Report concerning the Situation of Intellectual Property Rights Adjudication Work

Posted on Updated on

Committee Head, all Vice Committee Heads, Secretary General, all Committee Members:

On the basis of the arrangement of this Standing Committee, I represent the Supreme People’s Court in reporting the situation of intellectual property rights adjudication in People’s Courts since 2008, for your deliberation.

I, Progress and achievements in intellectual property rights adjudication work in recent years.

Intellectual property rights adjudication comprises the judicial activities of People’s Courts with patent, trademark, copyright, technology contract and other such cases as main objects of adjudication, they involve the three major adjudication areas of People’s Courts: civil, administrative and criminal. Strengthening intellectual property rights adjudication has an important significance for implementing the strategy of innovation driving development, promoting the construction of a strong Socialist culture country and guaranteeing the healthy operation of the market economy. In recent years, following our country’s economic and social development, the important function of intellectual property rights adjudication has become more prominent daily, case quantities are skyrocketing, new difficult cases are increasing in number greatly, the difficulty of dissolving contradictions is expanding. The Supreme People’s Court has, under the firm leadership of the Party Centre, under the powerful supervision of the National People’s Congress and its Standing Committee, and on the basis of new requirements of circumstances and tasks, taken Deng Xiaoping Theory, the important “Three Represents” though and the scientific development view as guidance, persisted in guiding all local levels’ courts in implementing their duties according to the law, comprehensively strengthened intellectual property rights adjudication work, and given rein to its important function in promoting scientific and technological innovation, economic development, cultural flourishing, foreign relations and other such areas.

(1) Strengthening law enforcement and case handling, striving to give rein to the guiding function of the judiciary in protecting intellectual property rights

The guiding function of the judicial protection of intellectual property rights is mainly reflected in the main channelling function of the judiciary in resolving intellectual property rights disputes, the completeness and effectiveness of judicial relief, the finality of judicial decisions, the guiding nature of judicial norms and principles and other such areas. All levels’ courts have, based on their adjudication functions, strengthened intellectual property rights protection, encouraged indigenous innovation, standardized market competition, and stimulated the upgrading of intellectual property rights creation, operation and management levels. From 2008 until June 2012, courts nationwide accepted 226753 intellectual property rights cases in total, and completed 208653 cases.

Civil intellectual property rights adjudication work has been strengthened. In total, 196209 civil intellectual property rights cases have been accepted and 180213 cases completed. Patent right protection has been strengthened. 24644 patent cases and 2907 technology contract cases have been completed. The focus has been on strengthening the protection of key technology and technology in basic forward areas, expanding the protection strength for inventions and creations with a high innovative level, appropriately but strictly grasping application conditions for similar infringement, and stimulating the rise of indigenous innovation capacity. Trademark protection has been strengthened. 40370 trademark cases have been completed. Counterfeiting of trademarks, malicious registration, free-riding, imitation and other such acts infringing trademarks have been punished, the determination and protection of famous trademarks have been standardized, “imitation branding” acts have been effectively stopped, fair competition has been encouraged and economic development of brands stimulated. Copyright protection has been strengthened. 98801 copyright cases have been concluded. Copyright protection has been strengthened in publication and distribution, film and television production, performance and entertainment, advertising, design and other such areas, high regard has been given to copyright protection in cultural creation, cartoons and games, the network, software, databases and other burgeoning cultural industries and cultural business models, many kinds of legal means have been comprehensively used to vigorously promote the protection, inheriting, exploitation and use of intangible cultural heritage, protection strength for the rights and interests of cultural creators has been expanded, guaranteeing cultural creativity sources are fully gushing. Fair competition order has been safeguarded. 5224 unfair competition and monopoly cases have been concluded. With honest competition and fair competition as guidance, the focus has been on attacking false propaganda, commercial slander, infringement of commercial secrets and other unfair competition acts, a sincere, honest, fair and orderly market environment has been created. Monopoly case trial work has been vigorously launched, efforts have been made to contain monopolistic acts and strengthen market vitality. Protection according to the law is equal. 5670 foreign-related intellectual property rights cases have been concluded, and 1648 cases involving Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan have been completed. The principle of national treatment has been observed, international treaties have been respected, foreign-related intellectual property rights has been equally protected according to the law, an open and transparent trade and investment environment has been created, the rise of foreign openness levels have been stimulated. Punishment strength has been expanded, compensatory liability for counterfeiting, piracy, repeat infringement and malicious infringers has been increased according to the law, the price of infringement has risen. Pre-trial cessation of infringement measures have been adopted vigorously and cautiously, infringement acts have been timely stopped, and the broadening of the consequences of infringement has been prevented. The correct judgement in the Gree vs. Midea and other invention patent infringement case, the “Crocodile” trademark infringement case, the PKU Founder vs. Blizzard and other character library copyright infringement cases, Tencent vs. Qihoo and other unfair competition cases, and other cases that attracted broad social attention, legal standards and definition of acts have been made explicit, which has had a positive influence on promoting related industrial development.

Administrative intellectual property rights adjudication work has been strengthened. All sorts of administrative intellectual property rights adjudication cases have been tried according to the law, attention has been paid to giving rein to the function of administrative adjudication in supervising and stimulating administrative intellectual property rights law enforcement. In total, 9948 administrative intellectual property rights cases have been accepted and 8749 cases concluded, among these, a concrete administrative act was upheld in 6640 cases, and a concrete administrative act was rescinded in 1088 cases. Administrative disputes that arose due to investigation and prosecution of intellectual property rights infringement acts by administrative organs have been appropriately dealt with, guaranteeing the lawful rights and interests of the counterparts of the administration, administrative intellectual property rights law enforcement acts have been standardized, stimulating the rise of administrative intellectual property rights protection levels. Intellectual property rights licensing and ownership cases have been appropriately heard, the quality and effect of licensing and ownership has risen.

Criminal intellectual property rights adjudication work has been strengthened. Criminal intellectual property rights infringement has been punished according to the law, in total, 20596 criminal intellectual property rights cases have been accepted, 19691 cases have been concluded, 29852 criminals have been convicted. Criminal punishment strength has been expanded, at the same time as using principal penalties according to the law, the use of fines and enforcement strength have been expanded; methods such as recovering unlawful income, confiscating criminal tools and destroying infringing products have been adopted to deprive infringers of the conditions for recidivism. There has been vigorous coordination with the special campaign to attack intellectual property rights infringement and the production or sale of fake and shoddy goods, a state of high pressure of attacking criminal intellectual property rights infringement has been shaped. The judgment in the “Tomato Garden” software online piracy case and other cases has received favourable echoes at home and abroad.

(2) Persisting in judicial dynamism, reform and innovation, striving to upgrade the effectiveness of intellectual property rights adjudication in serving the larger picture

Persisting in judicial dynamism, vigorously responding to the new requirements of economic, social and cultural development. The Supreme People’s Court has revolved around the larger picture of Party and State work, adopted many judicial response measures on the basis of trends, developments and changes, guided all local levels’ courts in vigorous action and active service to the larger picture. Guiding opinions on intellectual property rights adjudication serving the larger picture providing judicial guarantees for accelerating the transformation of economic development methods, promoting the grand development and grand flourishing of Socialist culture, providing judicial guarantees for the acceleration of the construction of a national innovation structure have provided judicial guarantees to respond to the international financial crisis, promote indigenous innovation, construct a strong cultural country, and implement the strategy of innovation driving development. Topical events on “judicial rights protection, encouraging innovation”, “optimizing the judicial environment for indigenous innovation”, “strengthening the judicial protection of intellectual property rights, stimulating the transformation of economic development methods” have been launched, forging a good judicial protection environment for intellectual property rights. Special investigation and guidance have been strengthened, to appropriately deal with intellectual property rights disputes involving the Beijing Olympics, the Shanghai World Expo and the Guangzhou Asian Games, guaranteeing the smooth organization of major national activities. Taking aim at law and policy risk that might influence the development of science, technology and industry, investigation and research has been strengthened, judicial suggestions have been put forward to relevant sides, risk forecasting has been strengthened and the completion structures has been supervised, to prevent and reduce disputes.

Persisting in reform and innovation, vigorously responding to the requirements of the National Intellectual Property Rights Strategy. The Supreme People’s Court has promulgated opinions concerning the implementation of the National Intellectual Property Strategy, comprehensively planning the implementation of the National Intellectual Property Rights Strategy. Trial work to concentrate civil, administrative and criminal intellectual property rights cases into one intellectual property rights adjudication trial (simply named “three courts merging into one”) has been launched, intellectual property rights licensing and ownership case handling work has been unified, to optimize the allocation of adjudication resources. In step with the needs of adjudication practice and persisting in a concentrated jurisdictional structure for patent and other technological cases, interregional jurisdictions have been vigorously launched within intermediate and basic courts, to optimize jurisdictional arrangements and make it convenient for parties to sue. Taking aim at the problem that specialist technological factual proof is difficult in intellectual property rights adjudication, judicial appraisal, expert assistance, patent consulting and other technological factual proof mechanisms have been established and perfected, a database for specially invited science and technology consulting experts has been established, and the scientific level of technological factual authentication has risen incessantly.

Persisting in “prioritizing mediation, integrating mediation and adjudication”, vigorously responding to new requirements for the construction of a harmonious society. Intellectual property rights mediation work strength has expanded, efforts have been made to dissolve contradictions and disputes, safeguarding social harmony and stability. The rate of case withdrawal after mediation for first instance cases in all local levels’ courts has reached 66.7%. The link-up and coordination if intellectual property rights adjudication with people’s mediation and administrative mediation has been strengthened, linkup mechanisms for mediation and adjudication have been perfected, giving rein to the function of coordination in resolving intellectual property rights disputes. Mediation methods have been innovated, giving rein to the specialist superiority of sector associations and science and technology experts, entrusted mediation, sector mediation and expert mediation have been explored and implemented, connections between courts at higher and lower levels and between courts and administrative organs and sector associations have been strengthened, the mediation work for connected cases has been done well, raising the quality and effect of mediation, and guiding parties to transform infringement disputes into cooperation and win-win. The successful mediation in the “iPad” trademark dispute between Weiguan and Apple, the patent infringement dispute between Zhejiang Chint Group and Schneider, the copyright infringement dispute between Universal and Baidu and other such major disputes has received broad favourable comments at home and abroad.

Persisting in a sunshine judiciary, vigorously responding to new requirements concerning judicial openness of the popular masses. The principle of open adjudication has been persisted in, touring trials, live court hearing broadcasting have been launched, People’s Congress representatives and Political Consultative Committee Members have been invited to visit court hearing work, judgment document online publication structures have been established, giving rein to the function of the “China Intellectual Property Right Judgement Decision Net”, the breadth and depth of judicial openness have been incessantly expanded. Up to June 2012, 43499 effective judgment documents have been published online. White papers and yearbooks on the situation of intellectual property rights protection in Chinese courts are compiled and published regularly, and intellectual property rights adjudication information is completely made public, in order to effectively guarantee the public masses’ right to know and right of supervision.

(3) Strengthening judicial supervision and professional guidance, realistically raising intellectual property rights adjudication levels

Perfecting judicial policies, strengthening judicial interpretation, guaranteeing the unification of judicial standards. The intellectual property rights judicial protection policy of “strengthening protection, classify into different categories, appropriateness in severity and lenience” has been clearly put forward, ensuring that judicial intellectual property rights protection conforms to our country’s innovation and development reality, and stimulates our country’s economic, social and scientific development to the broadest extent. Judicial protection policies for different intellectual property rights categories have been made more detailed, sixteen judicial policy guidance documents have been promulgated and appropriate legal ways of thinking have been made explicit, guaranteeing the realization of the spirit of laws related to intellectual property rights. Intellectual property rights judicial interpretation work has been strengthened, seven judicial interpretations, on intellectual property rights conflict resolution, famous trademark protection, etc., have been formulated, guaranteeing the correct application of intellectual property rights law.

Broadening supervision and guidance channels, ensuring the effect of judicial supervision. The civil procedure law has been earnestly implemented, appals channels have been unblocked, investigation procedures have been effected and standardized, intellectual property rights case retrial and re-examination duties have been realistically implemented. Rein has been given to the trial supervisory function of higher-level courts, jurisdiction assignment and raising jurisdiction levels and other methods have been adopted to ensure the unification of legal application. Major intellectual property rights case information reporting systems have been established; guidance and coordination of major cases and linked cases have been strengthened. The exercise of discretionary powers has been standardized, burden of proof duty allocations and statutory compensation quotas have been determined and other major judicial discretion matters made clear, guaranteeing the fairness and reasonableness of results of discretion. Attention has been paid to the guiding function if model intellectual property rights cases, through publishing model cases and making judicial intellectual property rights principles and standards clear, the focus of professional guidance has been strengthened. Starting from the year 2008, the Supreme People’s Court has annually published 10 major Chinese judicial intellectual property rights protection cases, 50 model cases, and an annual report.

Strengthening investigation, research and theoretical innovation, timely resolve newly emerging difficult issues of legal application. Attention has been paid to trial theoretical innovation on the basis of judicial practice, guiding and resolving difficult questions of legal applications. The Supreme People’s Court has organized the establishment of intellectual property rights trial theory research conferences, judicial intellectual property rights protection theory research bases have been established in six higher education institutes, including Peking University, research bases have been established in nine Intermediate People’s Courts, including Suzhou, to promote the joint development of judicial theory and practice.

(4) Persisting in a fair and clean judiciary, striving to strengthen intellectual property rights team construction

Strengthening ideological, political, anti-corruption and pro-honesty construction. It has been organized that intellectual property rights judges launched “carrying forward tradition, firm convictions, law enforcement for the people”, “People’s judges for the people” and other topical education and practice activities, education on the Socialist rule of law concept has been forcefully strengthened, intellectual property rights judges have been guided to firmly establish a judicial core value system of “fairness, cleanliness and serving the people”, a consciousness of the larger picture, a sense of serving the people and a sense of responsibility have been strengthened, judicial work style and clean government construction have been realistically strengthened, a batch of excellent intellectual property rights judges with Song Yushui as model representative have emerged, intellectual property rights adjudication team construction quality has seen new rises.

Strengthening adjudication group construction. In intermediate and higher courts, special intellectual property rights trial chambers have been universally established, the quantity of basic courts having intellectual property rights case jurisdiction has been appropriately increased. At the end of June of this year, 420 intellectual property rights trial chambers existed nationwide, and there were 129 basic courts having intellectual property rights case jurisdiction. Attention has been paid to fostering and selecting intellectual property rights judges, trial strength has been strengthened and personnel structuring optimized. At present, 2731 judges in total engage in intellectual property rights adjudication, of which 56.4% have an undergraduate degree and 41.1% have a graduate or higher degree. 10 intellectual property rights adjudication demonstration basic courts have been established, to stimulate the rise of comprehensive intellectual property rights adjudication levels in basic courts.

Strengthening professional capacity construction. Revolving around intellectual property rights adjudication hotspots, difficult points and issues, intellectual property rights specialist knowledge and adjudication capacity training has been strengthened, judges’ capacity to correctly apply the law, appropriately resolve contradictions and coordinate relationships of interests has incessantly risen. Efforts have been made to foster expert judges through adjudication professional expert selection, excellent judgement document assessment and other methods. Training strength for courts in central and western regions and basic courts has been expanded. International exchange and cooperation has been strengthened, foreign advanced experiences have been learned from, international horizons have been fostered among intellectual property rights judges.

The development and progress of intellectual property rights adjudication work in People’s Courts is the result of the correct leadership of Party Committees at all levels, the forceful supervision of People’s Congresses, and the powerful support of governments, consultative committees, relevant departments and all walks of society. Using this opportunity, I represent the Supreme People’s Court in expressing sincere gratitude to the National People’s Congresses and all levels’ People’s Congresses, their Standing Committees, and People’s Representatives at all levels.

II, Circumstances faced in intellectual property rights adjudication work at present.

At the same time as considering achievements, we must also soberly understand that intellectual property rights adjudication work faces complex circumstances and grave challenges. First, the task of serving the larger picture is ever heavier. Our country’s has already entered the decisive stage of comprehensively constructing a moderately prosperous society, implementing the intellectual property rights strategy and strengthening intellectual property rights protection has become a necessary path to strengthen new drivers for innovation driving development. Intellectual property rights adjudication must search for points of integration and efforts that permit serving of the larger picture, promote science and technology innovation, knowledge innovation and culture innovation even better. Second, the pressure on intellectual property rights adjudication is ever greater. Both internationally ant domestically, the appeal for equal protection of intellectual property rights is ever stronger, at the same time, the tendency that cases continue to increase becomes ever clearer. Between 2008 and 2011, the number of first instance intellectual property rights cases grew by 33.1%, exceeding the total number of first instance civil cases by 26.3 percentage points, increasing the pressure on intellectual property rights adjudication. Third, the difficulty of dissolving contradictions and disputes grows ever greater Increasingly many cases involve complex technological matter, increasingly many difficult cases require clear and concrete legal definitions, increasingly many judgment verdicts are major cases involving a company’s existence. Intellectual property rights adjudication must storm fortifications and overcome difficulties, and fund new ways of thinking and new methods to effectively dissolve contradictions and disputes.

At the same time, the following problems and difficulties still exist in intellectual property rights adjudication: first, the guiding function of judicial intellectual property rights protection needs further rein. The State Council “National Intellectual Property Strategy Outline” put forward “strengthening judicial protection system construction” and “give rein to the guiding function of judicial intellectual property rights protection”. This strategic position of judicial intellectual property rights protection still needs to be continuously promoted and implemented; double-track protection mechanisms with judicial intellectual property rights protection and administrative law enforcement need to be further optimized. The trial work on “three courts merging into one” in intellectual property rights cases needs to be further moved forward, the establishment of special intellectual property rights courts needs deep research and exploration. Second, intellectual property rights protection mechanisms remain to be further perfected. Civil, administrative and criminal intellectual property rights communication and coordination mechanisms are not yet complete, restricting the development of the joint forces of three kinds of judicial protection. Patent and trademark licensing and ownership procedures are overly complex, litigation cycles are hard to avoid, influencing the final decision in disputes. Intellectual property rights infringement compensation calculation mechanisms as well as punishment mechanisms for repeat infringement, malicious infringements and other such acts remains to be deeply perfected. Although technological factual investigation mechanisms have been preliminarily established, they need to be further perfected at the operational level. The application of pre-trial measures to cease infringement needs to be further standardized. Third, the construction of intellectual property rights judge teams needs to be further strengthened. Intellectual property rights judges’ judicial capacity cannot be completely adapt to the needs of the rapidly growing intellectual property rights judiciary. It is especially the case that the understanding of some judges concerning judicial dynamism needs to be deepened; the focus and effectiveness of serving the larger picture, as well as specialist judicial capacities need to be further raised.

III, Measures and suggestions to further strengthen intellectual property rights adjudication work

The 18th Party Congress pointed out that we must implement the strategy of innovation driving development and the intellectual property rights strategy, and strengthen intellectual property rights protection. All levels’ People’s Courts must, under the guidance of the spirit of the 18th Party Congress, use this special deliberation as a juncture to further give rein to the function of judicial intellectual property rights protection, relentlessly grasp law enforcement and handle cases, perfect judicial mechanisms, strengthen team construction and incessantly raise judicial intellectual property rights protection levels.

First, realistically expand protection strength and further give rein to the guiding function of judicial intellectual property rights protection. Explore and perfect concrete implementation methods to expand compensation strength, raise the scientific level and reasonability of compensation. Clarify applicable conditions and procedures for pre-trial measures to cease infringement, guarantee the timeliness and correctness of temporary protection measures. Formulate patent and trademark authorization and ownership case procedures and substantive examination standards, further strengthen judicial review work. Make criminal infringement conviction standards more detailed, realize the standardization of convictions and penalties.

Second, deeply move intellectual property rights adjudication reform forward, further perfect intellectual property rights adjudication structures and work mechanisms. Complete linkage and coordination mechanisms for civil, administrative and criminal intellectual property rights adjudication, strengthen linkage and cooperation, and shape joint protection force pools. Summarize trial experiences of “three courts merging into one” in intellectual property rights cases, and move trial work forward. Further perfect technological factual investigation mechanisms, make operational procedures and norms more detailed. Strengthen intellectual property rights adjudication management, strive to raise the quality and effect of intellectual property rights adjudication.

III, Incessantly strengthen team construction, further raise the quality of intellectual property rights adjudication judge teams. Deepen education on the Socialist concept of law and education on the judicial core value system, strengthen and improve judicial work styles. Deepen understanding of the rules of intellectual property rights adjudication and characteristics of talent fostering, strengthen specialist construction, expand education, training and talent reserve strength, raise judicial levels and judicial credibility. Strengthen anti-corruption and pro-honesty construction, guarantee the fairness and cleanliness of intellectual property rights judge teams, and establish a good image of intellectual property rights judges.

With regard to the real difficulties faced in intellectual property rights adjudication work, three points of suggestion are put forward: first, take the spirit of the 18th Party Congress as guidance, further deepen the implementation of the National Intellectual Property Rights Strategy, optimize intellectual property rights protection systems; appropriately coordinate the relationship between judicial protection and administrative law enforcement, give rein to the guiding function of judicial intellectual property rights protection, on the basis of the requirements of the National Intellectual Property Rights Strategy, vigorously explore and research the establishment of special intellectual property rights courts. Second, further perfect legislation related to intellectual property rights, clearly provide for the judicial right of modification of People’s Courts in patent and trademark licensing and ownership cases, stimulate the substantive resolution of disputes, prevent litigation cycles; add structures to order the production of documents, strengthen the duty of infringers to produce documents, realistically reduce the evidentiary burden of intellectual property rights holders; establish punitive compensation mechanisms, strengthen the effect of punishment of repeat infringers and malicious acts of infringement. Third, further strengthen commercial honesty, social honesty and judicial credit construction, accelerate the construction of an intellectual property rights rule of law culture, create a favourable environment of valuing and supporting intellectual property rights adjudication in the entire society.

Committee Head, all Vice Committee Heads, Secretary General, all Committee Members:

The National People’s Congress Standing Committee has especially heard and deliberated the special intellectual property rights adjudication work report, which fully reflected the high importance attached to intellectual property rights adjudication, the courts nationwide and the broad intellectual property rights judges feel deeply inspired. We will, under the firm leadership of the Party Centre with Comrade Xi Jinping as General Secretary, and under the powerful supervision of the National People’s Congress and its standing committee, deeply study and implement the spirit of the 18th Party Congress, earnestly implement the opinions of this National People’s Congress Standing Committee opinions, make persistent efforts, pioneer and forge ahead, strive to build a new picture of the intellectual property rights adjudication undertaking in People’s Courts, and make even greater contributions to implement, innovate and drive development strategies, establish and innovate a new type of country and comprehensively constructing a moderately prosperous of society!

最高人民法院关于知识产权审判工作情况的报告
委员长、各位副委员长、秘书长、各位委员:
根据本次常委会的安排,我代表最高人民法院报告2008年以来人民法院知识产权审判工作情况,请予审议。
一、近年来知识产权审判工作的进展和成效
知识产权审判是人民法院以专利、商标、著作权、技术合同等案件为主要审理对象的司法活动,涉及人民法院民事、行政、刑事三大审判领域。加强知识产权审判,对于实施创新驱动发展战略、推动社会主义文化强国建设、保障市场经济健康运行具有重要意义。近年来,随着我国经济社会发展,知识产权审判的重要作用日益凸显,案件数量迅猛增长,新型疑难案件增多,矛盾化解难度加大。最高人民法院在党中央坚强领导下,在全国人民代表大会及其常委会有力监督下,根据形势任务的新要求,以邓小平理论、“三个代表”重要思想、科学发展观为指导,监督指导地方各级法院依法履行职责,全面加强知识产权审判工作,在推动科技创新、经济发展、文化繁荣和对外关系等方面发挥了重要作用。
(一)加强执法办案,努力发挥司法保护知识产权主导作用
司法保护知识产权的主导作用,主要体现在司法解决知识产权纠纷的主渠道作用、司法救济的全面性和实效性、司法裁判的终局性、裁判标准和规则的导向性等方面。各级法院立足审判职能,加强知识产权保护,激励自主创新,规范市场竞争,促进提升知识产权创造、运用和管理水平。2008年至2012年6月,全国法院共受理知识产权案件226753件,审结208653件。
加强知识产权民事审判工作。共受理知识产权民事案件196209件,审结180213件。加强专利权保护。审结专利案件24644件,技术合同案件2907件。重点加强关键核心技术和基础前沿领域技术成果保护,加大对创新程度高的发明创造的保护力度,适度从严把握等同侵权的适用条件,促进提高自主创新能力。加强商标权保护。审结商标案件40370件。制裁假冒商标、恶意抢注、搭车模仿等商标侵权行为,规范驰名商标认定与保护,有效制止“傍名牌”行为,鼓励正当竞争,促进品牌经济发展。加强著作权保护。审结著作权案件98801件。加强出版发行、影视制作、演艺娱乐、广告设计等领域著作权保护,高度重视文化创意、动漫游戏、网络、软件、数据库等新兴文化产业和文化业态的著作权保护,综合运用多种法律手段,积极推动非物质文化遗产的保护、传承和开发利用,加大对文化创造者权益保护力度,保障文化创造源泉充分涌流。维护正当竞争秩序。审结不正当竞争和垄断案件5224件。以诚信竞争和公平竞争为导向,重点打击虚假宣传、商业诋毁、侵犯商业秘密等不正当竞争行为,营造诚实守信、公平有序的市场环境。积极开展垄断案件审理工作,努力遏制垄断行为,增强市场活力。依法平等保护。审结涉外知识产权案件5670件,涉港澳台案件1648件。遵循国民待遇原则,信守国际条约,依法平等保护涉外知识产权,营造公开透明的贸易投资环境,促进提高对外开放水平。加大惩处力度,依法加重假冒盗版、重复侵权、恶意侵权行为人的赔偿责任,提高其侵权代价。积极慎重采取诉前停止侵权措施,及时制止侵权行为,防止侵权后果扩大。格力公司诉美的公司等发明专利侵权案、“鳄鱼”商标侵权案、北大方正诉暴雪公司等字库著作权侵权案、腾讯公司诉奇虎公司不正当竞争案等社会广泛关注案件的正确裁判,明晰了法律标准和行为界限,对推动相关产业发展产生积极影响。
加强知识产权行政审判工作。依法审理各类知识产权行政案件,注重发挥行政审判监督和促进知识产权行政执法的职能作用。共受理知识产权行政案件9948件,审结8749件,其中维持具体行政行为的6640件,撤销具体行政行为的1088件。妥善处理因行政机关查处知识产权侵权行为引发的行政纠纷,保障行政相对人合法权益,规范知识产权行政执法行为,促进提高知识产权行政保护水平。妥善审理知识产权授权确权案件,提高授权确权质量和效率。
加强知识产权刑事审判工作。依法制裁侵犯知识产权犯罪,共受理知识产权刑事案件20596件,审结19691件,判处罪犯29852人。加大刑事制裁力度,在依法适用主刑的同时,加大罚金刑的适用与执行力度;采取追缴违法所得、收缴犯罪工具、销毁侵权产品等措施,剥夺侵权人的再犯罪条件。积极配合打击侵犯知识产权和制售假冒伪劣商品专项行动,形成打击侵犯知识产权犯罪高压态势。“番茄花园”软件网络盗版案等案件的判决,在国内外产生良好反响。
(二)坚持能动司法和改革创新,着力提升知识产权审判服务大局的有效性
坚持能动司法,积极回应经济社会文化发展新要求。最高人民法院围绕党和国家工作大局,根据形势发展变化,采取多项司法应对措施,指导地方各级法院积极作为,主动服务大局。先后发布知识产权审判服务大局、为加快转变经济发展方式提供司法保障、推动社会主义文化大发展大繁荣、为加快国家创新体系建设提供司法保障等指导意见,为应对国际金融危机冲击、推动自主创新、建设文化强国、实施创新驱动发展战略提供司法保障。先后开展“司法护权、激励创新”、“优化自主创新司法环境”、“加强知识产权司法保护、促进经济发展方式转变”等主题活动,打造良好的知识产权司法保护环境。加强专项调研指导,妥善处理涉北京奥运会、上海世博会和广州亚运会知识产权纠纷,保障国家重大活动顺利举行。针对可能影响科技和产业发展的法律政策风险,加强调查研究,向有关方面提出司法建议,加强风险预警,督促健全制度,预防减少纠纷。
坚持改革创新,积极回应国家知识产权战略新要求。最高人民法院发布关于贯彻实施国家知识产权战略的意见,全面规划落实国家知识产权战略。开展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(简称“三审合一”),统一知识产权授权确权案件审理分工,优化审判资源配置。适应审判实践需求,坚持专利等技术类案件集中管辖制度,积极开展中级、基层法院跨区管辖,优化管辖布局,方便当事人诉讼。针对知识产权审判中的专业技术事实查明难问题,建立和完善司法鉴定、专家辅助人、专家咨询等技术事实查明机制,建立特邀科学技术咨询专家库,不断提高技术事实认定科学性。
坚持“调解优先、调判结合”,积极回应和谐社会建设新要求。加大知识产权纠纷调解工作力度,努力化解矛盾纠纷,维护社会和谐稳定。地方各级法院知识产权民事一审案件调解撤诉率达到66.7%。加强知识产权审判与人民调解、行政调解的衔接与配合,完善诉调对接机制,发挥协同解决知识产权纠纷作用。创新调解方式,发挥行业协会和科技专家的专业优势,探索实施委托调解、行业调解、专家调解,加强上下级法院以及法院与行政机关、行业协会之间的联动,做好关联案件调解工作,提高调解质量和效果,引导当事人将侵权纠纷转化为合作共赢。唯冠公司与美国苹果公司“iPad”商标纠纷、浙江正泰集团诉法国施耐德公司专利侵权纠纷、环球唱片等公司诉百度公司著作权侵权纠纷等重大案件的成功调解,受到国内外广泛好评。
坚持阳光司法,积极回应人民群众对司法公开的新要求。坚决落实公开审判原则,开展巡回审判、庭审直播、邀请人大代表和政协委员旁听庭审工作,建立裁判文书网络公开制度,发挥“中国知识产权裁判文书网”平台作用,不断拓展司法公开的广度深度。截至2012年6月,已有43488份生效裁判文书上网公开。定期编撰发布中国法院知识产权司法保护状况白皮书、年鉴,全面公开知识产权审判资讯,有效保障人民群众的知情权和监督权。
(三)加强审判监督和业务指导,切实提高知识产权审判水平
完善司法政策,加强司法解释,保证司法标准统一。明确提出“加强保护、分门别类、宽严适度”的知识产权司法保护政策,确保知识产权司法保护符合我国创新和发展的实际,最大限度促进经济社会科学发展。细化不同类别知识产权的司法保护政策,发布司法政策性指导文件16件,明晰法律适用思路,保障知识产权相关法律精神的实现。加强知识产权司法解释工作,制定知识产权权利冲突解决、驰名商标保护等7件司法解释,保障知识产权法律正确适用。
拓宽监督指导途径,确保审判监督效果。认真贯彻实施民事诉讼法,畅通申诉渠道,完善和规范审查程序,切实履行知识产权案件再审审查职责。发挥上级法院审级监督功能,采取指定管辖、提级管辖等方式,确保法律适用统一。建立重大知识产权案件信息通报制度,加强对重大案件、关联案件的指导协调。规范自由裁量权行使,明确举证责任分配、法定赔偿数额确定等重要司法裁量事项的裁量标准,保证裁量结果公正合理。注重知识产权典型案例的指导作用,通过发布典型案例,明确知识产权司法原则和标准,增强业务指导的针对性。自2008年起,最高人民法院每年定期发布中国知识产权司法保护10大案件、50件典型案例和年度报告。
加强调查研究和理论创新,及时解决新型疑难法律适用问题。注重司法实践基础上的审判理论创新,指导解决法律适用难题。最高人民法院组织建立知识产权审判理论研究会,在北京大学等6所高校设立知识产权司法保护理论研究基地,在苏州等9个中级人民法院设立调研基地,推动审判理论和实践共同发展。
(四)坚持公正廉洁司法,着力加强知识产权队伍建设
加强思想政治和反腐倡廉建设。组织知识产权法官开展“发扬传统、坚定信念、执法为民”、“人民法官为人民”等主题教育实践活动,大力加强社会主义法治理念教育,引导知识产权法官牢固树立“公正、廉洁、为民”的司法核心价值观,增强大局意识、为民意识和责任意识,切实加强司法作风和廉政建设,涌现出一批以宋鱼水为典型代表的优秀知识产权法官,知识产权审判队伍素质有了新的提高。
加强审判组织建设。在中级以上法院普遍设立专门知识产权审判庭,适当增加具有知识产权案件管辖权的基层法院数量。截至今年6月,全国共有知识产权审判庭420个,具有知识产权案件管辖权的基层法院129个。注重培养选拔知识产权法官,增强审判力量,优化人员结构。目前从事知识产权审判的法官共2731人,其中本科学历的占56.4%,研究生及以上学历的占41.1%。确立10个知识产权审判基层示范法院,促进提高基层法院知识产权审判整体水平。
加强业务能力建设。围绕知识产权审判热点、难点问题,强化知识产权专业知识和审判技能培训,不断提高法官正确适用法律、妥善化解矛盾、协调利益关系的能力。通过审判业务专家评选、优秀裁判文书评比等手段,着力培养专家型法官。加大对中西部法院和基层法院法官的培训力度。加强国际交流合作,借鉴域外先进经验,培养知识产权法官的国际视野。
人民法院知识产权审判工作的发展进步,是各级党委正确领导,人大有力监督,政府、政协、有关部门及社会各界大力支持的结果。借此机会,我代表最高人民法院,对全国人大和地方各级人大及其常委会,对各级人大代表,表示真诚的感谢。
二、当前知识产权审判工作面临的形势
在看到成绩的同时,我们也清醒地认识到,知识产权审判工作面临复杂形势和严峻挑战。一是服务大局的任务更重。我国已进入全面建成小康社会决定性阶段,实施知识产权战略、加强知识产权保护已经成为增强创新驱动发展新动力的必由之路。知识产权审判必须找准服务大局的结合点和着力点,更好地推动科技创新、知识创新和文化创新。二是知识产权审判的压力更大。无论国际还是国内,对平等保护知识产权的诉求越来越强烈,同时,案件持续增加的态势越来越明显。2008年至2011年新收一审知识产权案件年均增幅33.1%,超出一般民事案件增幅26.3个百分点,知识产权审判压力越来越大。三是化解矛盾纠纷的难度更大。涉及复杂技术事实的案件增多,需要明确具体法律界限的疑难案件增多,裁判结果涉及企业生存的重大案件增多。知识产权审判必须攻坚克难,在有效化解矛盾纠纷方面找到新思路新办法。
同时,知识产权审判还存在以下问题和困难:一是司法保护知识产权的主导作用有待进一步发挥。国务院颁布的《国家知识产权战略纲要》提出“加强司法保护体系建设”,“发挥司法保护知识产权的主导作用”。知识产权司法保护的这一战略定位还有待继续推动和落实;知识产权司法保护与行政执法双轨并行的保护机制需要进一步优化。知识产权案件“三审合一”试点工作有待继续推进,建立知识产权专门法院需要深入研究探索。二是知识产权保护机制有待进一步完善。知识产权民事、行政和刑事审判沟通协调机制尚不健全,制约了三种审判保护合力的发挥。专利商标授权确权程序过于复杂,难以避免循环诉讼,影响争议的最终解决。知识产权侵权损害赔偿计算机制以及对重复侵权、恶意侵权等行为的制裁机制有待探索完善。技术事实查明机制虽已初步建立,但在操作层面上尚需进一步完善。诉前停止侵权制度的适用需要进一步规范。三是知识产权法官队伍建设有待进一步加强。知识产权法官的司法能力不能完全适应快速增长的知识产权司法需求。特别是一些法官对能动司法的认识有待深化,服务大局的针对性、有效性以及专业司法能力有待进一步提高。
三、进一步加强知识产权审判工作的措施和建议
党的十八大指出,要实施创新驱动发展战略和知识产权战略,加强知识产权保护。各级人民法院要在党的十八大精神指引下,以本次专项审议为契机,进一步发挥知识产权司法保护职能,狠抓执法办案,完善审判机制,强化队伍建设,不断提高知识产权司法保护水平。
一是切实加大保护力度,进一步发挥司法保护知识产权主导作用。探索完善加大赔偿力度的具体实现方式,提高损害赔偿的科学性、合理性。明确诉前停止侵权措施的适用条件和程序,保证临时保护措施的及时性和正确性。制定专利商标授权确权案件程序和实体审查标准,进一步强化司法复审工作。细化侵犯知识产权犯罪定罪量刑标准,实现定罪量刑规范化。
二是深入推进知识产权审判改革,进一步完善知识产权审判体制和工作机制。健全知识产权民事、行政和刑事审判沟通协调机制,加强衔接配合,形成保护合力。总结知识产权案件“三审合一”试点经验,推进试点工作。进一步完善技术事实查明机制,细化操作程序和规则。加强知识产权审判管理,努力提升知识产权审判质量效率。
三是不断加强队伍建设,进一步提高知识产权法官队伍素质。深化社会主义法治理念教育和司法核心价值观教育,加强和改进司法作风。深刻认识知识产权审判规律和人才培养特点,加强专业化建设,加大教育培训和人才储备力度,提升司法水平和司法公信力。加强反腐倡廉建设,确保知识产权法官队伍公正廉洁,树立知识产权法官良好形象。
针对知识产权审判工作面临的实际困难,提出三点建议:一是以党的十八大精神为指引,进一步深入实施国家知识产权战略,优化知识产权保护体系;妥善协调司法保护和行政执法的关系,发挥司法保护知识产权主导作用;根据国家知识产权战略要求,积极探索研究建立知识产权专门法院。二是进一步完善知识产权相关立法,明确规定人民法院在专利商标确权案件中的司法变更权,促进争议的实质性解决,防止循环诉讼;增设文书提出命令制度,强化侵权行为人的文书提出义务,切实减轻知识产权权利人举证负担;建立惩罚性赔偿制度,增强对反复侵权、恶意侵权行为的制裁效果。三是进一步加强商务诚信、社会诚信和司法公信建设,加快知识产权法治文化建设,在全社会营造重视、支持知识产权审判的良好氛围。
委员长、各位副委员长、秘书长、各位委员:
全国人大常委会专门听取和审议知识产权审判工作专项报告,充分体现了对知识产权审判的高度重视,全国法院和广大知识产权法官深受鼓舞。我们将在以习近平同志为总书记的党中央坚强领导下,在全国人大及其常委会有力监督下,深入学习贯彻党的十八大精神,认真落实本次人大常委会审议意见,再接再厉,开拓进取,努力开创人民法院知识产权审判事业新局面,为实施创新驱动发展战略、建设创新型国家和全面建成小康社会作出更大贡献!

One thought on “Report concerning the Situation of Intellectual Property Rights Adjudication Work

    Latest Updates | China Copyright and Media said:
    August 10, 2013 at 9:36 am

    […] Report concerning the Situation of Intellectual Property Rights Adjudication Work (Supreme People’s Court – 2012) […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s