知识产权审判工作的指导意见，为全省法院的知识产权审判工作指明方向。浙江省法院系统根据地方经济发展情况和产业发展特点，积极延伸知识产权审判职能，积极开展“知识产权特色审判”主题活动。天津市高级人民法院发布关于为社会主义文化大发展大繁荣提供知识产权司法保障与服务的实施意见。湖北省高级人民法院发布关于充分发挥司法保护知识产权的主导作用推动文化强省建设和科学发展的实施意见。云南省高级人民法院发布关于进一步加强特色和优势产业知识产权司法保护的意见。

——积极推动知识产权审判庭集中审理知识产权民事、行政和刑事案件的试点工作。全国各级人民法院坚持知识产权审判领域的改革创新，推动建立更为科学的知识产权审判体制和工作机制。按照国家知识产权战略的要求，知识产权审判庭集中审理知识产权民事、行政和刑事案件的试点工作得到进一步推广。在2011年12月召开的全国高级法院院长会议上，最高人民法院明确提出要进一步推进由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，发挥整体保护效能，努力构建资源优化、科学运行、高效权威的知识产权审判工作机制。已经开展试点的法院切实加强对试点工作的总结，不断推动试点工作规范化，及时发现试点中的新情况和解决新问题。不断推进建立知识产权民事、行政和刑事审判协调机制，大力加强与公安机关、检察机关以及行政执法机关的配合，提高司法效率，统一司法标准，发挥整体保护效能，努力构建资源优化、科学运行、高效权威的知识产权审判体系。截至2011年底，全国已有5个高级法院、50个中级法院和52个基层法院开展了相关试点。江苏、浙江、内蒙古等地高级法院加强与检察院、公安厅的协调，就“三审合一”试点工作中刑事保护问题出台指导性意见。江苏省高级人民法院联合省公安厅、省检察院，制定关于办理知识产权刑事案件若干程序问题的意见，从权利审查、证据收集固定以及技术秘密鉴定等方面全面规范知识产权刑事案件办理工作，在商业秘密犯罪案件中引入公知技术抗辩制度，有效统一知识产权刑事案件执法尺度，提高刑事司法保护水平。

——注重知识产权司法保护宣传，不断扩大知识产权司法保护的影响力。人民法院通过各种形式的宣传手段，全方位地、多维度地宣传知识产权司法保护所取得的成绩和状况，将知识产权司法保护宣传工作作为一项重要工作抓紧抓好，不断扩大知识产权司法保护的影响力，努力树立知识产权司法保护的良好形象。一如既往地抓好“4·26”世界知识产权日宣传周的各项宣传活动，不断丰富宣传内容。“4·26”世界知识产权日宣传周期间，全国各级人民法院抓好中宣部、最高人民法院等25个单位组成的全国知识产权宣传周组委会发布的《关于开展2011年全国知识产权宣传周活动的通知》落实，广泛宣传2010年全国法院知识产权司法保护工作取得的成就，开展了形式多样、富有创意的大规模宣传活动，取得了良好的社会效果，产生了广泛和积极的影响。最高人民法院在此期间主要举办了如下活动：召开全国法院知识产权司法公开座谈会，签署《互联网知识产权纠纷调解机制备忘录》，发布《中国法院知识产权司法保护状况（2010年）》（中英文）白皮书，发布《最高人民法院知识产权案件年度报告（2010）》，开通升级改版的“中国知识产权裁判文书网”，设立知识产权司法保护理论研究基地、调研基地和基层示范法院，发布2010年中国法院知识产权司法保护十大案件和五十个典型案例，公布审理垄断民事纠纷的司法解释的征求意见稿，组织中央新闻媒体“知识产权司法保护江苏行”活动等。数十家国内主要媒体对宣传活动进行了深度报道，美联社等国外媒体也高度赞扬我国加强知识产权司法及增强知识产权司法透明度的举措。我国法院知识产权司法保护所取得的成就得到了海内外的普遍赞誉，受到了积极评价，进一步提升了知识产权司法保护的公信力，提高了国际影响力。在“知识产权司法保护江苏行”活动中，人民日报、人民网、新华社、光明日报、中央广播电台、中国知识产权报、法制日报、人民法院报等中央媒体深入江苏南京、苏州、常州和无锡进行采访，实地了解江苏法院在司法体制和工作机制改革、知识产权司法公开、知识产权纠纷调处机制、知识产权司法保护制度建设和队伍建设等方面的实际情况，深入进行报道。

——进一步完善知识产权案件管辖布局，大力弘扬司法为民便民精神。人民法院从方便知识产权权利人诉讼，确保权利人更好地行使自己的合法权益，节约案件当事人诉讼成本的角度出发，认真贯彻最高人民法院《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》的精神，推进知识产权案件管辖布局的合理化和科学化，进一步优化审判资源配置。在经济、科技和文化相对发达的地区，适当增加批准管辖一般知识产权案件的基层法院，鼓励中级法院和基层法院根据工作需要开展跨地区划片集中管辖。截至2011年底，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82个、45个、46个和43个，具有一般知识产权案件管辖权的基层法院达到119个，3个试点审理实用新型和外观设计专利纠纷案件的基层法院。江苏省高级人民法院积极推动苏州、无锡、南京等地法院开展基层法院知识产权案件跨区域管辖工作，并下发《关于进一步明确全省知识产权案件级别管辖标准的通知》，规范辖区内知识产权案件级别管辖秩序。

——始终注重知识产权审判制度创新，不断完善公正高效权威的知识产权审判制度。人民法院始终将知识产权审判制度创新作为一项重要工作。最高人民法院知识产权审判庭与中国互联网协会签署《互联网知识产权纠纷调解机制备忘录》，创新和发展诉讼与非诉讼相衔接的纠纷解决机制。黑龙江、上海、天津、青海、河北、浙江、福建、广西、山西、江西、新疆、内蒙古等地高级法院积极探索建立和完善案件技术事实查明机制，充分发挥科学技术专家的作用，试行专家陪审员和专家证人制度，不断提高案件审判质量。山东、湖南等省高级人民法院与本省科协签署知识产权司法保护合作备忘录，聘请特邀科学技术咨询专家，制订特邀科学技术咨询专家工作办法，积极探索技术专家参与知识产权审判的新途径。江苏省高级人民法院指导辖区内中院普遍成立技术专家库，出台知识产权技术专家库管理办法（试行）。广东省高级人民法院建立法律咨询顾问制度，聘请十位长期从事科学技术、知识产权理论研究和行政执法的专家担任全省法院系统的知识产权法律咨询顾问。

——加强横向联系，努力构建全方位的知识产权保护体系。人民法院始终重视加强与知识产权行政管理部门、科学技术行政管理部门、行业协会和高校等的沟通与联系，提高保护知识产权的实效，充分发挥司法、行政保护知识产权并存的优势作用，努力推动我国知识产权整体保护水平不断进步。全国部分人民法院继续与国家知识产权局专利复审委员会互派人员开展工作交流。积极参与立法建议和行政决策建议工作，有效开展司法建议工作。北京市法院系统注重横向联动、搭建平台、加强合作，探索建立区域知识产权保护体系，石景山区法院与区知识产权局、司法局等共同成立“中关村科技园石景山园法律服务平台”，朝阳区法院与区有关单位联合主办“保护知识产权，促进创新发展”主题活动，东城区法院与区知识产权局、雍和园管委会等单位联合主办第三届“知产雍和行”活动，怀柔区法院与北京电子商会等七家行业协会建立联络机制等。河南省法院系统建立与知识产权相关部门的沟通协调机制，形成知识产权保护合力。

——加强知识产权司法保护国际和区际交流，努力提升中国知识产权司法保护负责任大国形象。人民法院始终重视知识产权司法保护的国际和区际交流活动，不断拓展交流的渠道，不断丰富合作的形式，注意加强中美、中欧及与其他国家之间的交流与合作。组织知识产权法官前往美国进行交流学习，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。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，维护良好的国际形象。最高人民法院全年共接待涉及知识产权司法保护的日本、美国等高层代表团近二百人，全面介绍我国知识产权司法保护的状况和成绩，提升了中国法院知识产权司法保护的国际影响力。最高人民法院为加强海峡两岸知识产权法律界和司法界的交流，组成以知识产权法官为主要成员的中国法官协会代表团前往台湾进行了访问，代表团与台司法界人士就两岸司法制度、知识产权司法保护及其他审判制度等问题进行了广泛和深入的交流。通过访问，两岸司法界增进了了解，加深了友谊，凝聚了共识，对于促进两岸司法互信与合作，加深沟通与交流，具有重要意义。

三、夯实基层基础，统一法律适用尺度，始终注重审判监督和业务指导工作

基层基础建设事关人民法院工作全局，统一司法标准事关法治国家和人民法院公信力建设。2011年，全国各级人民法院始终注重基层基础建设，始终在统一司法标准上做文章、下力气，始终履行好审判监督职责，始终抓好业务指导工作，不断规范上下级人民法院审判业务关系，明确上级法院监督指导的范围与程序，促进提高基层知识产权司法水平。

——大力加强知识产权审判基层基础建设，夯实知识产权审判工作根基。全国各级人民法院根据知识产权审判工作的特点和规律，深入贯彻最高人民法院关于加强人民法院基层基础建设的意见。进一步完善基层法院知识产权审判业务机构设置，加强人员配备；有针对性地加强基层法院法官培训，加强基层法院知识产权法官到上级法院或兄弟法院的挂职交流，提升基层法院知识产权审判能力和水平。支持基层法院在知识产权审判体制和工作机制方面的改革和探索，及时总结和推广其经验。发挥基层示范法院的模范带头作用，使各基层示范法院在提高知识产权审判工作质效、创新审判体制和工作机制、加强审判规范化建设和队伍建设等方面，发挥示范和引领作用。最高人民法院实施加强知识产权审判基层基础建设“三五工程”，即在北京大学、中国人民大学、华东政法大学、西南政法大学、深圳大学设立知识产权司法保护理论研究基地；在已设立中国知识产权司法保护（苏州）调研基地的基础上，增设青岛、深圳、长沙、成都四个调研基地；决定北京市朝阳区、上海市浦东新区、江苏省苏州市虎丘区、浙江省义乌市、湖北省武汉市江岸区人民法院为知识产权审判基层示范法院。最高人民法院知识产权审判庭与苏州高新区管委会签署合作备忘录，将苏州高新区作为中国知识产权司法保护典型案例评选发布基地。辽宁省高级人民法院和大连海事大学合作，联合创设“辽宁知识产权司法保护研究基地”。

——大力加强知识产权审判专题调研。全国各级人民法院牢固树立“以调研促审判”理念，高度重视知识产权审判调研工作，不断提高调研水平，注重成果转化。就加大侵权惩处力度、降低维权成本，明确知识产权案件损害赔偿计算的原则和标准，提高损害赔偿计算的科学性和合理性等问题开展调研。就网络环境下的著作权司法保护继续开展调研，完成网络著作权司法保护的重点调研课题。就专利授权确权行政案件的审判、商业秘密司法保护和知识产权案件诉前临时措施制度等相关问题开展调研。就提高商标行政案件的审理质量和效率，改革商标行政案件管辖制度开展调研。开展包括涉境外作品著作权保护、涉网吧著作权纠纷、传统戏剧作品保护等在内的专项调研工作。

充分发挥中国审判理论研究会知识产权专业委员会知识产权审判专业学术组织和学术交流平台的作用，为推进全国法院知识产权审判事业的发展提供重要的理论支持，在重庆召开中国审判理论研究会知识产权专业委员会2011年会暨“加大知识产权司法保护力度与降低维权成本”研讨会，表决通过《关于调整中国审判理论研究会知识产权专业委员会主要成员的决定》。积极配合有关单位和部门做好民事诉讼法、反不正当竞争法等法律法规修改工作，从全国法院范围内选择有丰富审判经验和理论素养的法官组成著作权法、商标权法两个修改法律小组，积极开展调研，为立法提出高质量的建议。

针对审判中出现的难点热点以及新情况新问题积极开展专题调研，全国地方各级人民法院不断丰富和创新调研手段和方法，撰写专题调研报告、总结审判经验、发表论文、编写审判经验交流资料、召开座谈会、举办讲座等，不断提高调研的能力和水平，服务审判实践。

——不断拓宽知识产权审判业务指导途径。全国各级人民法院通过制定司法解释、发布司法文件、发布指导性案例、出台指导性意见、开展专项调研等多种形式，切实担负起对下级法院进行业务指导的职责。最高人民法院切实抓好知识产权司法解释或司法解释性规范文件的制定工作，完成起草审理垄断民事诉讼司法解释并向社会公开征求意见，起草审理网络著作权案件的司法解释，起草审理专利授权确权行政案件审判标准的指导性意见，起草审理商标授权确权案件程序问题的指导性意见。最高人民法院、最高人民检察院、公安部联合发布了《关于办理侵犯知识产权刑事案件适用法律若干问题的意见》，进一步明确了有关知识产权犯罪的定罪量刑标准，完善了知识产权刑事司法保护规范体系，为公安机关、人民检察院、人民法院依法办理侵犯知识产权刑事案件提供了重要规范保障，进一步明确了近年来公安机关、人民检察院、人民法院在办理侵犯知识产权刑事案件中遇到的法律适用疑难问题，对于依法惩治侵犯知识产权犯罪，充分发挥司法保护知识产权主导作用，提高中国知识产权刑事司法保护水平，维护公平有序的市场环境具有十分重要的意义。在浙江省杭州市召开全国法院知识产权审判工作座谈会，会议深入学习贯彻十七大、十七届六中全会精神，以牢固树立社会主义法治理念为指导，准确把握人民法院知识产权审判工作面临的机遇与挑战，进一步明确知识产权审判工作所担负的历史使命，回顾总结2011年知识产权审判工作，深入分析当前面临的形势任务，研究部署今后一个时期的知识产权审判工作。会议的召开对于2012年以及今后一个时期做好知识产权审判工作具有重要意义。组织知识产权专家学者以及优秀知识产权法官编写全国法院知识产权法学案例教程，为知识产权法官教育培训提供高质量的教材。广东省高级人民法院指导中山市中级人民法院建立中山灯饰知识产权快速维权机制和知识产权巡回审判庭，指导深圳龙岗区法院推行电子证据固化系统建设。

——充分发挥司法政策在促进知识产权司法统一上的重要作用。人民法院根据分门别类、区别对待和宽严适度的宏观知识产权司法政策要求，调整和规划各类知识产权案件的具体司法政策，充分发挥司法保护知识产权的主导作用。在审判过程中，准确运用司法政策指导法律规则正确实施，系统总结和细化知识产权司法政策，通过各种方式保障知识产权司法政策的贯彻落实，不断推进知识产权司法的统一、规范和公开。

——创新和加强审判管理。全国各级人民法院努力建立起一套科学、完备、有效的知识产权审判管理体系，加强审判管理制度建设，以制度促管理、以管理保质效，突出强调审判管理的规范化、制度化、科学化，把知识产权审判管理覆盖到每个审判人员和审判工作全过程，不断提高案件审判质效，不断完善审判流程管理，建立结案定期通报制度，确保办案效率，实现均衡结案。严把裁判文书质量关，突出文书的说理性和示范作用。积极开展优秀裁判文书评选活动，不断促进裁判文书质量提高。强化对疑难复杂案件的审理，通过召开审判长联席会、相关法官会、专家论证会等多种方式研究讨论，确保案件公正审理。进一步加大提级管辖、异地管辖的力度，防止地方保护，确保公正司法。始终高度关注关联案件的协调，确保关联案件处理的一致性。广东省高级人民法院建立健全知识产权审判情况分析通报、分类指导和沟通协调三项工作机制，不断提高知识产权审判工作水平。重庆市法院系统建立大要案报告制度。

——充分发挥典型案例在知识产权审判中的示范作用。人民法院高度重视典型案例在知识产权审判中的示范作用，将典型案例的评选和发布作为一项长期重要工作，不断推进知识产权案例指导工作的规范化、制度化和长效化。最高人民法院发布《最高人民法院知识产权案件年度报告（2010）》，公布2010年中国法院知识产权司法保护十大案件和五十个典型案例。北京、天津、重庆、山东、安徽、福建、江西、湖南、四川、山西、黑龙江、广东、广西、甘肃、贵州等地高级法院公布当地的典型案例，不断探索完善典型案例指导制度。

四、加强知识产权审判队伍建设，始终重视提高队伍素质

建设高素质的知识产权法官队伍，是做好知识产权审判工作的关键。2011年，全国各级人民法院将抓党建带队建促审判贯穿于知识产权法官队伍建设的始终，注重在全面提高知识产权法官队伍整体素质上下功夫，广大知识产权法官积极投身到法院文化建设之中，不断提高自身的法律文化修养，促进知识产权司法文化建设。

——加强法院文化建设，积极树立知识产权法官的良好职业形象。加强文化建设，大力提升知识产权法官的思想境界、职业操守、人文素养，努力营造崇尚学习、积极进取、特色鲜明的文化氛围，培养和树立知识产权法官司法公正、清正廉洁、一心为民、规范文明的职业形象。

——加强学习型审判庭建设，着力提高知识产权法官的政治素质和业务素质。全国各级人民法院始终注重知识产权审判庭的政治学习和业务学习，广泛开展学习型审判庭建设。加强广大知识产权法官“忠诚、为民、公正、廉洁”的政法干警核心价值观教育。加强广大知识产权法官应用法学理论研究，创新学习方法，定期开展多种形式的业务学习，及时更新知识产权法学理论知识，适应中国特色社会主义法律体系形成对人民法院知识产权司法保护的深刻影响。

——深入开展两项主题实践活动，牢固树立社会主义法治理念。全国各级人民法院将“人民法官为人民”主题实践活动纳入中央政法委组织开展的“发扬传统、坚定信念、执法为民”主题教育实践活动中，按照中央政法委的统一要求和最高人民法院的部署，突出加强党建工作和司法作风建设两个重点，结合知识产权审判工作实际，加强组织领导，狠抓工作落实，确保两项活动取得实效。切实改进广大知识产权法官的司法作风，坚持党的群众路线，牢固树立群众观点，深入开展群众观点大讨论，确保群众观点深入人心。努力促进知识产权司法廉洁，进一步落实以人为本、执政为民理念，扎实开展党风廉政建设，强化知识产权司法廉洁教育，督促广大知识产权法官廉洁自律，坚守防线。

——扎实开展知识产权法官培训教育，全面提升知识产权队伍素质。最高人民法院和高级人民法院举办各种形式的培训，进一步增强知识产权法官的司法能力，提高知识产权法官的司法水平。全国各级人民法院将认真贯彻“一个目标、两个转变、三个倡导”教育培训工作方针贯彻落实于知识产权法官的教育培训中，严格落实最高人民法院制定的2011-2015年全国法院教育培训规划，不断优化知识产权审判培训内容，创新知识产权审判培训方式，提高知识产权审判培训质量。最高人民法院举办全国法院知识产权审判培训班，注重加强宏观司法政策、社会主义法治理念教育，就知识产权司法前沿理论问题开展研讨和交流，增强知识产权法官的司法能力，提高司法保护知识产权的水平。最高人民法院与美国国际发展署、亚洲基金会举办了首届全国法院知识产权审判庭庭长研讨班，全国各级人民法院的230余名知识产权审判庭庭长参加了研讨班，研讨班对知识产权司法理念、司法政策和基本法律制度等宏观和中观问题进行了为期一周的研讨。

结束语

2011年，人民法院的广大知识产权法官们开拓创新，兢兢业业，硕果累累；2012年，广大知识产权法官们信心满怀，仍须努力，更上层楼。

2012年是我国发展进程中具有特殊重要意义的一年，中国共产党将召开举世瞩目的第十八次全国代表大会。人民法院知识产权司法工作将继续坚持以审判工作为中心，认真践行“为大局服务、为人民司法”工作主题，着力在深化上下功夫、在落实上见成效、在巩固中求提高，积极应对好知识产权保护工作面临的新情况新问题新挑战，切实完成好知识产权审判工作为保护知识产权承担的繁重任务；进一步加强调查研究，坚持能动司法，更加有效地推进知识产权审判制度机制创新，争取更好的法律效果和社会效果；进一步加强与有关执法部门的配合，切实加大对侵犯知识产权犯罪的打击力度，维护公平竞争的良好市场经济秩序；进一步加强自身建设，认真开展“忠诚、为民、公正、廉洁”的政法干警核心价值观教育实践活动，切实做到知行统一，努力实现人民法院知识产权司法工作的新发展，为开创知识产权审判工作新局面作出新的更大的贡献！

Intellectual Property Protection

by Chinese Courts in 2011

Introduction

As the national  adjudication authorities, the people’s courts are a cornerstone in protection system for China’s intellectual property rights. They are irreplaceable in many aspects: regulating intellectual property relationships, safeguarding the lawful rights of intellectual property owners, punishing infringers, and maintaining the order of our socialist market economy. Last year was the first year of the 12^th five-year plan period, during which accelerated progress was made in improving the socialist rule of law, and major strides taken in the judicial protection of intellectual property. Under the strong leadership of the Party Central Committee, headed by Secretary General Hu Jintao, and the effective supervision of the people’s congresses and their standing committees of all levels, the people’s courts adapted to emerging demands after the formation of a Chinese socialist legal system, discharged their constitutional and legal duties of intellectual property adjudication, and achieved the Three Key Tasks of social conflict resolution, development of innovative social administration practices, and enforcement of law in a fair and honest manner. The people’s courts have also improved their level of competence and quality of adjudication, increased public confidence in the judiciary, furthered judicial protection of intellectual property, and facilitated innovation and advancement in technology.

Wang Shengjun, President of the Supreme People’s Court, has said that adjudication of intellectual property is increasingly important as the economy grows and the society modernizes. In recent years, intellectual property is a major priority for the people’s courts of all levels. The courts have pursued judicial activism, focused on delivering key tasks as determined by the central government and have served the overall interests of the country. They have developed innovative approaches, improved judicial ethics and built professional capacity. In doing so, the people’s courts have contributed significantly to China’s economic and social development and to its innovative endeavours.

I.　　 Adjudicated according to Law and Focused on Delivery of Justice

In 2011, the primary focus of the people’s courts for intellectual property matters continued to be adjudication. Among the courts’ many responsibilities, adjudication was the top priority. The people’s courts adjudicated cases fairly and efficiently, ensured that facts are properly determined, laws correctly applied and decisions complied with judicial policies, tried to balance legal outcomes and social effect, improved the quality and efficiency of adjudication, and increased public confidence in intellectual property adjudication.

—Civil Trials as the dominant method for intellectual protection

In 2011, the people’s courts had focused on using civil hearings for intellectual property matters. Civil hearing was a dominant method for intellectual property protection. Greater intellectual property protection on the part of the people’s courts has helped curb infringing activities, safeguard the interests of owners of intellectual property, and create an environment conducive for innovation. By defining a reasonable scope and level of protection, the people’s courts aimed to prevent abuse of intellectual property, facilitate dissemination and application of knowledge and promote innovation. Additionally, this will level the playing field, realize the market value of intellectual property, and encourage use of intellectual property to increase productivity and competitiveness.

Strengthening of intellectual property protection took place in many forms to accomplish multiple goals: patent protection, to encourage indigenous innovation and improve state core competitiveness; trademark protection, to cultivate home-grown brands and jumpstart the brand-driven growth; copyright protection, to foster creation of new business models and development of creative industries; and competition protection, to improve market structure and ensure fair play.

In 2011, the number of first instance civil intellectual property cases accepted and disposed by local courts grew by 38.86% and 39.51% to 59,612 and 58,201 respectively. Among the cases accepted in 2011, 7,819 were patent cases, up 35.16% year-on-year; 12,991 were trademark cases, up 53.56% year-on-year; 35,185 were copyright cases, up 42.34% year-on-year; 557 were technology contract cases, down 16.87% year-on-year; 1137 were competition cases (18 were monopoly-related), up 0.53% year-on-year; and 2,193 were other intellectual property cases, up 11.55% year-on-year. Among the cases disposed in 2011, 1,321 involved foreign parties, down by 3.51% year-on-year; and 635 involved Hong Kong, Macau or Taiwan parties, up 128.42% year-on-year.

In 2011, civil intellectual property cases of second instance accepted and concluded rose 17.17% and 18.18% to 7,642 and 7,659 (including cases carried over from previous years); new and concluded reopened cases (zaishen cases) grew by 164.86% and 105.50% to 294 and 224; cases accepted and concluded by the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) totalled 305 and 311 (including cases carried over from previous years), among which 255 were reopened cases and 262 were concluded (including cases carried over from previous years).

There was also improvement in adjudication quality and efficiency. The close rate of civil intellectual property cases of first instance at the local courts rose from 86.39% in 2010 to 87.61% in 2011; appeal rate fell from 49.65% in 2010 to 47.02% in 2011; reopen (zaishen) rate increased from 0.27% in 2010 to 0.51% in 2011; and remand for retrial (chongshen) rate decreased from 4.57% in 2010 to 3.66% in 2011. The percentage of civil intellectual property cases of first instance concluded within time limit increased from 97.93% in 2010 to 98.57% in 2011.

The people’s courts were prudent in handling applications forpreliminary injunction in intellectual property cases. In 2011, 130 applications for preliminary injunction were admitted, and 98.23% were approved; 186 applications for pre-trial preservation of evidence were admitted, and 93.42% were approved. To reduce the burden of proof on the part of the applicant, the people’s courts were supportive in granting pre-trial preservation of evidence in accordance with law. In 2011, 20 applications for pre-trial preservation of property were admitted, and 100% were approved.

High-profile cases included Gree Electric Appliances Inc. of Zhuhai v. Guangdong Midea Air-Conditioning Equipment Co., Ltd, and Zhuhai Taifeng Electric Appliances Co., Ltd(patent infringement), Guangzhou Hongtaiyang Auto Components Co., Ltd. v. Anhui Jianghuai Automobile Group Co., Ltd and Anhui Jianghuai Automobile Co., Ltd (infringement of the exclusive right to use registered trademark), E-Land International Fashion (Shanghai) Co. v. Zhejiang Taobao Network Co., Ltd. and Du Guofa(trademark infringement), Société Civile de Chateau Lafite Rothschild v. Shenzhen Jinhongde Trade Co., Ltd. and Health Industry Development Co., Ltd. under Hunan Biological & Pharmaceutical Group (infringement of the exclusive right to use registered trademark and unfair competition), Tencent Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. and Shenzhen Tencent Computer System Company Limited, v. Beijing Qihoo Technology Ltd., Beijing Sanji Wuxian Network Technology Co., Ltd., and Qizhi Software (Beijing) Co., Ltd.(unfair competition), Beijing Kaixinren Information Technology Co., Ltd v. Beijng Qianxiang Hulian Technology Development Co., Ltd. and Beijing Qianxiang Wangjing Technology Development Co., Ltd.(unfair competition).

—Supervised and Reviewed intellectual property-related administrative decisions and supported the intellectual property-related responsibilities of administrative authorities  

The people’s courts adjudicated administrative cases (disputes with administrative authorities) fairly and efficiently, and promoted substantive resolution of intellectual property-related administrative disputes. In 2011, the local courts accepted 2,433 intellectual property-related administrative cases of first instance, 6.06% less than previous year, and closed 2,470 such cases, 3.30% more than previous year. Of those accepted, 654 were patent cases, up 18.69% year-on-year; 1,767 were trademark cases, down 12.78% year-on-year; 2 were copyright cases, unchanged from the previous year; 10 were other intellectual property cases. In 2011, SPC accepted 102 intellectual property-related administrative cases and concluded 101. Of those concluded, 73 cases or 72.28% were dismissed; 20 cases or 19.80% were issued tishen orders (similar to certiorari), 3 cases or 2.97% were ordered to reopen (zaishen); 3 cases or 2.97% were withdrawn; 1 case or 0.99% involved issuance of written instructions to a lower court (fahan); 1 case or 0.99% through other methods. SPC reviewed 13 tishen cases and concluded 11. Of those concluded, 1 or 9.09% was affirmed; 10 or 90.91% were reversed.

The number of first instance cases involving foreign parties or Hong Kong, Macao or Taiwan parties increased substantially to 1,237, representing 50.08% of the concluded intellectual property-related administrative cases of first instance; 986 of the above cases involved foreign parties, 116 Hong Kong parties, 3 Macao parties and 132 Taiwan parties.

There was also a drastic increase in intellectual property-related administrative cases of second instance. The number of cases accepted and concluded by the local courts was 1,333 and 1,266 respectively. Of the concluded cases, 1,134 were affirmed, 67 reversed, 3 remanded for retrial (chongshen), 42 withdrawn, 14 dismissed; in 2 other cases, the original ruling was revoked and a new order issued to docket the case for hearing; 4 other cases were disposed of through other methods.

High profile cases included Wei Tingjian and T.C. Pharmaceutical Industries Co., Ltd v. Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (administrative dispute over reconsideration decision on trademark cancellation), Beijing Resources Double-crane Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. and Xiangbei Welman Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. v. Patent Re-examination Board of the State Intellectual Property Office (administrative dispute over patent invalidation), France Castel Frères  SAS v. Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce and Li Daozhi (administrative dispute relating to a review decision on trademark revocation).

—Punished and deterred infringement of intellectual property with criminal sanctions

To punish and deter infringement of intellectual property effectively, the people’s courts stepped up criminal enforcement of intellectual property, and actively participated in the special action against intellectual property infringement and production and sale of counterfeit and sub-standard products.

In 2011, the number of intellectual property-related criminal cases of first instance increased considerably. New filings increased by 42.96% to 5,707. The new filings included 3,134 intellectual property infringement cases (2,417 involved registered trademarks, such as use of counterfeit marks), up 142.19% year-on-year; 774 were intellectual property infringement cases involving the crime of production and sale of sub-standard products, up 29.87% year-on-year; 1,747 were intellectual property infringement cases involving the crime of illegal business operations, down 15.93% year-on-year; 52 were cases of other nature.

Intellectual property-related criminal cases of first instance concluded by the local courts rose 39.62% to 5,504. Persons against whom judgments were effective totalled 10,055, including 7,892 who were given criminal sanctions: 2,967 were criminal cases involving infringement of intellectual property and 5,384 offenders were sentenced in effective judgments, up by 136.60% and 173.86% year-on-year; 750 were criminal cases of production and sale of sub-standard products (involving intellectual property infringement) and 1,509 offenders were sentenced in effective judgments; 1,735 were criminal case of illegal business operation (involving intellectual property infringement) and 3,032 offenders were sentenced in effective judgments; 52 were criminal case of other nature but also involving intellectual property infringement and 130 offenders were sentenced in effective judgments.

For criminal cases involving intellectual property infringement, the defendants of 1,060 cases were found guilty of counterfeiting registered trademarks and 2,163 offenders were sentenced in effective judgments; the defendants of 863 cases were found guilty of selling products bearing counterfeit registered trademarks and 1,507 offenders were sentenced in effective judgments; the defendants of 370 cases were found guilty of illegally manufacturing or selling illegally manufactured counterfeit registered trademarks and 691 offenders were sentenced in effective judgments; the defendants of 1 case were found guilty of patent counterfeiting and 2  offenders were sentenced in effective judgments; the defendants of 594 cases were found guilty of infringing copyrights and 852 offenders were sentenced in effective judgments; the defendants of 30 cases were found guilty of selling infringing reproductions and 75 offenders were sentenced in effective judgments; the defendants of 49 cases were found guilty of infringing upon trade secrets and 94 offenders were sentenced in effective judgments. The case of Ju Wenming, Xu Lulu and Hua Yi, who were convicted of copyright infringement, was a high-profile case.

In 2011, the landscape for intellectual property cases exhibited the following characteristics:

First, new filings increased considerably. The local people’s courts have accepted 59,612 new first instance intellectual property cases, 38.86% more than 2010; 2,433 first instance administrative intellectual property cases, 6.06% lower than 2010; and 5,707 intellectual property-related criminal case of first instance, 42.96% more than 2010.

Second, the number of major complex and difficult cases, and new type cases has increased. Cases involved foreign parties and attracted international attention were proportionally higher. There was also a growing percentage of cases where the legal provisions were too general and the courts had to define the boundaries of the law, or cases where the outcome of the judgement affected the parties’ interests significantly.

Third, encouragement of innovation led to increasing demand to protect proprietary innovations; hence, rising number of patent cases. There was a notable increase in the number of cases involving high tech inventions or cases related to pharmaceutical, communications and environmental industries. The economic interests involved in the patent cases and the damages awarded have risen. There were also more disputes over patented items developed by local Chinese companies, and more Chinese companies are suing foreign companies or foreign-invested companies. As more foreign parties are involved in patent disputes, trials and court decisions attracted greater international attention.

Fourth, increasing awareness among enterprises in the building and protecting of their own brands, the number of trademark cases have increased. Cases involving the granting and validation of trademarks have increased significantly. There was also increase in the number of trademark infringement cases that either overlapped or are connected with the granting and validation of trademark rights, and cases that involved the major brands of well-known companies. Disputes involving commercial marks have also continued to rise.

Fifth, as the creative industry prospered, copyright protection must not only arise out of cultural considerations, but also for economic reasons. This has led to the continued increase in the number of copyright cases, which accounted for half of the total volume of intellectual property-related cases. Internet copyright issues were most prominent. The number of trials combining multiple cases involving common parties and the number of interrelated cases have risen. Copyright disputes over the development and application of internet technology were closely followed by the industry. The balance between copyright protection and development of new business models has become most imperative.

Sixth, fierce market competition and diverse commercial activities require that competitive activities be more regulated. Although unfair competition is prohibited by law and as such, incidents of unfair competitive behaviour have been declining, there were more cases that challenged the boundary of law. Therefore, application of the general principles of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law was increasing. In addition, behaviours previously accepted as legal were challenged since implementation of the Anti-Monopoly Law. The courts have since received “test cases”, where the action was initiated not for personal interests but to test or challenge the limits of the law. Such cases have received much public attention.

—Followed the principle of “Mediation as Priority and Combining Mediation and Adjudication” in dispute resolution

The people’s courts tried to balance mediation and adjudication, and attaced importance to regulating mediation actions for better mediation results. The courts followed the principles of “resolving disputes, reconciling differences and dispelling problems” and considered the facts of the cases to determine their approach to a case.

The courts observed the lawful and voluntary use of mediation, avoided the impractical reliance of mediation rate as criteria for effectiveness, and respected the will of the parties; where mediation was inappropriate or unsuccessful, judgement was promptly delivered.

The courts were building a dispute resolution mechanism that combined judicial and non-judicial processes, and were promoting “Greater Mediation” (da tiaojie), which includes “people’s mediation”, administrative mediation and judicial mediation. The courts have also strengthened judicial confirmation for settlement agreements reached through people’s mediation, and have supported mediation agencies, arbitration bodies and the industrial organizations in their work of resolving social conflicts.

The high people’s courts of Tianjin, Shandong, Liaoning, Hubei, Anhui, Shannxi, Xinjiang, Guizhou, Hainan, Ningxia, Qinghai and Tibet and the Court of Xiangjiang Production and Construction Corps were exploring a judicial mediation dispute resolution system tailored to their local conditions.

Beijing High People’s Court deepened its partnership with Internet Society of China for Mediation and Chinese Writers’ Association by developing a dispute resolution system. It has also signed a cooperation agreement with Beijing Intellectual Property Bureau to appoint the bureau as mediator for intellectual property disputes, and has formulated the Guidelines in Coordinating Judicial Mediation with Administrative Mediation.

Under the coordination of Hunan High People’s Court, the Changsha County People’s Court and Changsha City (at county level) Arbitration Commission established a mechanism to align their work with the alternative dispute resolution system of Changsha Economic and Technological Development Zone.

The courts of Fujian Province leveraged professional mediators, people’s assessors (lay judges), industrial associations and agents ad litem to create the necessary structure for “Greater Mediation”.

The courts of Sichuan Province established a “three-in-one” mediation scheme comprising of people’s mediation, administrative mediation and judicial mediation.

The Shanghai Mediation Centre for Copyright Disputes and the Internet Society of China successfully mediated more than 120 intellectual property cases referred to them by Shanghai courts. The Shanghai Mediation Center for Copyright Disputes alone assisted the settlement of 68 intellectual property cases referred by the People’s Court of Putuo District. In 2011, 72.72% of intellectual property-related first instance civil cases were withdrawn after mediation, 4.13% higher than 2010.

—Gained Public Confidence through Greater Judicial Openness

The people’s courts adhered to the policy of judicial openness, improved fairness, openness and transparency in court proceedings, upheld the parties’ and public’s right to know, and practiced “sunshine justice” during adjudication. To enhance transparency and public confidence, the courts relied on different means, such as press conferences, Court Open Day, and live webcast.

To promote judicial openness, SPC released the white paper entitled Intellectual Property Protection by Chinese Courts in 2010 (Chinese and English Editions), organized the National Seminar on Openness in Intellectual Property Cases, trained information officers in all the courts to build online databases of intellectual property judgements and decisions. The China Intellectual Property Rights Judgements and Decisions website was also upgraded to ensure that intellectual property judgements and decisions are promptly uploaded on the website and to improve the website’s function. By the end of 2011, 40,175 judgements and decisions were published on the website. SPC also improved upon the content and upgraded the Intellectual Property Protection website, a sub-website under its official website.

The Shanghai High People’s Court launched the Intellectual Property Protection by Shanghai Courts website. The courts of Jiangsu Province launched a province-wide initiative called “Real-time Court Reporting” (which includes real-time videotaping, real-time transcribing and real-time display of transcript). Under the initiative, all judgments and decisions were posted online, and court proceedings were shown on live webcast.

The high people’s courts of Beijing, Tianjin, Chongqing, Shandong, Guangdong, Guangxi, Sichuan, Gansu, Hebei, Jiangsu, Hainan and Xinjiang issued white or blue papers on judicial protection of intellectual property for 2010. The high people’s courts of Anhui, Jilin, Qinghai and Tibet and the court of Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps advanced the mechanism of judicial openness for intellectual property cases. The intellectual property divisions of Liaoning courts were generally equipped with IT systems and smart devices, and provided regular live webcasts of court proceedings. The Jiangsu High People’s Court continued to improve on the professionalism of its people’s assessors by selecting assessors from the intellectual property administrative agencies to hear intellectual property cases, and by issuing Opinions on Managing Professional People’s Assessors for Hearing Intellectual Property Cases.

II.　  Served the Overall interests of the Party and the Country and Implemented the National Intellectual Property Strategy

In 2011, based on the actual work of intellectual property adjudication, the people’s courts have followed out “judicial activism” in their work. They identified areas and issues consistent with the overall interests of the Party and the country, expanded the scope of services and further developed their judicial capacities, and implemented the National Intellectual Property Strategy. Enhanced judicial protection of intellectual property contributed to the steady and rapid economic growth during the 12^th five-year plan period. 

—Followed out judicial activism to serve the overall interests of the party and the country, and to promote balanced development of the economy and society

Intellectual property cases were handled by the people’s courts with both the national as well as international considerations in mind. Adjudication was to serve the ultimate goal of accelerating change of China’s growth pattern through strategic economic restructuring, technological advancement and indigenous innovation. The development of domestic and international situations was closely observed by the people’s courts, as they leveraged the judicial protection function to balance economic and social development.

To facilitate the development of pillar industries and increase the core competitiveness, the people’s courts have improved upon their adjudication of patent and other technology-related cases. To give impetus to the brand-driven economy, the courts have strengthened protection for well-known trademarks; at the same time, the courts protected well-known trademarks from abuse as well as infringement. To promote development of new industries, use of information technology and the rise of China’s soft power, the courts have strengthened adjudication of software, database, internet and other copyright-related cases. To safeguard fair competition and maintain market order, the courts have also improved effectiveness in adjudication of competition cases.

Additionally, the people’s courts have also imposed heavier sanctions for infringement, reduced the cost of litigation, and accelerated the building of a robust judicial protection system for intellectual property. They have stepped up protection for indigenous brands, essential and leading-edge researches, core and important technologies and the creative industry.  They have also participated in operations to crack down on intellectual property infringement and production and sale of counterfeit and sub-standard products so as to build our national capacity for innovation and to nurture core competitiveness.

The “Stronger Judicial Protection of intellectual property for Change of Growth Pattern” project was launched to help reshape China’s economy. SPC issued the Opinions on the Role of Courts in the Development and Prosperity of Socialist Culture, adopted thirty measures to protect authors of creative works and scientific and technological findings, and instructed local courts to step up protection for intellectual property.

The Shandong High People’s Court released the Guidelines on Strengthening the Adjudication of Intellectual Property Cases, which provided direction for the courts.

The courts of Zhejiang Province expanded the role of adjudication of intellectual property cases based on the local economy and progress of industrial development, and implemented the “Local Context-Based Intellectual Property Case Adjudication” project.

The Tianjin High People’s Court has issued the Implementing Opinions on the Provision of Judicial Safeguards and Services for the Great Development and Great Prosperity of a Socialist Culture. The Hubei High People’s Court has also issued the Implementing Opinions on Leveraging Initiatives on Judicial Protection for Intellectual Property to Strengthen the Province through Culture and Scientific Development.

TheYunnan High People’s Court issued the Opinions on Improving Judicial Protection of the Intellectual Property of Special Industries and Industries with a Competitive Advantage.　

—Promoted the pilot project of centralised adjudication of civil, administrative and criminal cases on intellectual property by the intellectual property division.

The people’s courts of all levels have pursued reform and developed innovative methods for intellectual property adjudication, and have also tried to establish a scientifically sound adjudication system and work mechanism.

Advancements of the National Intellectual Property Strategy have been made, in that there has been additional pilots launched in respect of centralised adjudication of civil, administrative and criminal cases involving intellectual property (“three-in-one adjudication”) by intellectual property divisions.

At the National Meeting of the Presidents of High Courts in December 2011, the SPC specified that the pilot project on centralised adjudication of intellectual property-related civil, administrative and criminal cases by intellectual property divisions. This will ensure comprehensive protection,　  resource optimisation and scientific operations. As a result, intellectual property adjudication will become an efficient and authoritative system.

The courts that are in the pilot project have reviewed their work under the pilot programme, operated with a more standardised approach, and promptly discovered new issues and resolved new problems. To further the pilot programme, the courts have established coordinating mechanisms for adjudicating civil, administrative and criminal cases involving intellectual property, and have stepped up collaborative efforts with the public security, prosecutorial and administrative authorities. This was to ensure greater judicial efficiency and consistency in judicial standards and to provide effective and comprehensive protection. The system also enables optimal use of resources, rational operations and the establishment of an efficient and authoritative adjudication system for intellectual property matters.

As at end 2011, the pilot programme has been launched in 5 high courts, 50 intermediate courts and 52 grassroots courts.

The high courts in Jiangsu, Zhejiang and Inner Mongolia have worked more closely with the local prosecutor’s office and police, and have provided guiding opinions on criminal protection issues under the pilot project on “three-in-one adjudication”.

The Jiangsu High People’s Court and the provincial public security and prosecution departments have jointly issued the Opinions on Procedural Issues Relating to Adjudicating Criminal Cases Involving Intellectual Property. The Opinions included comprehensive provisions on review of rights, collection and perpetuation of evidence, and determination of technological secrets relating to the handling of criminal cases involving intellectual property matters. Also, the introduction of “publicly known technique” defence for criminal cases involving trade secrets was effective in unifying the standard of judgement for enforcing the law in criminal cases involving intellectual property, and was instrumental in increasing the level of criminal judicial protection.

—Focused on publicity for judicial protection of intellectual property, and continued to broaden the impact of judicial protection for intellectual property.

The people’s courts have used various forms of publicity to promote the judicial achievements in intellectual property protection. Publicity was comprehensive and multi-dimensional. As an important aspect of the court’s responsibility, publicity was used to broaden the impact of judicial protection for intellectual property, and to establish a positive image of the judiciary in intellectual property protection. 

The World Intellectual Property Day was observed as usual on 26 April. Different activities were organised during the publicity week, and the organisers continued to improve upon the publicity content. The courts of all levels organised publicity activities based on the Circular on the Activities for the 2011 National Intellectual Property Publicity Week issued by the Organizing Committee of the National Intellectual Property Publicity Week consisting of 25 authorities, including the CPC Central Committee Publicity Department and SPC. The achievements of all courts in protection of intellectual property were widely publicised. Publicity activities were varied and innovative, and have created extensive and positive social impact.

During the publicity period, the SPC conducted the following activities:

·Convened a Symposium for National Courts on Judicial Openness;

·Signed Memorandum on Mediation Mechanism for Internet Intellectual Property Disputes;

·Published white paper Intellectual Property Protection by Chinese Courts in 2009 in Chinese and English;

·Published the Annual Report on Intellectual Property Cases;

·Open the upgraded and revised China Intellectual Property Rights Judgements and Decisions website;

·Established theoretical research bases, field research bases and demonstration models of local courts in respect of intellectual property protection;

·Published the Ten Major Cases and Fifty Typical Cases on Judicial Protection of Intellectual Property for 2010;

·Published the draft judicial interpretation on adjudication of civil disputes involving monopoly to solicit public opinion; and

·Organised the “Judicial Protection of Intellectual Property in Jiangsu” activity for the central media agencies.

The publicity activities were extensively reported by dozens of local media agencies. The Associated Press and other foreign media have also highly commended our efforts in strengthening intellectual property justice and improving judicial transparency for intellectual property matters. The achievements of our courts in judicial protection of intellectual property have been well-praised at home and abroad. Judicial protection of intellectual property has won greater confidence in China’s intellectual property protection and achieved greater international impact.

The “Judicial Protection of Intellectual Property in Jiangsu” activity was als0 extensively reported by central media agencies, including the People’s Daily, www.people.com.cn, Xinhua News, Guangming Daily, China Central Television, China Intellectual Property News, Legal Daily and People's Court Daily. Journalists visited Nanjing in Jiangsu Province, Suzhou, Changzhou, and Wuxi and reported the activities, and were able to obtain first-hand information on the judicial system and operational reforms of the Jiangsu courts and their open judiciary for intellectual property matters. Reporters also provided in-depth reports on the local dispute resolution mechanism for intellectual property disputes, and institutional-building and workforce-building for intellectual property judicial protection.

—Improved upon the jurisdiction structure for intellectual property cases, and promoted the concept of justice for the people and accessible by the people.

Embarking from the angle of providing convenience for intellectual property right holders to ensure that the rights holders better exercise their lawful rights, and economising litigation costs, the people’s courts complied with the SPC’s Circular on Adjusting the Criteria for Jurisdiction over First Instance Civil Cases Involving Intellectual Property by Different Levels of Local People’s Courts and Circular on Publication of Criteria for Jurisdiction over First Instance Civil Cases Involving Intellectual Property by Different Levels of Local People’s Courts, and improved upon the jurisdiction structure for intellectual property cases such that it was now more reasonable and logical. It also optimised allocation of judicial resources.

In areas that were economically, culturally and technically more developed, more basic-level courts were given, as appropriate, jurisdiction over general intellectual property cases. Intermediate courts and grassroots courts were encouraged to exercise trans-regional, centralised jurisdiction covering designated administrative regions in light of their work needs.

As at end 2011, there were 82 intermediate people’s courts with jurisdiction over patent cases, 45 over plant breeders' rights, 46 over integrated circuit topography and 43 over determination of well-known marks. 119 basic-level courts had jurisdiction over general intellectual property cases, and 3 basic-level courts were designated as pilot sites for adjudicating disputes relating to utility models and industrial design patents.

The Jiangsu High People’s Court had been actively working on trans-regional jurisdiction over intellectual property cases at basic-level courts, such as Suzhou, Wuxi and Nanjing. The court also issued a Circular on Further Clarifying the Criteria for Grade Jurisdiction over Intellectual Property Cases in the Province to unify criteria of jurisdiction over intellectual property cases across different levels of courts.

—Focused on developing an innovative adjudication system for intellectual property matters, and continued to improve upon its fairness, efficiency, and authority 

The people’s courts have always focused on developing an innovative adjudication system for intellectual property matters:

The Intellectual Property Division of SPC has signed a Memorandum on Mediation Mechanism for Internet Intellectual Property Disputes with the Internet Society of China. The memorandum represents a development in judicial and non-judicial approaches (ADR) to dispute resolution. The high people’s courts of Heilongjiang, Shanghai, Tianjin, Qinghai, Hebei, Zhejiang, Fujian, Guangxi, Shanxi, Jiangxi, Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia explored ways to establish and improve upon the mechanism for finding technical facts. The courts also capitalised on the role of experts by launching pilots in expert assessor and expert witness systems to ensure better adjudication quality.

The high people’s courts of Shandong and Hunan provinces signed with their respective provincial associations for science and technology a memorandum of understanding on cooperation in judicial protection of intellectual property. The two sides have employed special advisors and experts in science and technology, developed operation guidelines for them, and have explored new avenues that technical experts may participate in adjudication of intellectual property matters.

The Jiangsu High People’s Court assisted the intermediate people’s courts within its jurisdiction to establish an expert databank and has issued provisional guidelines for the management of databank on technical experts in intellectual property.

The Guangdong High People’s Court has established an legal expert advisory system, whereby ten experts who have extensive experience in theoretical research in science and technology and intellectual property and in administrative and law enforcement were appointed as consultants for intellectual property law for the entire provincial court system.

—Reinforced horizontal relationships and built a comprehensive institution for protection of intellectual property.

Building a strong relationship with the administrative authorities for intellectual property, science and technology, industry associations and tertiary institutes has always been priority for the people’s courts. This is a way to achieve substantial results in protecting intellectual property and to achieve synergy between judicial and administrative protection, to elevate the level of protection in China. The people’s courts of all levels have worked with the Patent Re-examination Board of the State Intellectual Property Organisation in organising meetings and exchanges between their personnel, and have been an active and effective force in providing legislative and administrative and policy recommendations.

The Beijing court system has been a driver in strengthening horizontal relationships, building exchange platforms and forging cooperation. It has also explored the possibilities of establishing district-level intellectual protection regimes: together with the district’s intellectual property bureau and judicial bureau, the Shijingshan District Court has established the “Zhongguancun Tech Park Shijingshan Park Legal Service Platform”; the Chaoyang District Court and the relevant authorities in the district have jointly organised a theme activity called “Protect Your Intellectual Property, Usher in Innovation and Development”; the Dongcheng District Court, the district’s intellectual property bureau, Yongheyuan Management Committee jointly organised the Third “IP-Yonghe Campaign”; the Huairou District Court worked with seven industry associations, including the Beijing Electronic Chamber of Commerce to establish a focal point.

The Henan courts have also forged communication and coordination mechanisms with the relevant intellectual property authorities to create synergy for intellectual property protection.

—Increased international and inter-regional exchanges, and elevated the image of China as a responsible country in judicial protection of intellectual property.

The people’s courts have always looked upon international and inter-regional exchanges as important avenues in the judicial protection of intellectual property. As such, the courts have continued to develop different channels of exchange and enriched the forms of cooperation, and have increased communication and cooperation with the United States and Europe.

Selected intellectual property judges have gone on study visits to the United States, and judges have participated in China-Europe Intellectual Property Working Group Meeting, China-US Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade Intellectual Property Work Group Meeting, and the Meeting of the Chinese-Swiss Working Group on Intellectual Property. By participating in activities involving foreign counterparts, the courts were able to respond to areas of concern of foreign parties, clarify misunderstandings, as well as made known our achievements in intellectual protection to elevate our international image.

Last year, the SPC received nearly two hundred high-level visitors from countries as Japan and the United States, and provided for the visitors a comprehensive overview of the situation and achievements in China in respect of judicial protection of intellectual property, thereby increasing China’s international impact in judicial protection of intellectual property.

To step up exchanges between the intellectual property legal fraternity and judiciary between the mainland of China and Taiwan, the SPC organised a visit to Taiwan by a delegation from the China Judges Association. The members of the delegation were mainly intellectual property judges. The delegation met with members of the judiciary in Taiwan, and conducted extensive discussions about judicial systems, judicial protection of intellectual property and other issues relating to the adjudication systems. The visit had helped improved understanding between the two jurisdictions, developed friendship, and facilitated consensus in many issues. It was significant in building trust and cooperation between the mainland and Taiwan, and in improving communication and exchange.

III. Strengthened the foundation of basic-level courts, unified application of law, and focused on adjudication supervision and operational guidance

Fundamentals and local capacity affect the overall operations of the people’s courts, and unifying judicial standards is necessary for rule of law in the country and for public confidence in the people’s courts. In 2011, strengthening the fundamentals and local capacity was the focus of all the people’s courts, including unification of judicial standards, supervision of adjudication activities and provision of operational guidance. The courts have streamlined the line relationship between superior and inferior courts and have clarified the scope and procedures of supervision by superior courts, so as to raise the intellectual property-related judicial standard at the basic-level courts.

—Strengthened the fundamentals and local capacity for intellectual property adjudication and consolidated the operational foundation of intellectual property adjudication. 

Based on characteristics and general practice of intellectual property trials, the people’s courts of all levels have implemented the SPC’s opinions on strengthening the fundamentals and capacity of the basic-level people’s courts. The efforts taken were manifold: further improved the institutional set-up for intellectual property adjudication at basic-level courts and increased the workforce; focussed on specific issues when organising training for the basic-level courts; enabled greater exchange-postings, such that intellectual property judges from basic-level courts may do postings at a superior court or at courts of the same level to sharpen the skills and abilities of intellectual property judges at basic-level courts.

The basic-level courts also received support in reforming and reviewing of institutions and operational mechanisms relating to intellectual property adjudication, to enable them to promptly reflect upon and share their experience. Demonstrative courts were established at the basic level as models and to lead the other courts in improving the quality and efficiency of intellectual property adjudication, in developing innovative systems of adjudication and operation, and in unifying adjudication approaches and standards and strengthening of the adjudication team.

The SPC implemented the “Three-Five’s Project” to strengthen the fundamentals and the basic courts capacity. The project involves the following three dimensions: Established theoretical research bases at the Peking University, Renmin University of China, East China University of Political Science and Law, Southwest University of Political Science and Law and Shenzhen University; on top of the current China field research base for intellectual property judicial protection (in Suzhou), established four more field research bases in Qingdao, Shenzhen, Changsha and Chengdu; established demonstrative courts for intellectual property adjudication at the basic-level courts in Chaoyang District in Beijing, Pudong New Area in Shanghai, Huqiu District in Suzhou of Jiangsu Province, Yiwu City of Zhejiang Province and Jiang’an District of Wuhan City of Hubei Province.

SPC’s Intellectual Property Division signed a memorandum of understanding of cooperation with the Gaoxin District Management Committee of Suzhou to establish Suzhou’s Gaoxin District as a base for the selection and distribution of typical cases on the judicial protection of intellectual property in China. The Liaoning High People’s Court has also cooperated with Dalian Maritime University to jointly establish a “Liaoning Research Base for the Judicial Protection of Intellectual Property”.

—Strengthened thematic research relating to intellectual property adjudication.

The people’s courts of all levels have recognised the importance of “research-based adjudication”. The courts have continued to improve their research abilities and to use their research outcomes to serve their adjudication needs. Research topics include: imposition of heavier sanctions, reducing the cost of rights protection, setting down the principles and standards for calculation of damages for intellectual property cases, and improving the rationale and reasonableness of damages calculation.

Research on the judicial protection of copyright on the internet continued, and key topics on the judicial protection of internet copyright have been completed. For patents, research included adjudication of administrative cases involving granting and validation of patents, judicial protection of trade secrets and pre-trial provisional measures for intellectual property cases. Research for trademarks was also carried out in aspects relating to improving the quality and efficiency of adjudication of administrative cases and in the reform of the bounds of jurisdiction over administrative cases involving trademark disputes. Other thematic researches involved copyright protection involving foreign works, copyright disputes involving internet cafés, and protection of traditional opera works.

The resources of the Specialised Committee on Intellectual Property of the China Adjudication Theory Research Association were also fully exploited, in that the committee serves as a specialised academic body in intellectual property adjudication and platform for academic exchange. To lay theoretical foundation for advancing adjudication of intellectual property issues in the country, the Specialised Committee on Intellectual Property of the China Adjudication Theory Research Association held the Annual Conference 2011 cum Seminar on “Increasing the Level of Protection for Intellectual Property and Reducing the Cost of Rights Protection” in Chongqing. The meeting adopted a Decision to Adjust Major Membership of the Specialised Committee on Intellectual Property of the China Adjudication Theory Research Association. The courts also worked closely with the relevant authorities to amend laws and regulations, such as the Civil Procedure Law and the Anti-Monopoly Law. Experienced and theoretically-sound judges were selected from different parts of the country and were divided into a copyright law research team and trademark law research team. The teams conducted researches and provided high quality legislation recommendations.

There were also specific researches targeting at difficult and hot topics, and at new situations and emerging issues. The people’s courts at all levels continued to improve on their methods of research using innovative ways, and based on their research, prepared research reports, summarised their adjudication experience and published research papers. They also documented their adjudication experience for exchanges, and organised forums and lectures. The courts and judges dedicated themselves to improving their research ability and the quality of their research, so as to serve the needs of adjudication practice.

—Continued to develop channels that help guide adjudication of intellectual property matters.

The people’s courts of all levels provided work guidance for inferior courts in many forms, including issuing judicial interpretations, judicial documents, guiding cases, guiding opinions, and through special researches.

The SPC took on the important responsibility of providing judicial interpretation or normative documents of a judicial interpretation nature for laws relating to intellectual property rights. Also, SPC completed the drafting of the judicial interpretation for adjudicating anti-monopoly civil cases, and sought public feedback on its judicial interpretations. Other drafting responsibilities of SPC include judicial interpretation for adjudicating internet copyright infringement cases, guiding opinions on the adjudication criteria relating to adjudicating administrative cases for the granting and validation of patents, and guiding opinions on procedural issues relating to adjudicating administrative cases for the granting and validation of trademarks.

The Supreme People’s Court, Supreme People’s Procuratorate and Ministry of Public Security jointly issued the Opinions on Issues Relating to the Application of Law for Criminal Cases of Intellectual Property Infringement to clarify the conviction and sentencing criteria for intellectual property crimes, in doing so, improved upon the normative regime of judicial protection for intellectual property crimes. The Opinions was necessary for providing the public security organs, the procuratorates and the courts with regulatory support, for dispelling doubts in the application of law, and for issuing lawful sanctions. The Opinions are instrumental in enabling capitalization of judicial initiatives to protect intellectual property, and maintain a fair and orderly market environment.

A Work Conference for Intellectual Property Adjudication for National Courts was convened in Hangzhou of Zhejiang Province, during which the requirements set forth by the 17^th National People's Congress of the CPC and the 6^th Plenary Session of the 17^th CPC Central Committee were thoroughly learned and implemented. The conference captured the opportunities and addressed the challenges in intellectual property adjudication guided by the concept of socialist rule of law; highlighted the importance of intellectual property adjudication; reflected upon adjudication work in 2011 for intellectual property cases; analysed the current situation and tasks; and planned and designated work relating to adjudication of intellectual property for the near term. It was a significant event that helped improve the work of the judges in 2012 and in the period after.

In addition, the expertise of intellectual property experts and academics and of outstanding intellectual property judges was relied upon to write up a book on intellectual property case studies for all the courts, so that intellectual property judges were equipped with high quality educational materials. The Guangdong High People’s Court also assisted the Zhongshan City Intermediate People’s Court in establishing a Zhongshan Decorative Lighting Intellectual Property Express Rights Protection Mechanism and an Intellectual Property Circuit Court, and the Shenzhen Longgang District Court in establishing a system for perpetuating electronic evidence.

—Leveraged judicial policies in unifying judicial application of intellectual property laws.

Based on the judicial policy of “classification, differentiated treatment and appropriate stringency”, the people’s courts adjusted and formulated specific policy guidelines for adjudication of intellectual property cases, and in doing so, enabled the judiciary to play an important role in protecting intellectual property. During adjudication, the courts were able to rely accurately on judicial policies to guide them in the correct application of laws and regulations. The courts also reviewed and elaborated intellectual property judicial policies and used every means to ensure that these judicial policies are observed and implemented, so that the administration of intellectual property justice will eventually be uniform, standardised and open.

—Innovated and strengthened adjudication management.

The people’s courts of all levels were working towards establishing a management system for intellectual property adjudication which was logical, complete and effective. This enabled management to be systematic; and management ensured quality and efficiency. The emphasis on adjudication management was based on rules and standards, and to be scientifically sound. The management system included every adjudicator and every process in the adjudication, so that quality and efficiency and the adjudication management process were improved continually. The management system also included a regular reporting mechanism for disposed cases. This was implemented to improve adjudication efficiency, and to ensure that disposition of cases was evenly spread out throughout the year. 

Another area of focus was the quality of written judgements. Judges were urged to prepare judgements that were detailed in reasoning and that might be used as models or quality references. Well-written judgements were frequently selected and awards issued to encourage greater focus on the quality of written judgements. To improve on the adjudication of difficult cases, the courts relied on different approaches such as joint-meetings of presiding judges, conferences of relevant judges and expert panel discussions to ensure fair administration of justice.

Further enforced were elevated jurisdiction (tiji guanxia: a higher court exercises jurisdiction where necessary) and trans-regional jurisdiction (yidi guanxia), so as to prevent local protectionism and to ensure fair adjudication. The courts also attached importance to coordinating adjudication of related cases, so that related cases were handled consistently. The Guangdong High People’s Court established three work mechanisms as an on-going effort to improve the quality of adjudication work. These were intellectual property adjudication work analysis and sharing, guidance by category, and communication and coordination. The courts of Chongqing Municipality have also developed a reporting system for major cases.

—Leveraged the demonstrative role of typical cases in adjudication of intellectual property cases.

The people’s courts attached great importance to the demonstrative role of typical cases in intellectual property adjudication; selection and publication of typical cases was considered an important long-term task. Case guidance in intellectual property adjudication was increasingly standardised, institutionalized and perpetuated. The Supreme people’s Court’s 2010 Annual Report on Intellectual Property Cases incorporated the ten major cases and fifty typical cases relating to the judicial protection of intellectual property by Chinese courts in 2010. Other high people’s courts such as those of Beijing, Tianjin, Chongqing, Shandong, Anhui, Fujian, Jiangxi, Hunan, Sichuan, Shanxi, Heilongjiang, Guangdong, Guangxi, Gansu and Guizhou, that published their local typical cases made an on-going effort to improve on the typical case guidance system.

IV.　 Strengthened the adjudication team and focused on quality

A strong team of adjudicators is critical for adjudication quality. In 2011, capacity-building at the people’s courts of all levels was carried out under the initiative of “Party-building in service of capacity building for quality judgement”. The aim was to improve the overall quality of our team of judges. Our intellectual property judges were fully committed to cultivating a robust court culture and to improving their personal legal culture capacity, so as to develop a sound culture in the administration of intellectual property justice.

—Strengthened development of a court culture, and established a positive professional image of intellectual property judges.

A judicial culture was being fostered to stimulate the mind and broaden the vision of intellectual property judges, and to enhance their professional conduct and humanistic qualities. An atmosphere of learning and advancement was created to cultivate a professional image of fairness, honesty and care for the people for intellectual property judges.

—Developed learning-based trial courts and improved the political and professional qualities of intellectual property judges.

The people’s courts of all levels applied themselves to building learning-based intellectual property courts that have both political awareness and professional knowledge. The educational emphasis was on strengthening the core values of “loyalty, care for the people, justice and honesty” set for all officers of justice. The judges broadened their learning in the areas of applied jurisprudence and sought innovative learning methods. The courts organised regular courses on the latest developments in applied jurisprudence, so as to adapt to the impact of the declared formation of the Chinese socialistic legal system on how the people’s courts protect intellectual property.

—Organised two thematic activities to consolidate the concept of socialist rule of law.

The people’s courts organised a thematic activity entitled “People’s Judge for the People” under a thematic educational activity organised by the CPC Central Political and Legal Committee, called “Advance Our Tradition, Strengthen Our Belief, Enforce for Our People”. As required by the CPC Central Political and Legal Committee and the SPC, the activities focused on Party-building and judicial conduct. The activities were based on the practice of intellectual property adjudication and revolved around organisational leadership and delivery of work results, so as to ensure that both activities achieved the desired outcomes.

Part of the activity curriculum was to improve on the judicial conduct of intellectual property judges, such that judges would adhere to the Party’s mass line, and broaden their people-perspective. Debates on people’s demands were organized to ingrain the people-perspective in judges’ minds. The activities tried to develop a spirit of honesty in the intellectual property justice system and implement the central concept of “people being the basis and governing for the people”. Intellectual property judges were urged to observe honesty, integrity and self-discipline.

—Organised professional training and education for intellectual property judges and improved the overall quality of the intellectual property team.

SPC and the high people’s courts have organised various forms of training to improve the judicial abilities of intellectual property judges. The people’s courts of all levels have implemented the education and guiding principles of “one goal (‘rule of law’), two shifts (‘from theory to practice, from knowledge to ability’) and three approaches (‘judges being trainers’, ‘case-based education’, and ‘field education’)” in training intellectual property judges, and have adhered to the SPC’s 2011-2015 Education and Training Plan for National Courts to continue to improve the content of intellectual property training, develop innovative methods for training intellectual property adjudication skills, and better the quality of training in intellectual property adjudication.

SPC has organised national training in intellectual property adjudication to strengthen understanding of judicial policies and the socialist rule of law concept, and to facilitate discussions on important concepts of intellectual property justice. This will hone the judicial skills of intellectual property judges, and as a result, elevate the level of judicial protection for intellectual property.

Together with the United States Agency for International Development and the Asia Foundation, SPC also organised the first National Workshop for Chief Judges of Intellectual Property Divisions. More than 230 chief judges of intellectual property divisions from all levels of the people’s courts participated. The one-week workshop covered macro and meso topics as judicial concepts of intellectual property, judicial policies and basic legal system.

Conclusion

In 2011, our judges for intellectual property cases adopted an open and innovative approach, and worked tirelessly to achieve impressive results. 2012 will be a year when they will strive with greater confidence and will accomplish greater success.

2012 is a year of special significance for China, as this is the year of the 18th National Congress of the Communist Party. For intellectual property-related judicial matters, the people’s courts will continue to focus on adjudication, so as to fulfil its objective to “serve the overall interests; deliver justice for the people”. The courts will seek depth, results and improvement in their work to address emerging situations and new challenges and to fulfil the heavy task of judicial intellectual property protection. The courts will tighten research and pursue judicial activism to facilitate creation of an innovative intellectual property adjudication system, and to achieve better legal and social outcomes. The courts will promote cooperation with enforcement authorities for more effective action against intellectual property crimes, to ensure fair competition necessary for a good market-based economic order. The courts will improve capacity-building by developing educational activities that focus on the core values of “loyalty, care for the people, justice, honesty” set for all officers of justice to guide professional conduct. The courts will strive for progress and a greater contribution to the development of intellectual property adjudication.