中国法院知识产权司法保护状况英文本.docx

1、中国法院知识产权司法保护状况英文本中国法院知识产权司法保护状况（2009）（英文本）(Intellectual Property Protection by Chinese Courts in 2009) 1. This paper is published in both Chinese and English. The Chinese version shall be the authoritative version for the purpose of interpretation.2. As a publication for the first time, this Paper i

2、ncludes a brief introduction of intellectual property protection in China in the last 30 years. ContentIntroduction I. Fair and Efficient Adjudication of Intellectual Property Cases According to Law has Made the Judicial System a Leading Force in Intellectual Property Protection II. Judicial Protect

3、ion for Intellectual Property has Served the Needs of Socioeconomic Development and has Observed and Delivered the National Intellectual Property Strategy III. Enhanced Judicial Supervision and Guidance has Created Greater Consistency in Adjudication Practices and Decision-MakingIV. Capacity Buildin

4、g for Intellectual Property Judges has Improved Judicial Competence and Quality Conclusion Intellectual Property Protection by Chinese Courts in 2009Introduction The Peoples Courts are the State judicial authority for intellectual property (IP) protection, which independently exercise adjudicative p

5、owers according to the Constitution and the law.Chinas reform and opening-up (gaige kaifang) has spurred the development of intellectual property since the late 1970s and early 1980s. Being a national and Party priority, and buttressed by strong social support and diligent judges, judicial protectio

6、n of intellectual property in Chinese courts has germinated and grown. The current comprehensive judicial intellectual property protection regime embodies the ideals of socialism with Chinese characteristics, embraces the countrys development needs, observes Chinas duties under international convent

7、ions. It is an essential part of Chinas judicial architecture. In the last 30 years, the Peoples Courts have: Expanded their functions and powers in intellectual property protectionThe Peoples Courts provided judicial protection for intellectual property through civil, administrative and criminal pr

8、ocedures. Civil adjudication had begun including cases relating to technology contracts toward the end of the 1970s. Trademark, patent and copyright cases were added during the mid 1980s, and unfair competition disputes in the early 1990s. The Peoples Courts had received many filings, and had render

9、ed decisions for as many as 166,408 IP-related cases between 1985 and 2009. In terms of administrative adjudicative duties, the Peoples Courts have been given the mandate to handle patent suits against the Patent Re-examination Board since 1985. Hence, Chinese courts are responsible for conducting j

10、udicial reviews for intellectual property administrative enforcement disputes and cases relating to granting or validation of patent or trademark. Between 1985 and 2009, the local Peoples Courts have altogether concluded 6387 IP-related administrative cases of first instance. Since the implementatio

11、n of the 1979 Criminal Law, the Peoples Courts were able to offer protection against criminal violations of registered trademark rights under the Law. The 1997 Amendment of the Criminal Law further enhances judicial powers in criminal protection against violation of the various intellectual property

12、 rights, including the imposition of severe punishment against serious violations of intellectual property rights, such as counterfeit and piracy. Following the Judicial Interpretation Concerning the Adjudication of Cases Involving Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights jointly issued by the S

13、upreme Peoples Court and the Supreme Peoples Procuratorate at the end of 2004, the number of IP-related criminal cases admitted and decided by the courts increased substantially; between 1997 and 2009, 14,509 IP-related criminal cases of first instance were decided by the courts. Enlarged the scope

14、of judicial protection for intellectual propertyThe mid-1990s was a turning point in terms of the general nature of intellectual property cases received by the courts. Before the mid-1990s, the cases related mainly to technology contracts. From that period onwards and until 2002, patent cases were p

15、redominant. And since 2002, copyright cases represent the largest caseload. Besides catering to the general speedy rise in traditional IP caseload involving copyright, patents, trademarks, unfair competition & technology contracts, judicial protection expanded to address emerging issues such as copy

16、right on the internet, computer software, new plant varieties, layout-designs (topographies) of integrated circuits, folk literature & art, geographical indications, special signs, corporate names, domain names, judicial recognition of well-known marks, non-material cultural heritage, franchise, app

17、lication for pre-trial provisional measures, declaration of non-infringement, and anti-monopoly. Among those, cases relating to copyright infringements on the internet have been swiftly on the rise. The Peoples Courts have handled cases involving all categories of intellectual property and many diff

18、erent types of competitive behaviour, ranging from the creation, use, protection, to the management of intellectual property. The judicial channel is becoming the primary means of intellectual property dispute resolution. For example, to settle patent disputes, most patent owners would choose to fil

19、e a civil suit with the Peoples Courts directly, instead of using administrative means. Increased the level of judicial protection for intellectual property The quality and efficiency of judicial decisions on cases relating to intellectual property have improved over the years. The clearance rate of

20、 first instance civil intellectual property cases increased from 75.35% in 2003 to 85.35% in 2009. Appeals fell from 59.38% in 2003 to 48.82% in 2009. Likewise, cases remanded or decisions reversed at the second instance reduced from 15.19% in 2003 to 6.00% in 2009, and retrials fell from 0.80% in 2

21、003 to 0.33% in 2009.Court mediation has also proven to be an effective means of dispute settlement. In recent years, more than 50%, on the average, of intellectual property civil cases were settled through court mediation at first instance. At the same time, the Peoples Courts have built a respecte

22、d international reputation for their fair and equitable treatment of all parties in cases involving foreign litigants. Judicial transparency is progressively improving. The Peoples Courts adopt the principle of judicial openness, and effective court judgements and decisions as well as judicial infor

23、mation are disseminated via the media, internet, publications and other vehicles according to law. On 10 March 2006, the Supreme Peoples Court formally launched a website on “China IPR Judgments & Decisions”, a centralised open library of judgements and decisions rendered by the Peoples Courts of di

24、fferent levels. Enhanced the effectiveness of judicial protection for intellectual propertyThe Peoples Courts have imposed severe penalties for infringements as provided by law, so as to lower the cost of protection, and increase the cost of infringement. For valid infringement claims, infringers wo

25、uld be ordered to cease and desist, and would be exposed to damages awarded against them that sufficiently compensate the aggrieved partys losses. Also, the burden of proof for a right holder is reduced as appropriate, according to law. Recently, during the last instance of the patent infringement c

26、ase of Wuhan Jingyuan Environmental Engineering Co., Ltd. (“WJC”) v. Fujikasui Engineering Co., Ltd and Huayang Electric Co., Ltd, the Supreme Peoples Court found in favour of the plaintiff, and ordered the two defendants to pay WJC RMB 50.6124 million yuan (USD 7.42 million) in damages. This was th

27、e highest damages award ever made by the Supreme Peoples Court for infringement of intellectual property right. In addition, the Peoples Courts have taken a prudent yet effective approach to using pre-trial provisional measures, and have imposed civil sanctions on infringement according to law. Betw

28、een 2002 and 2009, a total of 808 applications for pre-trial preliminary injunction in IP-related cases were admitted by local courts, 84.18% were granted approval; 1312 applications for pre-trial preservation of evidence were admitted, 93.72% were granted approval, 527 applications for pre-trial pr

29、eservation of property were admitted, 96.04% were granted approval.Criminal sanctions are an important means of protecting intellectual property by the Peoples Courts. Besides imposing principal punishments and regulating the use of probation, other punitive measures that include the imposition and

30、enforcement of heavier criminal fines, recovery of criminal proceeds, seizure of criminal tools, destruction of infringing goods, ordering payment of damages, are also means to deprive perpetrators of the financial capacity to repeat the offence. Improved the judicial system in intellectual property

31、 protection Since 1985, the Supreme Peoples Court has published 41 judicial interpretations relating intellectual property rights, 29 of which are currently in force. More than 40 judicial guidance documents (zhidaoxing wenjian) that helped instruct the lower courts were also issued. Especially sinc

32、e 2000, in line with Chinas accession to the World Trade Organisation and to serve the countrys need to build an “innovation-based nation”, the Supreme Peoples Court has issued 25 IP-related judicial interpretations. Issuance and implementation of judicial interpretations and guidance documents have provided the Peoples Courts with more concrete substantive and procedural bases on which they rely for adjudication of intellectual property cases. As a result, the judicial system has continued to see progress.The jurisdicti