At the opening ceremony of the 10th China IP International Annual Forum & 2020 Annual Conference of In-House IP Managers in China, Wang Chuang, Vice President of the Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People's Court, attended the opening ceremony as a special guest and delivered a keynote speech on the theme of Institutional Innovation and Development of Adjudication Rules of the Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People's Court.
In the beginning, Vice President Wang Chuang, on behalf of Vice President Luo Dongchuan of the Supreme People's Court and the Intellectual Property Court, extended warm congratulations to the IP Forum and Annual Meeting. He said that the New Year's Forum as an annual event in the field of intellectual property has accompanied us through the second decade of the new century. Looking back over the past ten years, China's intellectual property undertakings have undergone historical changes and achieved unprecedented achievements, especially China's judicial protection of intellectual property rights. The establishment of an intellectual property court of the Supreme Court has also attracted much attention, which is a major breakthrough and innovation in China's intellectual property litigation system, and it is a landmark.
The Supreme People's Court's intellectual property court has been running for a year. Colleagues in the intellectual property community have paid close attention to the work of the court, provided suggestions for the construction and development of the court, and promoted the comprehensive development of the court's work. Through this Forum, Vice President Wang Chuang, on behalf of the Intellectual Property Court, expressed his sincere gratitude to the colleagues of the Intellectual Property Law Research Society of the Chinese Law Society and other IPers.
At the Annual Meeting, Vice President Wang Chuang introduced the system innovation of the Supreme Court's intellectual property court and the development of adjudication rules.
Institutional Innovation of Supreme Court's Intellectual Property Tribunal
According to the reform plan, the intellectual property courts have four functions: to further unify the standards for adjudicating intellectual property cases, to further improve the quality and efficiency of trials, to further enhance judicial credibility and international influence, and to further strengthen national strategic judicial guarantees. Focusing on these four functions, the IP Tribunal has achieved a series of breakthroughs and innovations in the litigation system for patents on technology-related intellectual property cases. These institutional innovations can be summarized into ten aspects:
First, implementing a centralized and unified jurisdiction system. In order to stimulate and guarantee innovation, it is stipulated in the special legislative provisions of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress that the intellectual property courts centralize jurisdiction over national civil and administrative appeals for technical intellectual property, including a patent for invention, utility model patent, the new variety of plants, layout design of the integrated circuit, know-how, computer software and monopolistic IP. In particular, the legislation to include monopoly cases into the scope of jurisdiction enables the courts to watch out for abuse of intellectual property to undermine competition while focusing on strengthening intellectual property protection and on better achieving the coordination and balance of innovation and competition.
Second, establishing a leapfrog appeal system with Chinese characteristics. In order to unify the adjudication standards, it is stipulated in the special legislative provisions of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress that second-instance cases skip the local high courts in litigation procedures and appeal directly to the intellectual property court of the Supreme Court, forming a "leapfrog appeal" with Chinese characteristics. This not only helps to unify judicial standards and shorten the dispute resolution cycle, but also highlights the Supreme Court's judicial policies and adjudication rules for intellectual property cases, and it can also contribute Chinese judicial experience to the international governance of intellectual property.
Third, implementing the "two-in-one" trial mechanism for civil administration. The Intellectual Property Tribunal implemented a "two-in-one" jurisdiction model for the unified hearing of technical intellectual property administrative and civil appeal cases, which laid the institutional foundation for the coordination and unification of the final judgment of civil and administrative cases. In civil cases and patent invalidation administrative cases involving patent infringement disputes between Xiamen Shizheng Electronics Co., Ltd. and LG Electronics, the intellectual property court referred the civil and administrative litigations involving the same patent infringement to the same collegiate panel for joint trials, exploring the docking of civil and administrative proceedings and adjudication standards.
Fourth, implementing efficient and fast trials. It includes two parts: the first part is the electronic litigation and electronic service system. Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues concerning the Intellectual Property Tribunal clearly stipulates that evidence exchange, pre-trial meetings can be organized through electronic litigation platforms or online videos; adjudication documents can be served electronically, such as e-mail, to improve the efficiency of litigation further; the second part is the priority judgment system. In trial practice, if some of the facts about the infringement being tried by the people's court are already evident, the court may pass judgment on that part of the case first, and a separate appeal is allowed. It not only helps save judicial resources, but also facilitates reconciliation among parties.
Fifth, establishing a "1 + 76" technology intellectual property trial pattern. '1' refers to the Supreme Court's Intellectual Property Court acting as the appellate body, with 76 first instance courts (32 high courts and 44 middle courts), together formed the "1 + 76" technology intellectual property trial pattern. It gives full play to the advantages and overall effectiveness of the integrated coordination mechanism with centralized jurisdiction.
Sixth, improving diversified dispute resolution mechanisms. Make full use of the advantages of centralized jurisdiction of "1 + 76" pattern, coordinate the power of trials across the country, and use administrative mediation, industry mediation and other to coordinate multiple courts across the country, which helped resolve more than 80 related cases.
Seventh, implementing a nationwide circuit trial system. Chinese judicial authorities adhered to the people-centered approach and implemented circuit trials nationwide to minimize litigation costs for parties. They explored the "Intellectual Property Court + Circuit Court" mode, established the "examination + court trial" mechanism, completed 23 cases of circuit trials and on-site investigations, which greatly facilitates mass lawsuits.
Eighth, implementing the system of selecting court talents nationwide. The selection and secondment of judges, judge assistants, and technical investigators across the country to hear technical intellectual property cases reflect the system advantages and characteristics of "gathering talents from all over the world" and "focusing on major tasks". The Tribunal has a total of 138 staff. All 40 judges have a master's degree or above, of which 37.5% are doctors, 22.5% have a background in science and engineering, and 17.5% have an experience in studying abroad.
Ninth, coordinating the technical investigation resources of courts in China. The establishment of a "Chinese court technical investigation talent pool" and talent sharing mechanism, including more than 360 technical investigators covering more than 30 technical fields, has solved the problem of lack of technical investigation talents in specific courts or specific cases. The completion and issue of Working Manual of Technical Investigators (2019) provided working guidelines and paradigms for technical investigators in courts across China, and effectively promoted the development of a diverse technical fact-finding mechanism.
Tenth, strengthening information and intelligent construction. The intellectual property court set up an informatization team, built a smart platform such as a library of adjudication rules and cases and a big data intellectual property analysis platform, created an intellectual property court cloud to meet the needs of parties to submit evidence through the Internet and review papers online. All the above provided technical support for intelligent trials in cases involving intellectual property.
Case trials and development of adjudication rules of Supreme Court's Intellectual Property Court
I. Basic situation of case trial
A total of 1945 cases of various types of intellectual property rights were received in 2019. Among them, 1,433 cases were closed, with a closing rate of 73.7%. In general, the cases handled by intellectual property courts have the following main characteristics. First, patent cases cover a wide range of fields, including machinery, materials, electricity, communications, biomedicine and many other fields. Second, the complexity of the case is high, and the trial is difficult. The proportion of complex, difficult and new types of cases is high, so it is necessary not only to deconstruct and analyze extremely complicated technical solutions, but also to creatively apply the law in accordance with the specific circumstances of the case. The third is the large amount of money involved in the case, which has a large social influence. Fourth, civil and administrative cases are intertwined, and there are many related cases with different trial levels and different procedures. Fifth, there are many foreign-related cases, and the proportion of cases involved in the total number of cases exceeds 10%.
II. Development of adjudication rules to stimulate innovation
On March 27, 2019, Vice President Luo Dongchuan sounded the first exemplary case being determined as a guiding case of the Supreme People's Court and selected into the top ten civil administrative cases in 2019. Taking the first case as a model, the intellectual property court has tried a number of exemplary cases, giving full play to the rule demonstration and leading effect of typical cases. It is mainly reflected in four aspects:
First, give play to the demonstration effect of typical cases. Through handling typical cases to clarify adjudication rules and unify adjudication standards, which is a key task of the court. For example, in the court's first exemplary case, a functional feature was defined, and if a technical feature has been defined or implied a specific structure, component, step, condition, or relationship between the technical solutions of the invention, even if the technical feature also defines the function or effect it achieves, it is not a functional feature in principle.
Second, strengthen the protection of intellectual property rights. In trial practice, intellectual property courts pay attention to the balance between procedural justice and substantive justice, and effectively reduce the difficulty and cost of rights protection for rights holders by proving the reasonable allocation of responsibilities and advocating substantial protection of intellectual property rights. For example, the first exemplary case established the rule that part of the judgment that ordered the infringement to cease and the injunctive relief can go hand in hand, and provided the right holder with a more comprehensive remedy within the legal framework.
Third, further clarify the trial standards for authorization and confirmation cases. Patent authorization and confirmation cases account for about 15% of cases in intellectual property courts. In the trial of such cases, the court clarified the relevant standards in terms of the scope of examination by administrative organs, the modification of claims, creative judgments and other aspects. For example: Alfa Laval's Case of administrative dispute over invalidation of patent right for invention clarified the relevant rules for amendment of the claims in the invalidation procedure. Modification as a means should not be used as a simple punishment for improper writing of patentees. It should take into account the efficiency of administrative review and the fair protection of patentees' contributions.
Fourth, clarify the jurisdiction rules of cases. The jurisdiction of technology-related intellectual property cases involves both domestic and international jurisdictions, as well as the jurisdiction dispute of courts and arbitration institutions. The case of the monopoly agreement dispute between Royal Dutch Shell PLC and Huili Resources (Group) Ltd., and the case between VISCAS Co., Ltd. and State Grid (Shanghai), clarified whether the arbitration clause stipulated in the contract could rule out the people's court jurisdiction over monopoly disputes. The Supreme Court pointed out: " The content and trial object of a lawsuit infringing the rights and interests of others caused by a monopoly agreement is far beyond the scope of the agreed arbitration clause between the victim and the monopolistic actor. Therefore, the arbitration clauses agreed by the parties in the contract cannot be the natural and absolute basis for excluding disputes over horizontal monopoly agreements under the jurisdiction of the people's court. "
In general, in terms of promoting innovation-driven development in China, intellectual property courts are playing a unique and important role in unifying the adjudication standards in a timely manner, promoting the coordination of civil and administrative litigation procedures and adjudication standards, coordinating the deployment of national technical investigation resources, and implementing a "1 + 76" mechanism. In actively participating in international intellectual property governance, the intellectual property courts are working with the local intellectual property courts (tribunals) to promote Chinese courts to become the preferred location for international intellectual property dispute resolution.
China's judicial protection of intellectual property rights has four distinct advantages and characteristics. First, China's justice is responsive. When there is a demand from market subjects and people, the judiciary actively responds in a timely manner. China's judicial protection of intellectual property has always been problem-oriented and promoted a substantive solution to the problem. This is essential for the rapid development and protection of intellectual property rights. Second, China's IP trial efficiency has great advantages. Litigation efficiency is of vital importance to the protection of intellectual property rights. China is one of the countries with the shortest trial cycle worldwide. Third, the judicial protection of intellectual property rights in China is constantly increasing. Represented by the punitive damages system, the country and the whole society have formed unprecedented consensus and action to protect intellectual property rights, which has greatly strengthened the international community's confidence in the judicial protection of intellectual property rights in China. Finally, China has the largest number of IP cases in the world. The rich number and types of cases have enabled Chinese courts to form and accumulate richer adjudication rules, and have contributed China's judicial experience and wisdom to international intellectual property governance.
The above is a brief review and introduction to the innovation of the court system and rules. The intellectual property court is still in its infancy and development, but will always adhere to the "high starting point, high standard, high level, and internationalization" standards proposed by President Zhou Qiang, adhere to the "innovation, advancement, wisdom, and excellence" motto, continue to promote system innovation and rule innovation, and strive to build the Supreme Court's intellectual property court into a world-class intellectual property tribunal with worldwide influence.
京公网安备 11010802020770号