(v) The legitimate rights and interests of Chinese and foreign parties are equally protected. The cases involving a party from foreign country, Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan region accounted for 8.9% of all cases accepted by the IP Court. Some of the cases were part of transnational litigation between the parties, which interplayed with foreign patent infringement litigation and together constituted an integral part of the parties’ business competition strategy. The IP Court continues to insist on equal treatment and equal protection of the intellectual property rights of both Chinese and foreign market entities of various types, according to law.
3. Strengthen team building and enhance judicial capacity
法庭下设8个合议庭以及诉讼服务中心与综合办公室,共140名工作人员。法官42人,全部具有硕士研究生以上学历,其中37.5%为博士研究生学历,22.5%有理工科背景,17.5%有海外留学经历。部分法官是从最高人民法院选派,多数法官是从全国专利审判较为成熟的地方法院借调,还有3名法官是在国家知识产权局的支持下来法庭交流。法庭的审判队伍,经过层层筛选,实现了优中选优,是一次全国范围内的“沙场点兵”。法庭充分发挥人才优势,高标准、严要求、多渠道进一步加强队伍建设,努力锻造一支政治坚定、清正廉洁、精通法律、熟悉技术、既理解中国国情又具有国际视野的审判队伍。
(1)整体案件特点
第二,案件社会影响大。一是案件涉及的知识产权市场价值较高,权利人一审主张侵权赔偿额超过1000万人民币的案件有17件,过亿元的有3件;二是案件涉及标准必要专利、医药专利等前沿科技和国计民生,社会关注度高。
(iv) The trial period of the cases is short. Due to various factors such as interconnected civil and administrative procedures, and difficulty in finding technical facts, the trial period for technology-related IP cases is generally longer. However, the average trial period for substantive cases of second instance concluded by the IP Court in 2019 was only 73 days, which indicated that the trial period for cases involving the protection of technology-related intellectual property rights had been considerably shortened.
建构“1+76”技术类知识产权审判格局,建立统筹联动机制。全国有32个高级人民法院、44个中级人民法院对技术类知识产权案件享有一审管辖权,以法庭为上诉机构的“1+76”审判格局已初步构建,形成“全国一盘棋、上下一条线”,逐步发挥出统筹联动机制的优势和整体效能。一年来,法庭以统筹联动机制为依托,扩展纠纷化解渠道方式,跨区域调解80个专利侵权案件,实现了“庭未开、案已结,人未走、事已了”的良好效果。如在上诉人佟勇华、宁波照华公司与被上诉人余姚普德水器材厂等侵害发明专利权纠纷一案中,法庭了解到该案当事人就涉案专利与相关专利在不同地区、不同法院尚有其他未结案件,遂联系杭州知识产权法庭、宁波知识产权法庭,协调合作、共同参与调解工作,推动涉及三地两级法院的8个案件一揽子化解。在上诉人江苏宝雕公司与被上诉人重庆银钢公司等侵害发明专利权纠纷一案中,法庭在江苏、四川、重庆等地高级法院的支持下,跨地域、跨程序一揽子化解7件一审、二审与再审案件。
① Overall characteristics of cases
First, strengthen political development and enhance team cohesion. Guided by the Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, the IP Court has enhanced the “Four Consciousnesses”, fostered the “Four Matters of Confidence”, and ensured “Two Upholds”, to insist on absolute leadership of the CPC over the people’s courts, to ensure that the Central Committee’s decisions and plans in the IP Court are carried out without compromise, and ensure the right political direction of the intellectual property trial work. The IP Court has implemented the general requirements for Party building in the new era, comprehensively improved the team’s quality and capabilities, chosen the right direction for the selection and employment of personnel, promoted righteousness and strived for excellence, and has fully mobilized the enthusiasm, initiative and creativity of all staff members, and encouraged the staff members of the IP Court to take on new roles and new actions in the new era and new environment.
Since its establishment, guided by the Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, the IP Court has comprehensively implemented the decisions formulated at the 19th National Congress of the CPC, and the second, third and fourth plenary sessions of the 19th Central Committee of the CPC, enhanced the “Four Consciousnesses”, fostered “Four Matters of Confidence”, and ensured “Two upholds”. Focusing on the duties and missions entrusted by the Party Central Committee, the IP Court actively seeks a holistic approach at the highest judicial level to both the domestic and international situations, focusing on the “high starting point, high caliber, high level, and international standards” and adhering to the court motto of “Innovation, Perseverance, Prudence, and Preeminence,” and continues to deepen reforms in the field of technology-based intellectual property trials and gives full play to the function of technology-related intellectual property trials to stimulate and protect innovation and to promote scientific and technological progress and social development, so as to safeguard and serve the overall national economic and social development, to contribute Chinese experience and wisdom in the formulation of international intellectual property protection practice and rules, and to strive to promote open, inclusive, balanced, and effective development of international intellectual property rules and governance systems.
Explore a collaborative trial mechanism for civil and administrative cases involving the same patent. China’s patent system adopts a dual system for civil infringement procedures and administrative invalidation procedures. Problems arising from the implementation of this system are: on the one hand, civil infringement procedures concerning patents are often affected and constrained by the administrative invalidation procedures, and the overlapping procedures results in longer time required for patent protection and relapsed results; on the other hand, patentees can use separate procedures to make different claim constructions by arguing for a limited scope of protection in administrative invalidation procedures to obtain affirmation and an expanded scope of protection in civil infringement proceedings to obtain an advantage in the determination of infringement, thus the patentee can “profit from both sides.” With the support of Beijing Intellectual Property Court and other local courts, the IP Court has taken full advantage of its centralized jurisdiction, and established a collaborative advancement mechanism for civil and administrative cases involving the same patent, to synergize the determination of the patent validity and the determination of infringement, thus resolving the problem of long period for patent litigation and the plaintiff’s inconsistent claim constructions for the same patent in different cases at the mechanism level. The specific approach is that the IP Court collects the information of the cases involving the same patent and forwards it to the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, to coordinate the trial process and to unify the judicial standard. For cases that have entered the second-instance stage, the IP Court actively utilizes the trial mechanism to solve the problems arising from the dual system under the current legal framework, on the basis of “front-end sorting.” For example, the patent invalidation administrative dispute and infringement dispute of Lejin Electronics (Tianjin) Electrical Appliance Co., Ltd. v. Xiamen Power Electronic Technology Co., Ltd. involved the same patent. The IP Court established the same collegial panel and appointed the same technical investigators to convene a pre-trial meeting, focused on the claim construction issues involved in both cases, and recorded them in the judgment document. By doing so, a bridge of communication between the administrative litigation and the civil litigation is built, which enabled coordination of judicial standards for the civil litigation concerning patent infringement and the administrative litigation concerning patent invalidation.
(ii) The focus of the disputes is relatively concentrated. In particular, software contract cases mainly focus on whether the software are developed and delivered, whether the software developed meets the agreement, whether the parties have agreed on the changes in performing the contract, and whether there is delay in performance, etc.
First, the IP Court drafted and prepared the Three-year Development Plan for the IP Court (2019-2021), to provide an overall plan on the guiding ideology, development principles, development goals, main tasks, basic guarantees, organization, and implementation of the IP Court’s development. The aim is to promote the long-term development of the IP Court and ensure that the Central Committee’s deployment goals are implemented.
第三,加强与社会各界的交流,凝聚全社会齐抓共管的知识产权保护合力。法庭注重通过交流汇聚社会各界智慧资源和专业合力,共同提升知识产权司法保护的品质和效率,整体提升我国营商环境。法庭以各项司法宣传活动为契机,欢迎社会各界人士观摩庭审、交流座谈。一年中,法庭共接待63批970余人次参访,其中特约监督员、特邀咨询员、全国及地方人大代表和政协委员29人次。法庭的调研小组就涉外专利案件管辖及法律适用、专利侵权损害赔偿、植物新品种保护等问题,先后与多家科技创新企业、专利和法律服务机构进行座谈,听取各方面意见与建议,与社会各界携手构建知识产权大保护工作格局。
(iii) The judicial position is relatively lenient. Of the 446 cases of second instance on challenge to jurisdiction concluded by the IP Court, only 21 were concluded by reversal, accounting for 4.7%. In order to protect the obligee’s in exercising its litigation rights according to law and to moderately promote judicial competition, the IP Court has a more lenient judicial position towards the obligee’s choice of connection point of jurisdiction and respects the olibgee’s right to choose the court of dispute jurisdiction.
(iii) The legal issues involved in the cases are diverse, such as the standing of parties in the litigation, the scope of protection of variety rights, the defense of legitimate sources, and the amount of damages, etc.
除非注明,迷失传奇私服文章均为原创,转载请以链接形式标明本文地址
本文地址:http://rrc.org.cn/sf/5840.html