前言
2019年是中華人民共和國成立70 周年，也是實施人民法院第五個五年改革綱要的開局之年。人民法院以習近平新時代中國特色社會主義思想為指導，深入貫徹落實黨的十九大和十九屆二中、三中、四中全會精神，不斷增強「四個意識」、堅定「四個自信」、做到「兩個維護」，不忘初心、牢記使命，嚴格履行憲法和法律賦予的審判職責，持續深化審判體制機制改革，不斷提升審判質效，著力打造過硬隊伍，開創了智慧財產權司法保護工作新局面，智慧財產權司法公信力和國際影響力進一步提升，智慧財產權審判體系和審判能力現代化進程不斷推進，為推動創新驅動發展、創造良好營商環境提供了有力司法服務和保障。
一、發揮審判職能作用，加強智慧財產權司法保護
黨的十九屆四中全會作出堅持和完善中國特色社會主義制度、推進國家治理體系和治理能力現代化重大部署，並提出了完善科技創新體制機制、加快建設創新型國家、強化國家戰略科技力量的要求。加強智慧財產權保護和運用，形成有效的創新激勵機制，是提升我國科技創新能力、推動經濟高質量發展、推進創新驅動發展戰略實施的必然選擇。一年來，人民法院緊緊圍繞「努力讓人民群眾在每一個司法案件中感受到公平正義」目標，堅持司法為民、公正司法主線，積極發揮智慧財產權審判工作在激勵和保護創新中的重要作用。
2019年，人民法院共新收一審、二審、申請再審等各類智慧財產權案件481793件，審結475853件（含舊存，下同），比2018年分別上升44.16%和48.87%。
（一）提升民事司法保護水平
人民法院充分發揮智慧財產權審判保護創新和維護公平競爭的職能作用，注重通過裁判激勵科技創新，促進文化傳播，維護競爭秩序，為創新主體提供明確、穩定、可預期的規則指引，讓創新創業者堅定信心，提升社會創新活力。2019 年，最高人民法院新收智慧財產權民事案件2504件，審結1976件，比2018年分別上升174.26%和260.07%。地方各級人民法院共新收智慧財產權民事一審案件399031件，審結394521件，分別比2018年上升40.79% 和44.02%。其中，新收專利案件22272件，同比上升2.64% ；商標案件65209件，同比上升25.41% ；著作權案件293066件，同比上升49.98% ；技術合同案件3135件，同比上升16.98% ；競爭類案件4128 件，同比下降1.25% ；其他智慧財產權民事糾紛案件11221件，同比上升49.95%。地方各級人民法院共新收智慧財產權民事二審案件49704 件，審結48710件，同比分別上升79.95% 和85.29% 。
一年來，人民法院審結的具有較大社會影響的智慧財產權民事案件有：廈門盧卡斯汽車配件有限公司等與法國瓦萊奧清洗系統公司等侵害發明專利權案；本田技研工業株式會社與重慶恆勝鑫泰貿易有限公司等侵害商標權案；和睦家醫療管理諮詢（北京）有限公司與福州和睦佳婦產醫院等侵害商標權及不正當競爭案；蔡新光與廣州市潤平商業有限公司侵害植物新品種權案；河北山人雕塑有限公司與河北中鼎園林雕塑有限公司等侵害著作權案；等等。
（二）強化對行政行為的司法審查
各級人民法院著力強化對智慧財產權授權確權行政行為和行政執法行為合法性的審查。2019年，最高人民法院新收和審結智慧財產權行政案件1066件和884 件，比2018 年分別上升70.83%和52.15%。地方各級人民法院共新收智慧財產權行政一審案件16134件，比2018年上升19.11%。其中，專利案件1661 件，同比上升8.14% ；商標案件14457件，同比上升20.56% ；著作權案件16件，與2018 年持平。審結一審案件17938件，同比上升89.74%。地方各級人民法院新收智慧財產權行政二審案件7304件，審結5942件，比2018 年分別上升104.88% 和84.71%。其中，維持原判4791件，改判1026 件，發回重審4 件，撤訴613 件，駁回起訴132 件。
一年來，人民法院審結的具有較大社會影響的智慧財產權行政案件有：三星電子株式會社、華為技術有限公司與國家知識產權局發明專利權無效宣告請求行政案；北京康智樂思網絡科技有限公司與國家知識產權局、廈門美柚股份有限公司商標權無效宣告請求行政案；等等。
（三）加大對智慧財產權犯罪行為懲罰力度
人民法院依法審理智慧財產權刑事案件，加大刑事保護力度，淨化市場環境。2019年，地方各級人民法院共新收侵犯智慧財產權刑事一審案件5242件，同比上升21.37%。其中，侵犯註冊商標類刑事案件4982 件，同比上升21.01% ；侵犯著作權類刑事案件210件，同比上升34.62%。
地方各級人民法院共審結侵犯智慧財產權刑事一審案件5075 件，同比上升24.88% 。在審結的侵犯智慧財產權刑事一審案件中，假冒註冊商標刑事案件2134件，同比上升15.23% ；銷售假冒註冊商標的商品刑事案件2279 件，同比上升32.19% ；非法製造、銷售非法製造的註冊商標標識刑事案件423件，同比上升38.69% ；假冒專利刑事案件1 件；侵犯著作權刑事案件191件，同比上升40.44% ；銷售侵權複製品刑事案件8件，同比上升33.33% ；侵犯商業秘密刑事案件39件，與去年持平。
地方各級人民法院共新收涉智慧財產權的刑事二審案件808件，同比上升18.30% ；審結807件，同比上升20.81%。
一年來，人民法院審結的具有較大社會影響的智慧財產權刑事案件有：楊明鳳、楊茂淦等犯假冒註冊商標罪、銷售假冒註冊商標的商品罪案；林義翔等犯侵犯商業秘密罪案；許振緯等犯假冒註冊商標罪案；陳力等犯侵犯著作權罪案；等等。
2019年，智慧財產權審判工作穩中有進，審判質效持續向好，呈現出以下特點。
案件數量再創新高。隨著全社會智慧財產權保護意識的不斷加強和智慧財產權司法保護公信力的穩步提升。2019年，人民法院新收和審結各類智慧財產權案件數量急劇增加，收、結案數量均創歷史新高，增幅雙雙突破40%。從案件分布區域看，北京收案80165件、上海收案23580件、江蘇收案20249件、浙江收案27706件、廣東收案157363件，共計309063件，佔全國法院智慧財產權收案數量64.15%，依然是智慧財產權訴訟糾紛較多的地區；從增長速度看，河北、安徽、福建、廣西、重慶分別同比上升53.53%、60.30%、64.88%、98.49%、173.66%,漲幅均突破50%，其他地區亦呈現出明顯的攀升趨勢；從結案情況看，各級法院努力克服案多人少矛盾，結案數量大幅提升。以前述收案最多的地區為例，其結案率分別達到90%以上，圓滿完成了審判任務。
新型案件不斷增多。隨著新一輪科技革命和產業變革的蓬勃興起，新技術、新產品、新業態不斷拓展法律邊界，涉及網際網路、大數據、人工智慧、標準必要專利、生物醫藥等科技前沿領域的智慧財產權新問題不斷湧現，既要對複雜的技術方案進行分析，又需要結合具體案情靈活適用法律。最高人民法院審理了涉及機械、材料、電學、通信、生物醫藥等領域的專利案件，進一步提煉有關裁判規則；北京智慧財產權法院審結「首例雲伺服器被訴侵權案」「凍幹形式的穩定藥用組合物專利侵權訴前行為保全案」等疑難複雜案件；上海市高級人民法院審結諾基亞公司與華勤通訊技術有限公司侵害發明專利權案，為通訊領域的標準必要專利案件的妥善審理提供了借鑑；廣東法院專利案件訴訟標的額超過1000萬元的案件有63件，標的總額約為81.8億元。
保護力度持續加大。人民法院認真貫徹《關於完善產權保護制度依法保護產權的意見》，提高智慧財產權司法救濟的及時性和便利性，努力實現侵權損害賠償與智慧財產權市場價值的協調性和相稱性。北京市海澱區人民法院在UC瀏覽器訴搜狗輸入法流量劫持案中適用裁量性賠償計算方式確定2000餘萬元的賠償金額；內蒙古自治區高級人民法院在廣東藍帶集團北京藍寶酒業公司與河南紅火公司等侵害商標權案中將賠償數額由5萬元提高到100萬元，加大了對侵權源頭的懲治力度；浙江省高級人民法院在杭州莫麗斯科技有限公司、奧普家居股份有限公司訴浙江風尚建材股份有限公司、浙江現代新能源公司侵害商標權及不正當競爭案中判令被告賠償800萬元，維護了「奧普」商標的品牌價值；福建法院在「九牧王」商標糾紛案和「博力謀」商標及不正當競爭案判決中積極採用懲罰性賠償機制，將侵權損害賠償金額提高了1倍和2倍。
司法效果日益彰顯。人民法院在確保完成審判任務的同時，還審結了一批疑難、複雜、新類型及社會廣泛關注的案件，發揮了典型案例的示範和指引作用。最高人民法院智慧財產權法庭敲響「第一槌」並當庭宣判，判決書深入闡釋了功能性特徵的認定標準，數十家媒體進行全媒體直播和廣泛報導，庭審網絡直播第一時間觀看量達1800餘萬次，該案從立案、開庭到結案送達僅用50天，凸顯公正透明高效。甘肅省高級人民法院審結的涉外植物新品種案件，保護了品種權人的合法權益。上海智慧財產權法院審理的深圳市朗科科技股份有限公司與創歆貿易（上海）有限公司等侵害發明專利權系列案，總標的達2470萬元，涉案專利系移動存儲領域的開創性技術，案件審理受到社會廣泛關注和肯定。湖南法院審理了一批涉餐飲、創意攝影、百貨銷售等服務行業的商標侵權和不正當競爭案，引導餐飲行業、百貨業、文創產業規範、正當使用商業標識，推動了第三產業良性健康發展。
多元解紛成效突出。人民法院堅持把非訴訟糾紛解決機制挺在前面，堅持和發展新時代「楓橋經驗」，推進多元解紛體系建設，鼓勵當事人通過非訴訟方式化解糾紛，促使各類糾紛解決方式各得其所、各盡其能、多元共治、形成合力，進一步提升了智慧財產權糾紛解決效率。最高人民法院成功調解陝西白水杜康酒業有限責任公司與洛陽杜康控股有限公司侵害商標權案，一攬子解決了涉「杜康」的所有案件，為地方穩定、企業發展提供了司法保障；最高人民法院建立全國法院統籌聯動整體機制，探索「知產法庭+巡迴法庭」巡迴審理模式及「勘驗+庭審」案件審理機制，推動全國48個關聯案件一攬子化解，庭前跨區域高效化解80個專利侵權案件，方便群眾訴訟，豐富了智慧財產權領域的「楓橋經驗」；北京法院持續推進立案階段「多元調解+速裁」機制改革，努力推動首都社會治理體系和治理能力現代化；吉林法院注重發揮調解作用，各類智慧財產權糾紛調解率達75%；安徽省高級人民法院成功調解標的額逾1億元的中廣影視衛星公司與中國電信安徽分公司侵害廣播組織權案；山東法院認真落實《山東省多元化解糾紛促進條例》，積極構建化解智慧財產權糾紛訴調對接平臺；湖北法院搭建行政機關、侵權場地租賃方、行業協會、律師調解組織等第三方參與的調解平臺，通過協調各方資源，促使達成調解；四川法院與中國（四川）智慧財產權保護中心籤訂關於建立智慧財產權協同保護機制的合作協議，委託其進行涉專利智慧財產權案件的調解工作；雲南法院積極建立智慧財產權訴前調解制度，為實現部分智慧財產權案件及時化解創造條件；遼寧法院進一步完善多元化糾紛解決機制，針對事實清楚、爭議不大的著作權、商標權、不正當競爭等糾紛案件採取訴前調解，實行訴調對接；新疆法院注重採用多種調解方式化解矛盾，調撤率始終保持相對較高水平。
二、深化改革綜合配套，優化智慧財產權司法體系
2019年，人民法院以貫徹落實《關於加強智慧財產權審判領域改革創新若干問題的意見》為重要抓手，加強智慧財產權審判領域理論創新、制度創新和實踐創新，推進智慧財產權審判領域各項改革舉措，不斷完善智慧財產權司法體制機制。
（一）最高人民法院智慧財產權法庭開局良好
最高人民法院智慧財產權法庭的成立，是以習近平同志為核心的黨中央從建設智慧財產權強國和世界科技強國的戰略高度作出的重大戰略決策部署，是我國智慧財產權訴訟制度的重大突破和創新，具有裡程碑意義。2019年是最高人民法院智慧財產權法庭運行的開局之年，作為統一審理全國範圍內技術類智慧財產權上訴案件的專門機構，智慧財產權法庭克服了初創時期的各種困難，奮力推進各方面工作，相繼推出多項改革舉措，實現良好開局。
一是實施「統一裁判標準系統工程」。統一裁判標準是中央設立法庭的首要目標，制定《最高人民法院智慧財產權法庭統一裁判標準實施細則》等制度，做好前端梳理、加強中間把控、完善末端審核、嚴管重點案件；完善法官會議制度，同步編發《法官會議紀要摘編》和《辦案提示》，及時統一重要裁判標準和類案辦理方式。
二是探索行政和民事案件同步審理模式。將涉及同一專利侵權民事和確權行政糾紛交同一合議庭審理，實現二元程序和裁判標準的對接。
三是優化技術類智慧財產權案件審判機制。堅持以人民為中心，優化審判管理，充分發揮集中管轄的機制優勢和全國法院「1+76」整體效能，推動全國關聯糾紛化解。
四是推進多元化技術事實查明機制發展。統籌全國法院技術調查資源，包括360餘名技術調查官，覆蓋30多個技術領域，努力緩解欠發達地區法院技術調查力量不足、發達地區法院技術領域覆蓋不全的問題。
五是加強信息化和智能化建設。建設裁判規則庫和案例庫、「大數據智慧財產權分析平臺」等智能平臺，探索「知產法庭雲」，滿足當事人通過網際網路提交證據、網上閱卷等需求，為案件智能審判提供技術支持。
（二）智慧財產權法院建設紮實推進
為貫徹落實全國人大常委會關於智慧財產權法院成立以來工作情況的審議意見，最高人民法院繼續加強對北京、上海、廣州智慧財產權法院的指導，智慧財產權法院各項工作紮實推進，進展順利，成效顯著。
自2014年底設立以來，智慧財產權法院受理案件逾10萬件，審理了一批具有規則意義和社會影響的重大智慧財產權案件，在提升審判質效、統一裁判尺度、促進創新驅動發展等方面發揮了積極作用。智慧財產權法院立足自身職能定位，大膽探索創新，推動司法改革，開創了智慧財產權審判新局面，推動了我國智慧財產權審判專門化體系建設。
（三）跨區域管轄機制不斷優化
2017年以來，南京等21個城市中級人民法院內設專門審判機構，跨區域集中管轄部分智慧財產權一審案件，推動智慧財產權專業審判機構在全國範圍內合理布局。各地智慧財產權法庭加大探索創新力度，著力提升審判專業化水平，對於推進京津冀協同發展、長江經濟帶發展、粵港澳大灣區建設等決策部署具有重要意義。
南京智慧財產權法庭大力開展巡迴審判，推行專業化、集約化審判模式，積極回應高新技術園區的智慧財產權保護訴求，為轄區內企業開展自主創新保駕護航；杭州智慧財產權法庭積極運用網際網路技術、建立跨區域協作機制，在為群眾提供在線訴訟司法便利的同時，有效促進了法律適用標準統一；鄭州智慧財產權法庭以信息化建設為抓手，採取網上立案、電子送達、微信調解等措施，打破時空限制，不斷提高智慧財產權審判便民化、信息化水平；深圳智慧財產權法庭立足區位優勢，以強化智慧財產權司法保護為切入點，深度參與廣深科技創新走廊、珠三角國家自主創新示範區建設；海口智慧財產權法庭在全省設置巡迴辦案點和司法服務聯繫點，主動提供智慧財產權司法保護服務。
（四）智慧財產權審判「三合一」改革持續深化
2019年，人民法院貫徹落實《最高人民法院關於在全國法院推進智慧財產權民事、行政和刑事案件審判「三合一」工作的意見》，進一步鞏固「三合一」改革工作成效。
最高人民法院加大對全國推進「三合一」改革的指導力度，深入開展智慧財產權刑事案件閱卷調研，掌握第一手刑事案件辦理資料，為研究智慧財產權刑事司法保護規範、修訂完善相關司法解釋奠定了基礎；江蘇省高級人民法院開展智慧財產權犯罪量刑調研，為規範審理智慧財產權刑事案件的刑罰裁量權與量刑尺度提供參考；浙江法院2019年11月1日起全面實施智慧財產權民事、行政、刑事「三合一」審判，審理智慧財產權刑事案件260件、行政案件41件；海南省高級人民法院開展智慧財產權刑事、行政案件指定管轄調研，明確智慧財產權案件「三合一」管轄機制。
（五）智慧財產權訴訟制度不斷完善
人民法院著力完善符合智慧財產權案件特點的訴訟規則，積極優化智慧財產權案件審理模式，著力破解制約智慧財產權司法保護的體制性難題。
各級法院積極創新工作機制，強化當事人舉證義務，加大依職權調查取證力度，有效減輕權利人維權成本。上海市高級人民法院探索證據出示令制度，依法制裁妨礙舉證的行為；湖南省高級人民法院規範律師調查令的工作規程；海南省高級人民法院鼓勵當事人充分利用公證、電子數據平臺等第三方證據保全方式收集、固定證據。
各級法院進一步明確各類人員參與技術事實調查的方式，充分運用技術調查的各種力量資源，構建了有機協調的技術事實查明機制。最高人民法院組建了全國法院技術調查官、技術諮詢專家庫，建立全國法院技術調查資源共享機制，發布《技術調查官工作手冊（2019）》，為全國法院查明技術事實提供工作指引和範式；北京智慧財產權法院構建了由專業化人民陪審員、技術調查官、專家輔助人、司法鑑定機構共同參與的「四位一體」技術事實查明機制；江蘇省高級人民法院與江蘇省生物醫藥功能材料協同創新中心籤訂關於智慧財產權技術事實調查協作的框架協議，發揮技術專家的積極作用；新疆生產建設兵團法院在證據保全過程中，聘請專業人士參與侵權種子種植地域和面積的測量、侵權植物的扦樣；湖北、湖南、四川、陝西等地高級人民法院組建專家庫，充分發揮專家的專業支持作用，提升了法官查明技術事實的準確性。
各級法院立足群眾多元司法需求，積極優化智慧財產權案件審理模式，促進案件繁簡分流，統一法律適用標準。北京智慧財產權法院實行快審機制，在商標駁回覆審案件中試行「要素式」裁判文書，平均結案時間減少30%；西安智慧財產權法庭組建速裁組，用20%的審判力量完成70%的案件；成都智慧財產權法庭探索建立智慧財產權案件快速審判機制，合理配置審判資源，取得良好效果；海口智慧財產權法庭實行「立案、審判、執行」一體化運行模式，提高智慧財產權審判質效；長春智慧財產權法庭對涉著作權、商標權等類案進行簡案速審、快審，五個月審結全年84.8%的案件，大大縮短了審理周期。
三、主動延伸司法職能，提升調研指導工作質效
人民法院密切關注智慧財產權司法保護熱點問題，依託最高人民法院智慧財產權司法保護研究中心、司法保護理論研究基地等，加強智慧財產權保護創新理論和司法政策研究，積極參與智慧財產權法律修訂工作，監督指導職能得以有效發揮。
（一）積極參與有關立法
積極參與民法典、專利法、商標法、反不正當競爭法、著作權法、商標法實施條例、植物新品種保護條例等法律法規的制定、修訂工作；參加專利法第四次修改座談會、全國政協關於著作權法草案民間文學藝術作品相關會議；開展智慧財產權訴訟特別程序法調研，確定了總體思路、基本框架、重點內容。
（二）強化司法解釋工作
最高人民法院發布《關於技術調查官參與智慧財產權案件訴訟活動的若干規定》，明確了技術調查官參與智慧財產權案件訴訟活動的程序、職責、效力、法律責任等；圍繞智慧財產權訴訟舉證責任分配、證據調查收集、證據交換和電子證據的審查判斷等，開展專題調研；召開多次研討會，研究智慧財產權懲罰性賠償、商標法和反不正當競爭法適用、商業秘密保護、國防專利糾紛等司法解釋起草工作。
（三）注重司法政策研究
參與起草《關於強化智慧財產權保護的意見》，強化廣州智慧財產權法院、深圳智慧財產權法庭等智慧財產權專業審判機構職能，全面加強粵港澳大灣區在智慧財產權保護、專業人才培養等領域的合作，深入推進中新廣州知識城國家智慧財產權運用和保護綜合改革試驗；開展涉自貿區智慧財產權保護專項調研，圍繞自貿區、自貿港建設中的智慧財產權司法保護問題，提出針對性強的工作舉措38條。
（四）發揮案例指導作用
最高人民法院發布「智慧財產權案件年度報告（2018）」「中國法院十大智慧財產權案件和五十件智慧財產權典型案例」，歸納具有普遍指導意義的司法裁判標準，開展「集中宣判周」活動，對有標杆意義的案件集中公開宣判，進一步發揮新型、疑難、複雜案件規則引領作用；深圳智慧財產權法庭在總結外觀設計專利快審機制改革經驗的基礎上，有針對性地選擇了19個典型案件進行分析；內蒙古自治區高級人民法院召開智慧財產權審判情況暨典型案例發布會，公布全區法院智慧財產權典型案例，規範和指導市場主體誠信經營,維護公平競爭的市場經濟秩序；河南省高級人民法院發布涉及商標品牌保護的典型案件；四川省高級人民法院首次發布四川省民營企業智慧財產權司法保護白皮書及典型案例，研究民營企業在智慧財產權司法保護中存在的問題、原因及建議。
（五）深化司法調研工作
最高人民法院整理近五年商標註冊及使用情況的大數據，研究提出當前法律規制惡意搶註商標行為的措施建議；就圖片著作權前沿問題進行研討，明晰了裁判標準，回應了社會關切；遼寧法院開展涉「一帶一路」、自由貿易試驗區等智慧財產權案件的調研，了解相關企業發展的司法保護需求；浙江省高級人民法院深入20多家企業調研，切實回應創新主體司法保護需求；黑龍江法院深入民營企業調研，製作普法宣傳手冊，進一步提升民營企業智慧財產權保護力度，助力民營經濟發展；湖南法院主動對接企業和高新園區的司法需求，增強企業創新發展意識。
最高人民法院圍繞專利法修改、藥品專利連結、商業模式創新等重點問題進行專項調研，形成《關於改革和完善專利無效程序立法的建議》《關於藥品專利連結制度的立法建議》《商業模式創新成果的司法保護問題研究》等調研成果；北京市高級人民法院總結梳理商標授權確權行政案件審理的裁判規則，為權利人尋求司法保護提供行為指引；浙江省高級人民法院針對涉電商平臺智慧財產權案件審理進行調研，總結促進電子商務產業健康發展的司法經驗；福建省高級人民法院就如何強化智慧財產權司法保護、更好服務保障創新創業創造提出意見；江蘇省高級人民法院以江蘇創新經濟發展與司法保護為視角，提出了實施嚴格智慧財產權司法保護、為創新經濟發展提供高質量司法保障的意見。
四、提升司法公開水平，樹立智慧財產權司法公信
各級人民法院以公開促公正、以公正樹公信。開放、動態、透明、便民的陽光司法機制建設取得明顯進展。
（一）深化審判公開
人民法院深入推進審判流程信息公開工作，嚴格落實「以公開為原則，以不公開為例外」工作要求，創新庭審公開形式，拓展庭審公開的範圍。廣東省高級人民法院公開開庭審理街電公司與來電公司侵害實用新型專利權案並全程網絡直播，近萬人次收看、近百人現場旁聽了庭審；四川省高級人民法院公開審理並當庭宣判一起侵害商標權糾紛案件，邀請人大代表、政協委員旁聽庭審；內蒙古自治區高級人民法院開展「庭審進校園」活動，公開開庭審理一起侵害著作權糾紛案，師生代表300餘人觀摩了庭審。
（二）加強以案說法
最高人民法院組織完成中央電視臺法治中國說第三季《大法官說——司法保護智慧財產權》節目的策劃、組稿、錄製、播放等一系列工作。該節目是最高人民法院與中央電視臺社會與法頻道（CCTV-12）共同推出的中華人民共和國成立70周年獻禮重點宣傳片，該期節目聚焦黨的十九大以來中國法治建設新成就和中華人民共和國成立70年來中國法治進程，由最高人民法院副院長陶凱元大法官發表主題演說。據統計，近5000萬觀眾第一時間收看直播，相關的網絡新聞共計1357篇，報刊新聞78篇，微博151條，論壇博客99篇，微信文章2238篇，APP報導294篇，智慧財產權司法保護工作獲得社會積極評價。
在日內瓦總部舉辦的第二屆世界智慧財產權法官論壇期間舉行《世界智慧財產權組織智慧財產權典型案例集·中國卷（2011-2018）》新書發布活動，世界智慧財產權組織總法律顧問龐德科出席活動並致辭。本案例集由世界智慧財產權組織總幹事弗朗西斯·高銳與中國最高人民法院副院長陶凱元大法官分別作序，是世界智慧財產權組織計劃出版的各國智慧財產權典型案例集中的第一部，對於充分展示中國智慧財產權司法保護成就，進一步發揮典型案例的示範作用，擴大我國智慧財產權司法保護國際影響力具有重要意義。
最高人民法院組織開展「集中宣判周」「法官進校園」等活動，加強以案說法，增強全社會尊重知識、保護智慧財產權的意識。重大案件審判活動注重邀請全國人大代表、政協委員、最高人民法院特約監督員和諮詢員、中國科學院院士、律師代表、行業協會代表參加旁聽和座談交流；雄安新區中級人民法院舉辦「保護智慧財產權大型廣場宣傳諮詢活動」，向百度、騰訊、京東、華為等新區入駐企業宣傳智慧財產權法律法規；浙江省高級人民法院開設「浙江天平」公眾號、「知之匯」網站、「浙知析法」欄目，實現常態化宣傳，全年發布文章85篇、直播庭審26次、網站點擊量達90萬次；江蘇省高級人民法院開展「代表委員看法院」暨智慧財產權司法保護媒體集中採訪活動，收到良好效果。
（三）注重宣傳智慧財產權法治
最高人民法院啟動「智慧財產權司法保護安徽行」，邀請部分全國人大代表、最高人民法院特約監督員及安徽省有關部門代表等，與中央媒體一起走訪安徽部分法院和重點高科技企業，就安徽省智慧財產權保護情況進行調研，關注企業科技創新成果，聚焦司法需求，服務創新主體發展；組織開展「知產法庭公眾開放周」「智慧財產權保護集中開庭周」活動，公開審理涉及醫療器械、網絡數據抓取、光學技術等多個高新科技領域的大要案，受到社會廣泛關注；舉行「法信智慧財產權版」上線活動，打造以既有的智慧財產權案例指導平臺為基礎，融合、升級、研發而成的智慧財產權一體化大數據服務平臺，為全國智慧財產權法官提供免費檢索查閱服務。河北省高級人民法院將「4.26」宣傳活動與《奧林匹克標誌保護條例》宣傳相結合，廣泛宣傳有關法律法規，效果良好；山西省高級人民法院深入山西省轉型綜合改革示範區走訪調研，充分了解企業需求，就人民法院如何更好地為企業創新服務，營造一流創新環境提出了明確要求；西藏自治區高級人民法院結合民俗習慣和宗教信仰，以喜聞樂見的形式開展漢藏雙語法治宣傳；寧夏回族自治區高級人民法院開展智慧財產權法律宣傳和法律諮詢活動，現場解答群眾法律諮詢。
五、拓展合作交流空間，擴大智慧財產權司法影響
當今世界日益開放和包容，智慧財產權審判工作既要立足中國實際，又要具有全球思維和國際視野，貢獻中國經驗和中國智慧。
（一）積極服務對外工作大局
最高人民法院加強中外經貿磋商中智慧財產權問題研究，依法加強對下審判指導監督；派員參加多邊、雙邊智慧財產權對話交流活動，參加海牙國際私法會議《承認與執行外國民商事判決的公約》的談判工作，為海牙判決項目公約的最終達成和智慧財產權問題的妥善解決貢獻智慧。
（二）擴大司法保護國際影響
2019年6月，最高人民法院與世界智慧財產權組織在北京共同舉辦「WIPO調解在智慧財產權訴訟中的應用研討會」。來自世界智慧財產權組織、新加坡以及中國最高人民法院和地方法院的嘉賓對智慧財產權組織的替代性糾紛解決機制進行了深入研討，世界智慧財產權組織仲裁和調解中心主任艾瑞克·韋伯斯高度讚揚中國法院和世界智慧財產權組織的合作。派員參加「打擊侵權假冒國際合作論壇」，強調依法適用懲罰性賠償，堅決遏制和威懾重複侵權、惡意侵權等行為，努力營造產權受保護、侵權有代價、犯罪必懲罰的法治環境。
最高人民法院副院長羅東川大法官主持了與世界智慧財產權組織、國際保護智慧財產權協會、美國智慧財產權法律協會、國際法院、古巴最高法院、英國高等法院等的20餘次交流活動。世界智慧財產權組織總幹事弗朗西斯·高銳表示：「最高人民法院智慧財產權法庭的成立意義重大，體現了中國對智慧財產權保護的莊嚴承諾,表達了中國為智慧財產權提供更加公正高效司法保護的堅定決心。」國際法院院長阿布杜勒卡維•艾哈邁德•優素福表示，「中國的法律成就不僅體現在整個法治的推動方面，在具體的智慧財產權領域上的成就也讓人非常欽佩。」
（三）拓寬對外合作交流渠道
通過各種對話平臺，積極回應國際社會對中國智慧財產權司法保護的關注，增進世界各國對中國智慧財產權司法保護狀況的了解，進一步提升智慧財產權審判的國際影響力。派員參加「世界智慧財產權組織對華合作與中國智慧財產權發展趨勢」座談會，積極支持並參與世界智慧財產權組織的相關合作項目；派員參加世界智慧財產權組織「智慧財產權審判大師對話」活動，組建中國專利法官代表團訪問歐盟，積極宣介我國智慧財產權司法保護的最新發展和成就；派員參加世界智慧財產權組織第二屆智慧財產權法官論壇、第九屆亞洲太平洋地區法官競爭法研討會、國際智慧財產權保護協會（AIPPI）年會、2019年國際商標年會、歐洲商標協會年會、中日韓三國智慧財產權保護研討會等活動。
六、夯實隊伍建設基礎，增強智慧財產權司法能力
人民法院堅持以政治建設為統領，不斷提高政治站位，大力推進審判隊伍革命化、正規化、專業化、職業化建設，著力鍛造一支政治堅定、顧全大局、精通法律、熟悉技術並具有國際視野的智慧財產權司法審判隊伍，為做好新時代智慧財產權審判工作提供堅實組織保障和人才保障。
（一）紮實開展思想政治教育活動
人民法院將政治建設擺在首位，深入開展「不忘初心、牢記使命」主題教育活動，充分運用好黨內政治生活各項制度，喚醒守初心意識、增強擔使命本領；創設「新知大講堂」「智慧財產權法庭講壇」等線上線下黨建教育管理平臺，探索形成了「線上線下全覆蓋、教育管理全天候」的黨建工作法，最高人民法院智慧財產權法庭黨支部獲得中央和國家機關工委《旗幟》雜誌社舉辦的第二屆黨建創新成果評選活動「百優案例」獎項，系全國法院系統唯一獲獎單位。
（二）築牢幹警廉潔自律思想防線
人民法院堅持全面從嚴治黨、從嚴治院，貫徹落實中央八項規定及其實施細則精神，整治「四風」，反對形式主義、官僚主義，人民法院黨風廉政建設和反腐敗鬥爭不斷向縱深推進。
（三）著力加強隊伍司法能力建設
人民法院牢牢把握「五個過硬」總要求，在新的起點上全面加強隊伍建設，努力推進新時代人民法院隊伍建設實現新發展，著力打造一支忠誠乾淨擔當的高素質法院隊伍。最高人民法院加大統籌協調和對下指導力度，推動各地法院制定智慧財產權審判專門人才培養和儲備規劃，建立形式多樣的人員交流機制。各地法院以提升司法能力為重點，充分運用專題培訓、專題研討、在職培養、交流掛職、庭審觀摩等形式，打造學習型審判隊伍，適應智慧財產權審判工作新形勢、新要求，隊伍專業化職業化水平不斷提升。
結束語
當今世界正處於百年未有之大變局，全球治理體系和國際秩序變革加速推進，全球新一輪科技革命與產業變革風起雲湧，給智慧財產權司法保護提出了新課題、新任務和新挑戰。人民法院將進一步把握新形勢新情況，切實履職盡責，充分發揮智慧財產權司法保護職能，為實現經濟持續健康發展和社會大局穩定，為全面建成小康社會和「十三五」規劃圓滿收官，為建設社會主義現代化強國和國家治理體系、治理能力現代化提供有力司法服務和保障。
Intellectual Property Protection by Chinese Courts(2019)
Introduction
2019 was the 70thyear of the founding of the People’s Republic of China. The same year saw theunfolding of the People’s Courts』 Fifth Five-Year Reform Programme (2019–2023).Guided by General-Secretary Xi Jinping’s thought on Chinese socialism for thenew era, the courts implemented the decisions and essential values of the 19thNational Congress of the Communist Party of China (「Party Congress」) and of thesecond, third and fourth plena of the 19th CCP Central Committee. They havealso continued to foster the 「four aspects of consciousness」, the 「four mattersof confidence」 and the 「two pillars to safeguard」, never losing sight of theiroriginal aspirations and mission. They pursued the national goal of building acomplete xiaokang society, discharged adjudication duties based on thelaw and the constitution, and intensified reform of the adjudication system toimprove adjudication efficiency, effectiveness and judicial credibility. Theyhave also ensured efficacious discharge of their adjudication duties. Havingdedicated significant effort to building an effective team, the courts rebootedand renewed the intellectual property adjudication regime to further elevatethe credibility and impact of China’s intellectual property adjudication at theinternational level. By continuing to modernise the intellectual property adjudicationregime and capacity, the courts have also enabled the delivery of robustjudicial services and enactment of judicial safeguards to underpin thecountry’s innovation-driven development and creation of a pro-businessenvironment.
I. Leveraging the adjudicationprocess for more effective protection
The 19th CCP Central Committee’s fourth plenary session issuedimportant directives to advance Chinese socialism and modernise the nationalgovernance system and governance capabilities. The session also gave instructions forthe country to improve systems and mechanisms to encourage technologicalinnovation, redouble efforts to build an innovation-based country andstrengthen national strategic technologies. To elevate China’s technologicaland innovation capabilities, drive quality economic growth and implement ourinnovation-driven development strategy, we need greater protection and utilisationof intellectual property to fashion an effective incentive structure. As thecourts 「strive to make the people feel fairness and justice in every judicialcase」—a goal that centres on the people and fair justice—intellectual propertyadjudication has become an important means to incentivise and protectinnovation.
In 2019, the courts have accepteda total of 481,793 cases, including first instance and second instance casesand applications for extraordinary legal remedy to reopen cases.475,853 cases(including carried forward cases) were concluded, representing a respectiveyear-on-year increase of 44.16 % and 48.87%.
(I) More effective adjudication ofcivil disputes
Given the essential role ofintellectual property adjudication in protecting innovation and in levellingthe competitive playing field, adjudication has focused on encouragingtechnological innovation, promoting cultural transmission and maintainingmarket order to provide clear, consistent and predictable rules to guideadjudication and instil confidence among entrepreneurs and innovators.
In 2019, the Supreme People’s Court accepted2,504 new civil intellectual property cases and concluded 1,976 cases, respectively174.26% and 260.97% higher than the previous year. In the same year, the localcourts accepted 399,031 and concluded 394,521 first instance civil cases, wherethe respective year-on-year increases were 40.79% and 44.02%. Among the newlyaccepted cases, 22,272 were patent cases (2.64% year-on-year increase); 65,209 trademark cases (25.41% year-on-year increase); 293,066 copyright cases (49.98% year-on-year increase). There were also 3,135 cases ontechnology contract disputes, (16.98% year-on-year increase) and 4,128 unfair competitioncases, including 70 monopoly cases, (49.71% year-on-year increase). Other civil intellectualproperty disputes constituted 11,221 cases, or 49.71% more than last year. Forsecond instance cases, 49,704 were accepted and 48,710 concluded, translatingto a year-on-year increase of 79.95% and 85.29% respectively.
High profile civil disputesinvolving intellectual property heard and concluded by the courts during theyear include:
French automotive parts manufacturer Valeo Systemes D』Essuyage(plaintiff- appellee)vs. Lukasi Car Accessories(Xiamen) Co. Ltd (respondent-appellant) and Fuke Car Accessories (Xiamen) Co. Ltd. (respondent-appellant)et al. involving a utility patent infringement dispute; HondaMotor Company (plaintiff-appellee- petitioner) vs. Hengsheng Xintai (Chongqing) Trade Company (respondent-appellant-petitionee), Hensim (Chongqing)Group et al. (respondent- appellant-petitionee) involving a trademarkinfringement dispute; Hemujia Medical Management Consultancy(Beijing) Co., Ltd (plaintiff,-appellant-petitioner)vs. Hemujia Obstetrics andGynaecology Hospital (Fuzhou)(respondent-appellee- petitionee) involving unfair competition; Cai Xinguang (plaintiff-appellant) vs. RunpingCommerce (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd(respondent-appellee) involving infringement of new plant variety; and copyrightinfringement case of ShanrenSculpture (Hebei) Co., Ltd(plaintiff-appellant) vs.Zhongding Garden Sculptures (Hebei) Co., Ltd et al. (respondent-appellant) and the People’s Government of Sanhe Township, Bozhou District, Zunyi Cityet al. (respondent-appellee).
(II) More rigorous legality review ofadministrative actions
The courtshave strengthened legality review of intellectual property granted andvalidated by administrative authorities and of administrative enforcementactions. In 2019, the Supreme People’s Court accepted1,066 intellectual property cases involving administrative disputes andconcluded 884 cases. Compared to last year, the number of cases has risen by70.83% and 52.15% respectively. The same year saw local courts accepting 16,134first instance administrative cases (19.11% increase year-on-year), 1,661were patent cases (8.14% increase year-on-year), 14,457 trademark cases (20.56%increase year-on-year) and 16 copyright cases. 17, 938 first instance caseswere concluded (89.74% increase year-on-year). Local courts also accepted 7,304(104.88% increase year-on-year) second instance administrative cases, and 5,942cases were concluded (84.71% increase year-on-year), of which, decision wasupheld for 4,791 cases, first instance judgement was amended for 1,026 cases; 4cases were remanded for retrial, 613 cases withdrawn, and 132 cases overruled.
High profileintellectual property-related administrative disputes heard and concluded bythe people’s courts during the year include Huawei. Technologies, Co, Ltd(plaintiff-appellee) v. Samsung Electronics Co, Ltd (Thirdparty-appellant) and CNIPA (respondent) involving an administrative overthe invalidation of a patent; and Kangzhi Lesi Network Technology (Beijing)Co., Ltd (plaintiff-appellee-petitionee) v. Meiyou InformationTechnology (Xiamen) Co., Ltd (third party-appellant-petitioner) and CNIPA(respondent-appellant) involving an administrative dispute over theinvalidation of a trademark.
(III) Stricter sanctions onintellectual property crimes
Intellectualproperty crimes were subject to more rigorous adjudication toclean up the market, therefore better defend intellectual property fromcriminal infringement.
In 2019, thelocal courts accepted 5,242 first instance intellectual property-relatedcriminal cases, 21.37% higher than last year, including 4,982 cases relating toinfringement of registered trademarks ( 21.01% increase year-on-year), and 210 oncopyright infringement (34.62% increase year-on-year).
At the locallevel, 5,075 first instance cases were concluded during the year (24.88%increase year-on-year), including 2,134 cases involving counterfeiting ofregistered trademarks (15.23% increase year-on-year), 2,279 cases involvedselling goods bearing counterfeit registered trademarks (32.19% increaseyear-on-year), 423 were cases of illegal manufacturing or sale of goods bearingillegally produced registered trademarks (38.69% increase year-on-year); 1 caseinvolved counterfeiting patents, 191 were criminalinfringement of copyright, (40.44% increase year-on-year), 8 involved sellinginfringing reproductions (33.33% increase year-on-year), and 39 involved trade secret infringement crime (no changefrom last year).
For second instance intellectual propertycases involving criminal offences, the local courts accepted 808 cases (18.30% increaseyear-on-year), and 807 cases were concluded (23.70% increase year-on-year).
High profile criminal cases involvingintellectual property heard and concluded by the people’s courts during theyear include: Yang Fengming, Yang Maogang et al. for counterfeiting aregistered trademark; Lin Yixiang et al. involving infringement of tradesecrets; Xu Zhenwei et al. involving counterfeiting of registeredmark; and Chen Li et al. involving trademark infringement.
Intellectual property adjudication has madesteady progress in the year, and has scored higher in quality andeffectiveness. The key features for 2019 are:
New highs in caseload. Withincreased social awareness of intellectual property right and greatercredibility of the courts in adjudicating intellectual property disputes, thecourts have faced a spike in caseload. The total number of accepted andconcluded cases for the year 2019 were at historic high, both recording a year-over-yearincrease of more than 40%.
By geographical location, Beijing accepted80,165 cases, Shanghai 23,580 cases, Jiangsu Province 20,249 cases, ZhejiangProvince 27,706 cases and Guangdong Province 157,363 cases, totalling 309,063cases. This constituted 64.15% of China’s total case number and the greaterpart of the country’s intellectual property caseload. The areas that experiencedmore than 50% year-on-year increase in caseload were Hebei Province (53.53%),Anhui Province (60.30%), Fujian Province (64.88%), Guangxi Autonomous Region(98.49%) and Chongqing Municipality (173.66%). Despite facing manpowershortages, the courts have managed to dispose of a large number of cases duringthe year, with the total disposal number reaching historic high. Other thanbeing the most active regions, the courts in Beijing, Shanghai, JiangsuProvince, Zhejiang Province and Guangdong Province have also achievedcommendable disposal rates of more than 90%.
Continued emergence of new case genres. As the newround of technological revolution and industrial transformation rapidlyemerges, legal boundaries are increasing tested and pushed by new technologies,new products and new forms of business. New intellectual property issuesinvolving cutting-edge technology relating to the Internet, big data,artificial intelligence, standard essential patents, biomedicine have also continuedto emerge, requiring detailed examination of complex technological solutionsand creative application of the law, based on the merits of each case. Someexamples are:
The Supreme People’s Court: Heardpatent cases involving mechanics, material science, electrical engineering,communications, biopharmaceuticals, and fine-tuned the adjudication rules baseon the derived insights.
Beijing Intellectual Property Court: Heard andconcluded many significant and complex cases, including the first case relatingto the infringement of cloud servers, and preservation of evidence duringpre-trail for a case involving the infringement of a patent relating to the productionof stable lyophilised pharmaceutical composition.
Shanghai High People’s Court: Concluded Nokiavs. Shanghai Huaqin Communication Technology Co., Ltd involving the infringementof a utility patent. The case provides reference for tryingcommunications-related SEP disputes in the future.
Guangdong Province: The courtshave heard 63 patent cases, each involving a jurisdictional amount of more thanCNY 10 million, the aggregate amount of which was approximately CNY 8.18billion.
Continued to augment protection. The courtshave implemented the 「Opinions on Improving the System of Property RightsProtection to Protect Property Rights According to Law」 to provide more timelyand accessible judicial relief for intellectual property disputes, as well as tobalance the damages awarded with the market value of the intellectual propertyin question. Some exemplary efforts include:
Beijing: TheHaidian District People’s Court awarded damages of more than CNY 20 millionbased on discretionary valuation when Motion Scene (which operates UC browser)sued Sogou for using its Sogou Input Method to redirect the user to Sogou’ssearch website.
Inner MongoliaAutonomous Region High People’s Court: Increased the amountof damages from CNY 50,000 to CNY 1 million in the Guangdong Landai GroupBeijing Lanbao Beer Co., Ltd vs. Henan Honghuo Food Co., Ltd et al.trademark infringement case to sanction infringers more severely.
Zhejiang High People’sCourt: Ordered the respondent to pay CNY 8 million in damages for the Aupu ElectricalAppliances (Hangzhou) Co., Ltd and Aopu Home Furnishing Co., Ltd vs. Zhejiang FashionBuilding Materials Co., Ltd and Zhejiang New Energy Co., Ltd case involvingtrademark infringement and unfair competition. The court’s decision has protectedthe 「AOPU」 brand value.
Fujian Province: The courtsimposed punitive damages in the 「JIU MU WANG (lit. 『King of Nine Herds』)」trademark dispute and the 「BOLIMO」 trademark and unfair competition disputewhen the damages awarded were either doubled or trebled the amount forcompensatory damages.
Effects of judicial efforts were recognised. The courtshave done well in a series of complex and novel cases that attractedconsiderable public attention. The precedence would serve as classic cases thatare demonstrative and could guide future adjudication. Exemplary effortsinclude:
SPC IP Court: Issued decision forits first case immediately after the hearing, and the determination criteria forfunctional features were detailed in the written judgement. The hearing wasbroadcasted live and was widely reported by the media. Live streaming of thehearing—a case that took only 50 days to conclude from the date it was acceptedto service of judgement—attracted more than 18 million viewings. Opening up thecourtroom for public scrutiny has ensured fairness, transparency andefficiency.
Gansu High People’s Court: Concludeda new plant variety dispute involving a foreign party, thereby protecting thelawful rights of the plant breeder.
Shanghai Intellectual Property Court: Concluded aseries of cases, which include the utility patent dispute between NetacTechnology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd and Transcend China (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. Thedisputes, which involved cutting-edge technology used in mobile storage and ajurisdictional amount of more than CNY 24.7 million, has attracted widespreadattention and much recognition.
Hunan Province: Adjudicated trademarkinfringement and unfair competition cases involving a wide range of servicesectors such as food and beverage, creative photography and department-storesales. The decisions provided direction for the regulated and reasonable use oftrademark by players in the food & beverage, department store and creativeindustries, which in turn supported the healthy growth of the service sector.
Remarkable ADR outcomes. The courtshave continued to turn to non-litigious alternative dispute resolution as theprimary means to settle dispute, and on promoting the new era FengqiaoExperience—a way of community-level social governance whereby public effortwas harnessed to maintain social stability. By actively encouraging the broaduse of ADR, parties were encouraged to resolve disputes through non-litigiousmeans by working together to find mutually agreeable and beneficial ways tosettle intellectual property disputes efficiently. Exemplary efforts include:
The Supreme People’s Court : Successfully mediated the trademark infringement case of Henan DukangInvestment Group vs. Shaanxi Baishui Dukang Company, and permanentlyresolved all cases relating to the 「DUKANG」 (believed to be a minister underthe mythological Yellow Emperor and originator of winemaking) trademark issue. Thecourt’s efforts have contributed to improving the stability of the local marketand providing protecting local businesses. It established a nation-widewhole-of-system coordinating mechanism to explore a circuit adjudication modelcombining the workings of an IP court and a circuit court, and an adjudicationmechanism combining onsite examination (kanyan) and hearing, and hassince facilitated the unified settlement of 48 related cases nationwide. Italso enabled the efficient resolution of 80 patent infringement cases at thepre-trial stage. The court’s efforts have made litigation easier and enabledthe Fengqiao Experience to enrich the intellectual property sector.
Beijing: Continued to drivereform of the 「ADR + expedited procedure」 as part of the city’s effort tomodernise the capital city’s social governance system and governance approach.
Jilin Province: The courts focused onusing mediation to resolve disputes. Total mediation rate for intellectualproperty disputes was 75%.
Anhui High People’s Court: Succeededin mediating the dispute between China Broadcasting Satellite TV and ChinaTelecom Anhui Branch concerning the infringement of broadcasting right, with ajurisdictional amount exceeding CNY 100 million.
Shandong Province: The courts implementedthe 「Regulations to Promote Use of Alternative Dispute Resolution for ShandongProvince」 and worked at developing a platform to align litigation withmediation.
Hubei Province: The courts coordinatedresources and established mediation platforms comprising administrative organs,lessors of the site where infringement occurred, industry associations, attorney-mediationorganisations to facilitate mediated settlement of disputes.
Sichuan Province: The courts enteredinto a cooperation agreement with the China (Sichuan) Intellectual PropertyProtection Centre to develop a mechanism to provide coordinated protection ofintellectual property. Under the agreement, the centre was appointed to mediateintellectual property-related disputes.
Yunnan Province: The courts establisheda pre-trial mediation system for intellectual property cases to enable theprompt resolution of a certain proportion of intellectual property disputes.
Liaoning Province: The courts beefed upexisting ADR mechanism by using pre-trial mediation for copyright, trademarkand unfair competition cases if the facts are clear and minimally disputed. Themechanism has enabled the courts to align litigation with mediation.
Xinjiang Autonomous Region: The courtsfocused on using mediation to settle dispute, translating to a rather highpercentage of post-mediation withdrawal rate.
II. Intensified supporting measuresfor judicial reform and built a more robust intellectual property justicesystem
In 2019, the courts leveraged the 「Opinions on Several Issues on Reformand Innovation Relating to Intellectual Property Adjudication」 to develop moreinnovative theories and institutions and adopt more innovative practices. Asuite of relevant reforms was also instituted as part of the courts』 effort tocontinue building better systems and mechanisms for intellectual property.
(I) SPC IP Court off to a flyingstart
Creatingthe Intellectual Property Court (SPC IP Court) within the Supreme People’sCourt was an important move by the Party Central Committee, with Xi Jinping asthe core, based on the strategic vision of building an intellectual propertypowerhouse and a high-tech global superpower. It was an important milestonemarking a major breakthrough and innovative step in our intellectual propertyadjudication system.
2019 isthe SPC IP Court’s first year of operation. As an agency tasked to hear all appealcases of technology-related intellectual property disputes, the SPC IP Courthas overcome the early difficulties to drive comprehensive progress bylaunching copious reform initiatives that have scored preliminary successes.
First, it unified adjudication standards . Unificationof adjudication standards was the primary objective of creating the SPC IPCourt. The 「Rules of Implementation of a Unified Adjudication Standard for the IntellectualProperty Court of the Supreme People's court」, among others, was developed toensure that the entire process, from preliminary analysis to mid-processcontrol, final review and approval and stringent management of important cases,were well- administered. Also, the 「Minutes of the Conferences of Judges」 werecompiled and 「Guidelines on Case Operations」 prepared and distributed to unifyadjudicative standards and methods for handling similar cases.
Second, it explored combining the hearing of administrative andcivil disputes. Disputes relating to civil infringement andadministrative validation involving the same patent was heard by the sameadjudication panel to ensure alignment of the civil and administrativeprocedures and consistency of adjudicative standards.
Third, it optimised the mechanism for adjudicatingtechnology-related intellectual property disputes. Living by itsmotto of people-centredness and being dedicated to delivering optimaladjudication management, the court leveraged its advantage as the centralcoordinating authority and the 「1+76」 hierarchical structure to resolve linkeddisputes within the country.
Fourth, it continued to develop the multiprong technicalfact-finding mechanism. By coordinating technical investigationresources in the country, including more than 360 technical investigators frommore than 30 technical fields, the SPC IP Court worked at alleviating theproblems faced by the courts, including inadequacies in technical investigationfor the less-developed regions and the lack of specific technical expertise in developedregions.
Fifth, it strengthened informatisation and adoption of smarttechnology. The court has built case and adjudication rules databases,and created smart platforms such as the "Big Data Intellectual PropertyAnalysis Platform". It also explored the creation of an "IP CourtCloud". These were endeavours to meet the demands of parties for onlinesubmission of evidence and online reading of case files, and would become the technologicalbedrock for adjudicating technology-related intellectual property disputes.
(II) Steady progress in development ofintellectual property courts
Toimplement the National People's Congress (NPC) Standing Committee’s reviewopinions on the progress of local intellectual property courts, the SupremePeople's court continued to provide more guidance for the Beijing, Shanghai andGuangzhou intellectual property courts, which have continued to make smooth progressand achieve remarkable outcomes.
Sincetheir establishment at the end of 2014, the intellectual property courts haveaccepted more than 100,000 cases and heard intellectual property cases of internationalimpact and which are important basis for crafting adjudication rules. They werealso instrumental for improving the quality and efficiency of hearings,ensuring consistency in decisions, and facilitating innovation-drivendevelopment. The courts have also leveraged their functional positioning toexplore bold and innovative initiatives to drive judicial reform thatengendered a new intellectual property adjudication landscape. The reforms alsoenabled specialisation, an important feature that has helped buttress judicialprotection for intellectual property.
(III) Continued optimisation ofmechanism governing trans-regional jurisdiction
Since2017, specialised judicial organs (IP divisions) were established within 21intermediate courts, such as the Nanjing Intermediate People’s Court, to facilitatecentralised jurisdiction over certain categories of trans-regional firstinstance intellectual property cases and enable specialised intellectualproperty judicial organs to be rationally distributed. The IP divisions havededicated themselves to exploring innovative initiatives and to improving thelevel of specialisation, an important effort that would drive the co-ordinateddevelopment of the Beijing-Tianjin-Heibei (Jing-Jin-Ji) region, and the developmentof the Yangtze River Economic Belt and the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao GreaterBay Area (Greater Bay Area). Exemplary work by several local IP divisionsinclude:
Nanjing:Conducted circuit trials, implemented specialised and centralised adjudication,and responded to the demands of high-tech industrial parks to protect theintellectual property of business innovations.
Hangzhou:Leveraged internet technology and established a trans-regional cooperationmechanism to facilitate access to online hearing and standardised applicationof the law.
Zhengzhou:Digitised processes such as introduction of online filing and acceptance ofcases, electronic service of documents and WeChat mediation to overcome timeand spatial constraints, as part of its effort to provide easy access and to increasethe level of informatisation.
Shenzhen:Capitalised on the city’s geographical advantage to strengthen judicialprotection of intellectual property by participating in the development of theGuangzhou-Shenzhen Science and Technology Innovation Corridor and the PearlRiver Delta National Demonstration Zone for Home-Grown Innovation.
Haikou: Tookthe initiative to protect intellectual property by establishing circuit-courtstations and contact points for judicial services within different parts of theprovince.
(IV) Continued rolling-out of moremeasures for the 「three-in-one」 intellectual property adjudication system
In 2019, the courts implemented the 「Supreme People's 『s Opinions onPromoting 『Three-in-One』 Adjudication of Intellectual Property-Related Civil,Administrative and Criminal Cases」 to further consolidate the results of the"three-in-one" reform.
SupremePeople's Court: Reviewed case files relating to intellectualproperty crime to distil first-hand information on criminal adjudication. Thiswill allow more in-depth examination of the norms of adjudicating intellectualproperty criminal offences, based on which, the relevant judicial interpretationscould be revised and improved.
JiangsuHigh People’s Court: Initiated a study relating to the sentencingof intellectual property crimes to provide reference for standardising the useof sanction discretion and in sentencing.
ZhejiangProvince: Since 1 November 2019, all the courts in Zhejiang Province haveimplemented the 「three-in-one」 adjudication procedure. 260 criminal offencesand 41 administrative disputes were heard during the year.
HainanHigh People’s Court: Initiated research studies on using designatedjurisdiction for intellectual property criminal offences, and clarified the jurisdictionmechanism for "three-in-one" adjudication for intellectual propertycases.
(V) Continued improvement oflitigation procedures
The People’sCourts worked on improving the rules of procedure based on the merits ofindividual intellectual property cases and on developing an optimaladjudication approach to overcome institutional obstacles.
First, giving reasonable guidance in evidenceproduction. The courts have developed innovative measures tostrengthen the burden of proof by enabling ex-officio investigation andcollection of evidence to effectively reduce the costs borne by right-holders.
Shanghai High People’s Court: Explored the use of an evidenceproduction order such that any behaviour that obstructed the production ofevidence would be punished under the law.
Hunan High People’s Court: Regulated policies and proceduresrelating to investigation orders for lawyers.
Hainan High People’s Court: Parties were encouraged to make fulluse of third-party means such as notarisation and electronic data platforms tocollect and preserve evidence.
Second, building a more robust fact-findingmechanism. The courts have elaborated the ways which differentpersonnel could participate in the investigation of technical facts, and have mobilisedmanpower and resources to develop a dynamic and coordinated system for fact-finding.
Supreme People's Court: Created a pool of experts comprisingtechnical investigators and technical advisory experts employed and appointedby the courts, and established a national mechanism for sharing oftechnical-investigation resources among the courts. It also launched the"Work Manual for Technical Investigators (2019)" to guide the courts intechnical fact-finding and regulate their technical fact-finding activities.
Beijing Intellectual Property Court: Established a"four-in-one" technical fact-finding mechanism, comprisingspecialised people's assessors, technical investigators, expert assessors andforensic institutes.
Jiangsu High People’s Court: Entered into a framework agreementwith the Jiangsu Province Collaborative Innovation Centre for BiomedicalFunctional Materials, where the parties would cooperate on intellectualproperty-related technical fact-finding. The cooperation enabled the court toengage technical experts to assist in intellectual property cases.
Production and Construction Corps Branch of the Higher People's Court ofXinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region: When preserving evidence, professionals were engaged to survey thelocation and the planting area of infringing seeds, and to collect samples of infringingplants .
Hubei, Hunan, Sichuan and Shaanxi High People’s Courts: Formedexpert pools to tap professional expertise and improve the accuracy oftechnical fact-finding.
Third, optimisation of adjudication approach. Giventhe diverse judicial needs, the different levels of courts have sought tooptimise their adjudication approaches through a diversion mechanism that separatesthe complicated cases from simple ones, and that applies a unified standard whenapplying the law.
Beijing Intellectual Property Court: Implemented thespeedy trial mechanism, and introduced a pilot that judges would issue"abridged written judgments" for trademark review cases. Averagedisposal time was reduced by 30%.
Xi'an IP Division: Formed an adjudication team to conductspeedy trial, an approached that required only 20% of the manpower to hear 70%of the cases.
Chengdu IP Division: Explored the use of speedy trialmechanism for intellectual property disputes to better allocate adjudicationresources. The outcomes were encouraging.
Haikou IP Division: Implemented an integrated model ofoperations that combined case acceptance, adjudication and enforcement underone operational framework to improve adjudication quality and effectiveness.
Changchun IP Division: Introduced speedy and simplifiedtrials for copyright and trademark disputes. 84.8% of the cases were concludedwithin five months, and the adjudication cycle was substantially shortened.
III. Broadened judicial functions andcontinued improvement of research quality and effectiveness to guideadjudication
Always vigilant ofhot button issues, the People’s Courts have leveraged the Supreme People’sCourt’s Intellectual Property Judicial Protection Research Centre and itstheoretical research base to strengthen development of intellectual propertyprotection-related innovative theories and research of the relevant judicialpolicies. They have also actively participated in the revision of intellectualproperty-related laws and provided effective judicial supervision and guidance.
(I) More focus on providing legislativerecommendations
The courts haveactively participated in the revision of laws and regulations such as the CivilCode, Patent Law, Trademark Law, Anti-Unfair Competition Law, Copyright law,Regulations on the Implementation of the Trademark Law, and Regulations on theProtection of New Plant Varieties.
Other legislativeendeavours include participating in thefourth forum on Patent Law amendment, and CPPCC’s meeting on folkliterature and artistic works relating to the drafting of the amendments to theCopyright Law. The courts also initiated researches on a special procedure lawfor intellectual property litigation, established the general direction, basicframework and key content of the research.
(II) Intensified drafting of judicialinterpretation
The Supreme People's Court issue the 「Provisions on the Participationof Technical Investigators in Intellectual Property Litigation」 setting forththe procedure, responsibility, validity, liability relating to theparticipation of technical investigators in intellectual property litigation.It also researched on topics such allocation of the burden of proof,investigation and collection of evidence, exchange of evidence, and examinationand determination of electronic evidence. The court also organised variousseminars on the drafting of judicial interpretation for punitive damages forintellectual property infringement, application of the Trademark Law and LawAgainst Unfair Competition, trade secrets, and national defence patentdisputes.
(III) More in-depth study of judicialpolicies
The courts participated in the drafting of the 「Opinions onStrengthening the Protection of Intellectual Property」, allowing specialisedintellectual property adjudication organs such the Guangzhou IntellectualProperty Court and the Shenzhen Intellectual Property Division to play biggerroles, and stepped up cooperation in GBA-related intellectual propertyprotection and professional training. For Guangzhou Knowledge City (GKC), thecourts also pressed ahead with the national comprehensive reform pilotprogramme to better utilise and protect intellectual property.
To better serve the free trade zones, special studies on theprotection of intellectual property were conducted, based on which, 38initiatives relating to the judicial protection of intellectual property forthe development of free trade zones and free trade ports were proposed.
(IV) Leveraged the role of caseguidance
As part of its annual activities, theSupreme People’s Court published the 「Annual Report on Intellectual PropertyCases (2018)』」 and the 「Top Ten Intellectual Property Cases Decided by ChineseCourts and Fifty Typical Intellectual Property Cases」. The publicationsindicate Supreme People’s Court’s priority in distilling universally applicableadjudication standards to guide judges. The court also organised a 「JudgementWeek」 during which the decisions of benchmark cases were issued in an opencourtroom so as to use new genre, difficult and complex cases to shape rulesand regulations. The endeavours of other courts include:
Shenzhen IP Division: Reviewed its experience from the reformfor speedy hearing of design patent disputes and selected 19 typical cases foranalysis.
Inner MongoliaAutonomous Region High People’s Court: Held a briefing to update on intellectual property adjudicationand to launch the compilation of typical cases heard by the court to regulateand guide market players. The court hoped to influence market players tooperate in good faith and ensure that the economic order of the market respectsfair competition.
Henan HighPeople’s Court: Published typical casesrelating to trademark and brand protection .
Sichuan HighPeople’s Court: Published for the firsttime a white paper on the judicial protection of the intellectual property of non-stateenterprises (minying qiye) and typical cases. The paper expounded the problemswith intellectual property protection that non-state enterprises have faced,the underlying causes, and provided recommendations.
(V) Intensified judicial researches
Diverse research methods. The SupremePeople's Court collated big data relating to trademarks registered and usedduring the past five years, studied the measures regulating trademark squatting,and gave recommendations. It also convened discussions on image copyrightinfringement to examine the pronounced issues and addressed social concerns byproviding clear adjudication standards.
Liaoning Province: The courts conducted intellectual property-related studies on topicssuch as the Belt & Road Initiative and pilot free trade zones to find outwhat companies need in terms of judicial protection.
Zhejiang High People’s Court: Surveyed more than 20 companies within theprovince to effectively address the judicial protection needs ofinnovation-based businesses.
Heilongjiang Province: The courts conducted in-depth studies on non-state enterprises anddeveloped manuals to educate the public to better protect the intellectualproperty of private enterprises and drive the development of the privateeconomy.
Hunan Province: The courts took the initiative to meet the judicial needs ofenterprises and tech parks, and enhanced awareness among businesses ininnovation-based development.
Productive research studies. The Supreme People's Courtinitiated surveys relating to revisionof the Patent law, patent linkage, and business model innovation. The surveysculminated in research outcomes such as the 「Recommendations on Reforming and ImprovingLegislation for Patent Invalidation Procedure」, 「Recommendations on Legislatingfor Patent Linkage」, and 「A Study on the Judicial Protection of Business Model Innovations」.Other research efforts include:
Beijing High People’s Court: Reviewed the guidelines for adjudicating administrativedisputes relating to the granting and validation of trademarks to guidelitigation behaviour.
Zhejiang High People’s Court: Conducted studies on adjudication rules forintellectual property disputes involving e-commerce platforms to share judicialexperiences relating to e-commerce business.
Fujian High People’s Court: Provided opinions on how the courtscould improve judicial protection of intellectual property to better serve and fosterinnovation, entrepreneurship and creation.
Jiangsu High People’s Court: Proposed more rigorous judicialprotection of intellectual property to underpin the province’sinnovation-driven economic development.
IV. Increased transparency of thecourts to augment credibility of intellectual property adjudication
The courts are fully aware of the need for transparency, and have maderemarkable progress in developing a judicial mechanism that upholds justicethrough enhanced transparency and that champions credibility, openness,dynamism, transparency and accessibility.
(I) A more open court system
The courts have opened up further to allow public access to courthearings. This is in line with the directive that open courts should be therule and closed courts the exception. They have also found innovative ways forthe public to access court hearings and expanded the types of hearing permittedfor public observation. Some exemplary practices are:
Guangdong High People’s Court: Held a public hearing on the dispute between Shenzhen-basedJiedian Technology Co., Ltd and Laidian Technology Co., Ltd over theinfringement of utility models. About 100 people attended the hearing. Livestreaming over the internet was also accessed by nearly 10,000 viewers.
Sichuan High People’s Court: Heard a trademark infringement dispute and issued decision withinthe same hearing session. People’s Congress deputies and members of the People’sPolitical Consultative Conference wereinvited to the observe hearing.
Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region High People’s Court: Launched "On-Campus Hearing" where approximately 300teachers and students attended the hearing for a dispute over copyrightinfringement.
(II) Greater use of cases for publiclegal education
The Supreme People’s Courtparticipated in a production by the China Central Television’s (CCTV) entitled「Judge Talk (Dafaguan Shuo)」 in the third season of 「China Rule of Law (FazhiZhongguo Shuo)」. It was involved in the planning, scriptwriting, productionand recording, and broadcasting of the programme. This was an important joint-publicityeffort by the Supreme People’s Court and CCTV-12 in celebration of the 70thanniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China. Vice President ofthe Supreme People’s Court Justice Tao Kaiyuan gave a talk in one episode. Accordingto statistics, nearly 50 million viewers watched the live telecast of theprogramme. There were also 1,357 online news articles relating to theprogramme, 78 news articles published in newspapers and magazines, 151microblog comments, 99 blog articles, 2,238 WeChat articles, and 294 apparticles. The public applauded the court for its outstanding work inintellectual property protection.
The 「WIPOCollection of Leading Judgments on Intellectual Property Rights: People’sRepublic of China (2011–2018)」 was launched at the Second Annual WIPOIntellectual Property Judges Forum. WIPO's legal counsel Frits Bontekoe spokeat the launch event. The forewords of the volume were written by WIPO DirectorGeneral Francis Gurry and Justice Tao Kaiyuan. This casebook of judgments givesthe global intellectual property community access to landmark judgments fromChina and allows China’s leading cases to play their demonstrative role and Chinesejudgements to create greater impact. Other key endeavours include:
The Supreme People’s Court:Organised a series of activities, including a Judgement Week and a 「Judges Goon Campus」 to make better use of cases to educate the public on the law, and instilgreater respect for knowledge and awareness of protecting intellectual property.When hearing important cases, the court also ensured that it invited NPCdeputies, CPPCC members, and SPC’s special supervisors and advisors as well as fellowsof the Chinese Academy of Sciences, lawyers and representatives of industryassociations to observe the proceedings and share their insights.
Beijing Xiong』an New AreaIntermediate People’s Court : Organised the 「ProtectIntellectual Property Outreach Event」 to educate businesses newly establishedin the area, such as Baidu, Tencent, JD and Huawei, on intellectual propertylaws and regulation.
Zhejiang High People’s Court : Established the 「Zhejiang Balance (Zhejiang Tianping)」 WeChat OfficialAccount, the 「IP Converge (Zhi Zhi Hui)」 website, and the 「Zhejiang IPLaw Connect (Zhe Zhi Xi Fa)」 column to lay the ground for regularoutreach activities. During the year, the court published 85 articles, and madeavailable live streaming of 26 hearings which boast of 900,000 visits.
Jiangsu High People’s Court : Organised a walkabout for the People’s Congress deputies and members of theCPPCC committee cum media event. The effort was effective and well-received.
(III) Joint outreach
The Supreme People’s Court organised the 「IP JudicialProtection-Anhui Expedition」, for which selected NPC deputies, SPC’s specialsupervisors and Anhui Province’s leaders, together with the centralgovernment's media agencies, visited some Anhui courts and key hi-tech companies.During their visits, the delegation learnt about the state of intellectualprotection in Anhui Province, innovative outcomes, and focused on discoveringthe judicial needs of commercial entities to better serve the development of innovation-basedbusinesses. Other outreach activities include the 「IP Courtroom Open Day」 and「IP Protection Judgement Week」 during which many major cases involving advancedtechnology such as medical equipment, internet data mining and opticaltechnology were heard. The court also launched the 「Faxin-IP」 online project tocreate a unified big data intellectual property service platform by integratingand upgrading the existing intellectual property case guidance platform and throughresearch and development. The platform aims to provide free retrieval andconsulting services for intellectual property judges nationwide. Otherendeavours include:
Hebei High People’s Court : Combined 26-April outreach activities with the publicity campaign to promotethe 「Regulations on the Protection of Olympic Symbols」 to publicise extensivelythe relevant laws and regulations. It was a successful event.
Shanxi High People’s Court : Visited the province’s Comprehensive Reform Pilot Zone to find out the needs ofbusinesses and set forth requirements on how the courts should provideinnovative services to better serve businesses and create an environment thatconduces to innovation.
Tibet Autonomous Region HighPeople’s Court : Organised legal outreach activities in theChinese and Tibetan languages based on local folk customs and religious beliefsin interesting formats.
Ningxia Autonomous Region HighPeople’s Court: Organised outreach activities andconsultations, including providing on-site legal advice.
V. Greater cooperation and exchangefor greater impact in the intellectual property judicial landscape
Given the increasingly open andinclusive world, intellectual property adjudication should be based on China'snational circumstances, a global mindset, and an international vision. Itshould also promote the sharing of China’s experience and wisdom.
(I) Serving the needs ofinternational relations for the larger good
The Supreme People’s Courts has intensified thestudy of intellectual property issues emerging from foreign trade and economicnegotiations, and strengthened its adjudication guidance and supervision of thelower courts according to law.
Judges fromthe Supreme People’s Courts participated in bilateral and multilateraldialogues and exchanges, including negotiations on the 「Convention on theRecognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or CommercialMatters」 adopted by the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH). SPChas made important contributions to the satisfactory resolution of intellectualproperty issues relating to the Convention.
(II) Increasing China’s impact in theworld
In June2019, the Supreme People’s Court and WIPO co-organised the Seminar onApplication of WIPO Mediations Service in Intellectual Property Litigation,during which participants from WIPO, Singapore, the Supreme People’s Courts andour local courts shared their insights on WIPO’s alternative dispute resolutionmechanism. Director of the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Centre Erik Wilberscommended China for being the organisation’s close partner. SPC alsoparticipated in the International Cooperation in Fighting against IntellectualProperty Right Infringement at the second China International Import Expo inShanghai, during which it shared the importance of using punitive damages todeter and prevent repeat and malicious infringing behaviour, as part of aneffort to engender a legal environment that fosters protection of intellectualproperty, that makes the infringer pay for its wrongdoing, and that sanctionsoffences.
JusticeLuo Dongchuan, Vice President of the Supreme People’s Court, held more than 20 constructivemeetings and discussions with representatives from WIPO, AIPPI, AIPLA, ICJ, the SupremeCourt of Cuba and High Court of Justice in London. Francis Gurry,director-general of the WIPO, spoken favourably of the establishment of the SPCIP Court, and said that the court embodies China’s commitment to protectingintellectual property and its determination to provide fairer and moreefficient protection for intellectual property. Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf, Presidentof the International Court of Justice, commended that China’s achievements inthe legal sector was not only reflected in the country’s overall effort todevelop a robust legal system, its achievements in specific areas in field ofintellectual property also deserves admiration.
(III) Widened channels of foreigncooperation
In response to the global interest in how judicial protection ofintellectual property works in China, the People’s Courts have actively engagedin dialogues through different platforms to build understanding of China’ssituation and create greater impact at the international level.
To support WIPO’s collaborativeprogrammes, our judges participated in the Roundtable on WIPO-China Cooperationand Major Intellectual Property Developments in China. We havealso send representatives to participate in WIPO'sMaster Dialogue on IP Adjudication. A delegation of patent judges visited theEuropean Union. These were occasions at which our judges shared China’s latestdevelopment and historic achievements in intellectual property adjudication.Other international activities in the year include participating in the SecondAnnual WIPO Intellectual Property Judges Forum, 9th OECD/ Korea Policy Centre(KPC) Competition Law Seminar for Asia-Pacific Judges, AIPPI Annual WorldCongress, 2019 Annual Meeting of the International Trademark Association(INTA),and the European Communities TradeMark Association (ECTA) Annual Conference, and the Japan-China-Korea IPSymposium.
VI. Capacity-building for judges aspart of an incessant effort to improve adjudication capability
Political cultivation has always been the guiding light for the People’sCourts. By continuing to develop the judges』 political awareness and by takingbig strides to revolutionise the judiciary and putting together a team offull-time, professional and specialised judges, the courts have been working atbuilding a team of intellectual property judges that have a firm politicalstand, a holistic view and international perspective, and extensive legal expertiseand technical know-how. Organisational- and people-building are key to standingthe courts in good stead for intellectual property adjudication in the new era.
(I) Ideological and politicaleducation
Given that political cultivationis our priority, the courts have organised educational activities to remind everyoneof the motto: 「Do not lose sight of our original aspirations; be mindful of ourmission (buwang chuxin, laoji shiming)」. Various institutions governingintraparty political activities were also harnessed to awaken judges to theneed to guard their original aspirations and to buttress their ability to fulfiltheir mission. Platforms such as the "New Knowledge Forum" and "Forumon Intellectual Property Court" were established to enable online andoffline education and management for party-development. The courts have also adopteda party-development approach for round-the-clock online and offline educationand management. The SPC IP Court’s party branch has also won the 「100 Model ofExcellence」 accolade presented by Banner (「qizhi」), a magazinepublished by the State Organs Work Committee of CPC Central Committee, for the secondParty-building Innovative Outcomes Award. It was the sole recipient of theaward within the court system.
(II) Developing a sense of honour andself-discipline
The courts have managed court and partyoperations based on rigorous standards, having implemented the 「Eight-PointFrugality Code (『ba-xiang gui-ding』)」 and its rules of implementation.They have also stamped out "the four forms of decadence" (i.e.formalism, bureaucratism, hedonism and extravagance) or si feng, and havedeepened the development of party ethics and clean governance and their fightagainst corruption.
(III) Building judicial capabilities
By focusing on the overallrequirements of the "five excellences (wuge guoying)", i.e.excellence in belief, political stance, sense of responsibility, ability andbehaviour, the courts have strengthened people development at every turn. Theyhave focused efforts at building a quality team of effective, loyal, incorruptand responsible individuals to helm the courts of the new era and drive newdevelopments. The Supreme People's court has also increased its involvement incoordinating and guiding the lower courts, and encouraged the courts to planfor the training and creation of a pool of professional intellectual propertyjudges, and the establishment of different of personnel exchange mechanisms. Toelevate judicial capabilities, the courts have also adopted many differentapproaches, including special training, thematic seminars, on-the-job training, exchanges and secondment, andobservation of court proceedings. These efforts will help build an adjudicationteam that believes in perpetual learning, which will in turn enable the courtsto adapt to new circumstances and the demands of intellectual propertyadjudication, and judges to continue building their professional capabilities.
Conclusion
Today’s world is defined by unprecedented changes which quicken the paceof reform of the global governance system and the international order. As thenext wave of technological revolution and industrial reform arrives withastonishing force, protection of intellectual property is confronted with newissues, new tasks and new challenges. As the People’s Courts discharge theirduties and responsibilities, they will discern new trends and circumstances,and will leverage their judicial powers to protect intellectual property. They willalso strive to provide effective judicial service and safeguards to achieve sustainedand robust economic development and social stability, build a comprehensive xiaokangsociety, and bring the 13th five-year plan to a successful completion.