IP News Alerts Articles Cases Links
Supreme People’s Court: Intellectual Property Protection by Chinese Courts in 2013

2013 is the initial year which the people’s courts applied the principles of the18th Party Congress. It is also a critical year to ensure continued efficient and effectiveimplementation of the twelfth Five-Year Plan, and a year which intellectual propertyadjudication forges new frontiers.

 

The people’s court have done well under the competent leadership of the CentralCommittee of the Chinese Communist Party (CPC) headed by General Secretary XiJinping, the keen supervision of people’s congresses at all levels and their StandingCommittees, and the valuable guidance of the Deng Xiaoping Theory, the “ThreeRepresents” concepts and the scientific development approach.The courts’ foci were to carry out the essential messages of President Xi’s seriesof important speeches and the responsibilities as required by the Constitution and thelaw; and to centre on the goal that “the people perceive equality and justice in everyjudicial case”, and also on the macro perspective, justice for the people and judicialimpartiality.

 

The people’s courts endeavoured to strengthen comprehensively intellectualproperty adjudication, implement the national intellectual property strategy and enableintellectual property holders to benefit from the courts being the primary enforcer ofintellectual property protection. The courts also deepened judicial reform of theintellectual property system, pressed ahead with greater transparency, bettercredibility and improved capabilities. All in all, the people’s courts have contributedsignificantly to a safer China governed by the rule-of-law, enabled China to forgeahead in reinventing itself as an innovative country and a socialist cultural giant, andin advancing towards becoming a complete xiaokang society.

 

I. Emphasised the priorities of judicial protection and leveraged therole of the courts

 

The people’s courts based their work on the party and the national priorities, andregarded intellectual property adjudication in earnest and its delivery with enthusiasm.There was profound observance of the basic judicial policy for intellectual propertyprotection, which is “greater protection, classification of cases, appropriatestringency”, and lawful, fair and effective adjudication of different types ofintellectual property cases, so that the legitimate rights of intellectual property holderswere protected, intellectual property infringements were stopped and sanctioned, andfair competition within the economic order of a socialist market economy preserved.The courts have thus furthered their dominant role as protectors of intellectualproperty. In 2013, the number of first and second instance intellectual property casesconcluded by the local people’s courts totalled 114,075 cases.

 

(i) Accomplished notable achievements in adjudication of civil casesrelating to intellectual property, and enabled effective leveraging of thecourts’ role in intellectual property protection and in drivinginnovation

 

In 2013, the people’s courts have accurately discerned the new goals and newdemands on judicial protection of intellectual property under the comprehensive anddeepened reform framework, and have seized opportunities, defined their workagenda and adhered to judicial activism. Civil litigation is increasingly important as akey means in protecting intellectual property and promoting indigenous innovation.Compared to 2012, the number of first instance civil intellectual property casesaccepted and disposed by local courts grew by 1.33% and 5.29% to 88,583 and88,286 cases respectively. Within each intellectual property branch, the case numbersand percentage change compared to last year were as follows:Newly accepted cases: 9,195 patent cases, 5.01% lower; 23,272 trademark cases,17.45% higher; 51,351 copyright cases, 4.64% lower; 949 cases involving technologyagreements, 27.21% higher; 1,302 cases involving unfair competition (of which, 72were first instance civil cases involving monopoly disputes), 15.94% higher; 2,514cases involved other intellectual property disputes, 13.91% higher.Disposed cases: 1,697 first instance cases involving foreign parties, 18.75%higher; 483 first instance cases involving parties from Hong Kong, Taiwan orMacao, 21.21% lower; 69 first instance civil cases involving monopoly disputes,40.82% higher.

 

For second instance cases involving civil intellectual property disputes, 11,957cases were accepted and 11,553 cases disposed, respectively 24.80% and 24.33%higher than last year.

 

For reopened (zaishen) cases involving civil intellectual property disputes(including carried-over cases), 75 were newly accepted and 96 were concluded cases,which were 56.40% and 56.95% respectively lower than last year.The Supreme People’s Court (SPC)’s intellectual property division accepted 457civil cases involving intellectual property disputes and concluded 417 cases, whichwere 92.82% and 69.51% higher than last year. Of the 365 newly acceptedapplications for retrial, 341 were disposed.

 

The people’s courts of all levels have relied upon pre-trial preservation measuresto promptly and effectively end infringements, and protect the lawful rights of theparties concerned.

 

The courts have accepted 11 cases involving application for preliminaryinjunction relating to intellectual property disputes; 77.78% were granted approvals.173 applications for pre-trial preservation of evidence were accepted, and 97.63%were granted approval, which have reduced the burden of proof on the partiesconcerned. 47 applications for pre-trial preservation of property were accepted, and96.97% approved.

 

For example, in the computer software copyright infringement case of Microsoftvs. e-Future Information Technology Inc., where e-Future was alleged to haveinfringed upon Microsoft’s Microsoft Office series of software, Microsoft had appliedfor pre-trial preservation of evidence and its application approved. The case washandled by the Wuhan Intermediate People’s Court at Hubei Province. The courtapproved preservation of the facts of infringement. Subsequently, the respondentaccepted the court’s decision and did not continue with the suit.High profile cases include: Hunan Keliyuan New Energy Co., Ltd vs. AilantianHigh Technology Materials (Dalian) Co., Ltd, involving infringement of inventionpatent; Foshan Haitian Flavouring and Food Company Ltd vs. Foshan Gaoming WeiPole Condiments Limited involving trademark infringement and unfair competition;Baidu Online Network Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd etc. vs. Beijing QihooTechnology Ltd, involving unfair competition; Tsuburaya Productions Co., Ltd etc. vs.Shanghai Audio & Video Publishing House, involving copyright infringement; SIGroup Inc. etc. vs. Sino Legend (Zhangjiagang) Chemical Co., Ltd etc., involvingtrade secrets dispute; Fujian Chaoda Modern Seed Industry Co.,Ltd vs. Rice ResearchInstitute of the Anhui Academy of Agricultural Sciences, involving determination ofinvalidity claims of a licensing agreement on plant breeders’ rights etc.

 

The people’s courts have carried out the important work arrangements asrequired by the 18th Party Congress to build a socialist rule-of-law country and tofully advance governance of the country based on law. The courts have also exercisedfully their judicial review powers to supervise and support administrative authoritiesto administer according to law, therefore facilitated better administrative protection ofintellectual property and protected the lawful rights of administrative counterparties.In 2013, the local courts accepted 2,886 intellectual property-relatedadministrative cases of first instance, 1.43% lower than last year, and disposed 2,901cases (including carried forward cases), basically no change from last year. Of thoseaccepted, the breakdown by intellectual property branch and percentage changecompared to last year is as follows: 697 patent cases, 8.29% lower; 2161 trademarkcases, 0.51% higher; 3 copyright cases, no change from last year; 25 cases of othercategories, 66.67% higher.

 

(ii) Adjudicated intellectual property-related administrative actions, and fully exercised the courts’ function in supervising enforcement of the law and ensuring lawful administration

 

Among the disposed first instance cases, those involving foreign parties or HongKong, Macao or Taiwan parties continued to represent a substantial percentage. Totalnumber of cases was 1,312, representing 45.23% of the concluded intellectualproperty-related first instance administrative cases, of which, 1,143 cases involvedforeign parties, 84 Hong Kong parties, 0 Macao parties and 85 Taiwan parties. Alldisposed cases were either patent or trademark related disputes, of which the latteraccount for a substantial percentage of 80.10%.Total intellectual property-related administrative cases of second instanceaccepted and concluded by the local courts was 1,490 and 1,496 respectively, 4.64%and 7.78% more than last year. Of the concluded cases, 1,268 were affirmed, 146reversed, 59 withdrawn, 18 dismissed; 5 other cases were disposed of through othermethods.

 

SPC’s intellectual property division accepted 117 applications for retrial ofadministrative cases and concluded 104, 19.38% and 6.12% respectively more thanlast year. Of the concluded cases, 80 cases or 76.92% were dismissed; tishen orders(similar to certiorari) were issued for 23 cases or 22.12%, 1 case or 0.96% werewithdrawn. 19 new tishen cases were accepted, and 19 cases were disposed. Of thosedisposed , SPC affirmed the original decision for 3 cases, or 15.79%, and reversed thedecision for 14 cases, or 73.69%; 1 case, or 5.26%, withdrew; in 1 case, or 5.26%, theoriginal ruling was revoked and an order issued to docket the case for hearing.High profile administrative cases include: Power Dekor Group Co., Ltd vs.Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration of Industry &Commerce (SAIC) etc., involving a trademark administrative dispute; CubistPharmaceuticals, Inc. vs. Patent Review Board, State Intellectual Property Office(SIPO), involving an administrative dispute on the invalidation of a patent invention;Wuyishan City’s Tongmu Tea Leaves Co., Ltd vs. Trademark Review andAdjudication Board of the State Administration of Industry & Commerce (SAIC) etc.,involving an administrative dispute on the review of a trademark opposition; BeijingYawang Roasted Duck Shop Co., Ltd vs. Trademark Review and Adjudication Boardof the State Administration of Industry & Commerce etc., involving an administrativedispute on the review of a trademark opposition; Li Longfeng vs. Trademark Reviewand Adjudication Board of the State Administration of Industry & Commerce etc.,involving a trademark administrative dispute etc.

 

(iii) Improved and strong criminal adjudication of intellectual propertydisputes to effectively sanction crimes and deter infringement

 

The people’s courts have exercised fully their adjudication powers forintellectual property crimes, and have cooperated with the relevant authorities inspecial actions to fight intellectual property crimes and crimes involving themanufacturing and sale of counterfeit or inferior goods. Through their relentlessefforts, the courts’ have succeeded in punishing and deterring criminal behaviourrelating to intellectual property infringement. For the first time in five years, thenumber of intellectual property crimes adjudicated by the people’s courts hasreduced.

 

In 2013, for intellectual property-related criminal cases of first instance handledby local courts, new filings reduced by 28.79% to 9,331 cases, including 5,021infringement cases (3,473 involved infringement of registered trademarks, such as useof counterfeit marks, and 1,484 cases involved copyright infringement), 35.96%lower than last year; 2,455 were infringement cases involving the production and saleof counterfeit or inferior goods, 5.83% lower than last year; 1,686 were infringementcases involving illegal business operations, 34.83% lower than last year; 169 werecases of other nature, 141.43% higher than last year.

 

The number of intellectual property-related criminal cases of first instanceconcluded by the local courts has decreased by 28%, to 9,212 cases. The number ofpersons against whom judgments were effective totalled 13,424, 13.49% lower thanlast year, including 13,265 who were given criminal sanctions, 13.52% lower thanlast year. Of the concluded cases, 4,957 involved intellectual property infringement,and the number of persons against whom judgments were effective totalled 6,866;2,390 cases involved production and sale of counterfeit and inferior goods (involvingintellectual property infringement), and the number of persons against whomjudgments were effective totalled 3,430; 1,712 cases involved illegal businessoperations (involving intellectual property infringement), and the number of personsagainst whom judgments were effective totalled 2,882; 153cases were of other nature(involving intellectual property infringement), and the number of persons againstwhom judgments were effective totalled 246.

 

For concluded and disposed intellectual property-related criminal cases, 1546cases involved counterfeiting trademarks, and the number of persons against whomjudgments were effective totalled 2462; 1,496 cases involved the production and saleof counterfeit and inferior goods, and the number of persons against whom judgmentswere effective totalled 2,221; 350 cases involved illegal manufacturing and sale ofillegally manufactured marks of registered trademarks, and the number of personsagainst whom judgments were effective totalled 589; 1 case involved counterfeitingpatent, and the number of persons against whom judgments were effective was 0;1,499 cases involved copyright infringement, and the number of persons againstwhom judgments were effective was 1,490; 15 cases involved the sale of infringingreproductions, and the number of persons against whom judgments were effective was33; 50 cases involved infringement of trade secrets, and the number of persons againstwhom judgments were effective was 71.

 

Newly accepted second instance criminal cases involving intellectual propertyinfringement totalled 662, and the number of disposed cases was 627.High profile intellectual property-related criminal cases were: Zong Liangui caseinvolving 28 people in trademark counterfeit; Jiangxi Yibo E-Tech Co., Ltd etc. caseinvolving infringement of trade secret; Chen Bangqu etc. case involving 3 people inthe sale of counterfeit and inferior goods; You Yan etc. case involving 3 people incopyright infringement.

 

In 2013, the people’s courts have comprehensively strengthened theiradjudication of intellectual property cases, and new traits have emerged:

 

First, slower increase in the number of cases, and greater adjudicationdifficulty.

 

The increase in the number of first instance civil cases received by all thelocal people’s courts have fell from the previous year’s 45.99% to 1.33%. Newlyreceived first instance administrative and criminal cases have also seen a changedtrend, from the respective increases of 20.35% and 129.61%, to a decrease of 1.43%and 28%. From 2009 to 2012, the increases in newly accepted first instance civil cases,administrative cases and criminal cases were 37.63%, 33.05% and 48.05%respectively.

 

Based on the distribution of newly accepted cases, local people’s courts that havea larger case base are seen to experience a slower increase in the number of new cases,whereas those with a smaller case base, such as courts located in the central andwestern regions, experience a faster increase. Although the courts at large experienceda slower increase in the number of new cases, the number of first instance civil casesof intellectual property disputes involving foreign parties has grown considerably,with year-on-year increase of 18.75%.

 

The following types of cases have increased in numbers, therefore continuedincrease in the level of adjudication difficulty: new types of cases or complicated andproblematic cases involving cutting-edge technology; brand protection casesinvolving the major interests of famous companies; technological contract casesinvolving the commercial use of technological outcomes; and unfair competitioncases involving maintaining the market’s competition order. Some of these are:Beijing Ruibang Yonghe Technology and Trade Co., Ltd vs. Johnson & JohnsonMedical (Shanghai) Ltd etc., involving a first vertical monopoly agreement dispute inChina; Eli Lilly & Co. of U.S.A. etc. vs. Huang Mengwei, involving a dispute oninfringement of technical secret; Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd vs. IDC Co.,involving a royalty dispute over the licensing of standard-essential patents; GoogleInc. vs. Wang Shen, involving a copyright infringement dispute; ZhongshanLongcheng Daily Product Co., Ltd. vs. Hubei Tongba Children's Appliances Co., Ltd,involving a dispute on utility patent infringement; Tianjin Tianlong Science &Technology of Agriculture Co.,Ltd vs. Jiangsu Xu Agricultural Seed Technology Co.,Ltd, involving a dispute on infringement of new plant variety etc.

 

Second, substantial improvement in adjudication quality and efficiency.

 

Clearance rate of civil intellectual property case of first instance at the local courtswas stable, at 87.95%; reopen (zaishen) rate fell from 2012’s 0.20% to 0.09%; appealcases reversed or remanded for retrial (chongshen) was at 5.84%.Clearance rate ofadministrative intellectual property cases of first instance at local courts was 87.04%,increased by 0.5% from last year; appeal cases reversed and remanded for retrialwas at 9.8%, reopen rate fell from 2012’s 0.21% to 0.069%. The percentage ofcriminal intellectual property cases of first instance concluded within time limit was91.66%, a rather high figure.

 

Third, effectiveness of judicial mediation evident.

 

The people’s courts haveobserved the adjudication tenets of lawful, voluntary and regulated mediation to beefup mediation for intellectual property disputes, and have continued to seek creativeways in mediation for dispute resolution. The coordinated “three-in-one” mediationmechanism, which aligns judicial mediation with people’s mediation andadministrative mediation, was streamlined and improved, so that many conflicts anddisputes were settled at the grass-root level and at pre-litigation. The courts alsocontinued to explore other mediation methods “mediation by appointment” (weituotiaojie), “mediation by industry associations” (hangye tiaojie) and “mediation byexperts” (zhuanjia tiaojie), to create a multi-channel coordinated mediationmechanism and find the correct breakthrough point to resolve problems encounteredduring mediation. There was also focus on mediating related cases to facilitatecooperation to the advantage of multiple parties and for greater social harmony.For example, for complex cases involving serious disputes, the Shanxi HighPeople’s Court did not simply sit within the courtroom and hear a case; instead, in itsmany attempts to find ways to resolve disputes, judges would perform fieldwork tobetter understand a case’s context, which enabled them to resolve cases involvingimportant livelihoods at the grass-root level.

 

Cooperation between the people’s courts and the relevant authorities had enabledthe withdrawal rate of first instance civil cases involving intellectual property disputesto reach 68.45%. High profile cases that were successfully mediated by the courtswere: Beijing Changdi Mapping Technologies Co., Ltd vs. Careland Technology(Shenzhen) Co.,Ltd etc., involving a copyright dispute on alleged plagiarism of the“Dao Dao Tong” GPS Electronic Map; BMW vs. Shenzhen Century Baoma ApparelCo. Ltd, involving trademark infringement and unfair competition practices; HongKong Hung Wo Tong Medicament Ltd vs. Guilin Yibai Lijiang PharmaceuticalCo.,Ltd, involving a dispute on technical cooperation agreement; Microsoft Inc. vs.Anhui Wanyi Science & Technology Co., Ltd, involving copyright infringement ofcomputer software; Gao Xiaosong vs. Beijing Youshi Meters Network TechnologyCo., Ltd, involving copyright infringement etc.. The courts’ work has resulted inencouraging social and legal outcomes.

 

Fourth, greater judicial transparency.

 

The people’s courts have workedtowards “sunshine justice” by improving judicial openness to ensure the people’sright to know, right to participate and right to supervise judicial endeavours areensured.

 

 Improved and regulated publication system for written judgementsinvolving intellectual property cases. SPC’s intellectual property division hasissued the Supreme People’s Court’s Provisional Guidelines for OnlinePublication of Written Judgements for Intellectual Property Cases, and has set upa staff system for online publication and implemented a regular reporting systemfor online publication, so as to ensure judgements are duly published online. As atend 2013, 61,368 legally effective written judgements for intellectual propertydisputes issued by the people’s courts of all levels have been published.

 

Stepped up disclosure of details for major cases. For cases of majorsocial concern, adjudication should be shown using all possible and appropriatemedia formats to improve the depth and extensiveness of disclosure. In majorcases such as the unfair competition case of Tencent Inc. vs. Qihoo 360, and theJohnson & Johnson monopoly case, the courts employed open trials and thesociety has responded positively.

 

Continued to widen channels of judicial openness. Live telecast, invitingdeputies to people’s congresses to observe court proceedings, organise open daysfor the public, publishing white paper on judicial protection and collections oftypical cases etc. are means which the courts disclose information on intellectualproperty adjudication to respond to social concerns. SPC has published theIntellectual Property Protection by Chinese Courts in 2012, and compiled andpublished the Yearbook on Intellectual Property Protection in China (2012). Thehigh people’s courts of Beijing Municipality, Hebei Province, ShanghaiMunicipality, Jiangsu Province, Anhui Province, Shandong Province, GuangdongProvince, Hainan Province, Gansu Province and Xinjiang Autonomous Regionetc. have also released publications on intellectual property protection in theirrespective jurisdictions.

 

Elaborated legal reasoning in written judgements. The courts havedisclosed comprehensively and objectively the case facts, evidence relied uponfor decision and arguments by each party, and decision rationale, so as toimprove the public’s comprehension of the court’s ruling. This would also enablethe written judgement to demonstrate the entire judicial process, present apositive judiciary’s image, regulated judicial behaviour. Other objectives includedisseminating legal knowledge and taking the lead in the society to establish thecorrect social behaviour and transmit the positive rule-of-law ethos.

 

 Accepted supervision on own initiative. The courts have solicited widelyfrom different social sectors opinions and recommendations on judicial protection,and have taken the initiative to accept supervision by the general public, theprosecutorial and supervisory authorities and the media for their work on judicialprotection. SPC attaches great importance to the opinions and recommendationson the Report on Intellectual Property Adjudication by the Supreme People’sCourt presented at the 13th meeting of the Standing Committee of 11th NationalPeople’s Congress, and has studied and developed implementation plans andcompleted a special report to ensure that the standing committee’s reviewrecommendations are implemented. Local people’s courts of all levels have alsocommunicated frequently with people’s congresses’ deputies and members of thelocal people's political consultative conferences to update them on the progress ofjudicial protection and improve their work. The High People’s Court of JiangxiProvince has made a special presentation on the progress of its work on judicialprotection of intellectual property, and was commended by the deputies for theirgood work.

 

 

Fifth, continued increase in adjudication impact.

 

The people’s courts attachhigh priority to adjudication of major cases, and have heard a series of cases of greatsocial concern, extensive impact and significant disputed interest, and involve thedirection of industry development. In doing so, the courts have ensured equalprotection of the lawful rights of different categories of rights- holders and of localand foreign parties. The courts’ work is recognised and commended by the society atlarge and at home and abroad, and the impact of judicial protection of intellectualproperty has been significantly increased.

 

For example, in the case of Tencent Inc. vs. Qihoo 360 involving unfaircompetition, and which requires determination of competition rules in the internetdomain, SPC put together a five-judge panel, whereby Xi Xiaoming, vice-president ofthe SPC, was the presiding judge. The entire hearing was telecast live, and more thanforty domestic and foreign media companies gave extensive coverage. The strongadjudication team and open hearing, as well as the sustained and wide attention drawnindicates the confidence and determination on the part of the people’s courts to stepup judicial protection of intellectual property. The public’s response alsodemonstrates considerable popular resonance, whether on the part of the social publicor holders of intellectual property rights.

 

 

II. Grounded in the goal of innovation-driven development, and focusedon implementing the intellectual property strategy

 

The 18th Party Congress has laid out a major strategy at the critical juncture ofChina’s plan to build a complete xiaokang society, which encompasses acceleratingthe building of a more robust socialist market economy, remodelling the growthstrategy, implementing an innovation-driven development strategy, and strengtheningintellectual property protection. The people’s courts are fully aware of theunprecedented circumstances and new tasks they face in protecting intellectualproperty, and took full advantage of the opportunities presented before them, met thechallenges, and leveraged their official roles to serve the larger interests. They haveimplemented the national intellectual property strategy, and have relentlesslycontributed to ensuring and facilitating economic and social development. The HighPeople’s Court of Guangdong Province has been awarded the honour of “ProgressiveTeam in Implementation of the National Intellectual Property Strategy”.

 

(i) Persisted in serving the larger interests, and continued to improveupon the policies pertaining to judicial protection of intellectualproperty


A correct mind-set and appropriate policies are important guideposts forstrengthening judicial protection of intellectual property, and for ensuring fair andefficient adjudication of different types of intellectual property cases.

 

In 2013, the people’s courts have redoubled efforts in implementing the basicpolicy of “greater protection, classification of cases, appropriate stringency” injudicial protection, and have promptly adjusted and improved upon judicial policiesand systems based on changes in the national policies relating to science &technology, economics, industry, culture and trade etc. Based on the nature, function,characteristics and practical needs of the various intellectual property branches,specific judicial policies were enhanced and improved.

 

The courts have:

 Focused on building up the momentum on innovation-driven developmentand improving the capacity for indigenous innovation by strengtheningpatent protection, and by concentrating on strengthening protection of thetechnological outcomes of essential and cutting-edge research, emergingstrategic industries and modern information technology industries, so as todrive technological breakthroughs and innovation.

 

 Focused on nurturing new competitive brand advantages to promote brandinnovation by strengthening protection of trademarks and famous marks, andmade determined efforts to check infringing behaviours as use of counterfeitmarks and malicious trademark squatting.

 

Focused on promoting cultural prosperity and industrial development bystrengthening copyright protection, and targeted at protecting splendidcultural resources, cultural innovation outcomes and new cultural forms toencourage indigenous innovation.

 

 Focused on creating a fair and credible market environment to inducemarket dynamism by stepping up competition protection, cracking down onunfair competitive behaviour as counterfeit activities, false publicity,infringement of trade secrets, therefore, facilitated development of a robustand modern market regime.

 

 Focused on defending the full rights of rights-holders by increasing theamount of damages awarded, strengthening application of evidencespoliation system and appropriately managing the relationship betweenstatutory damages and discretionary damages for to improve reasonablenessin calculation of damages. For criminal cases, focus especially on propertysanctions to impose more severe punishment for intellectual property crimes,so as to deprive criminals of the ability and the capacity to recidivate. Forexample, in the Zong Liangui etc. case involving 28 persons in the use ofcounterfeit marks for Arawana (“Jin Long Yu”) and Luhua cooking oilbrands, the High People’s Court of Henan Province fined the defendants for27.04 million yuan. This was an effective deterrent and has improved themarket environment.

 

 

(ii) Persisted in reform and innovation, and continued to improve upon theintellectual property-related adjudication system and workmechanisms

 

To inject dynamism in the people’s courts intellectual property adjudicationoperations and ensure that effective institutional safeguards are in place, deepenedjudicial reform and reform and innovation are necessary. In 2013, the people’s courtshave vigorously implemented reform and driven innovation in the intellectualproperty regime, and have made continued improvements in the adjudication systemand work mechanisms.

 

Further optimised jurisdiction for intellectual property cases. Due tocontinued increase in the number of patent disputes, SPC issued the Decisionon Amending the “Several Rules Regarding the Application of Law WhenAdjudicating Patent Disputes”, which provides for appropriate decentralisingof jurisdictional powers for patent cases, and for designating basic people’scourts that meet specific criteria as the first instance court for patent disputes.

 

Also, to streamline jurisdiction for a more tenable structure, certain courtswere selected as the court of competence for civil cases relating to patent andtechnology disputes, and special cases such as those involving well-knownmarks are flexibility assigned to certain courts based on need.As at end 2013, 87 intermediate people’s courts have jurisdiction for patentcases, 45 for new plant varieties, 46 for topographies for integrated circuits,and 45 for well-known marks; 160 basic courts are given jurisdiction forgeneral intellectual property cases, and 7 basic courts for adjudicating utilityand design patent disputes.

 

 Steadily advanced pilot projects for “three-in-one” adjudication ofintellectual property disputes. The courts have worked to improve the“three-in-one” pilot project to establish a more systematic, wholesome andsynergistic regime, and have guided the local people’s courts to proceedsteadily with the pilot project. As at end 2013, the number of participatingcourts includes 7 high people’s courts, 79 intermediate people’s courts and71 basic people’s courts.

 

 Further improved the technical fact-finding mechanism. The courtshave refined the operation procedures for the technical fact-findingmechanisms for forensic examination, expert assistant (zhuanjia fuzhuren)and expert advice, established and improved the work mechanisms forparticipation in court hearings for expert witnesses and technical experts, andstrengthened the procedural and substantive review of forensic opinion andexpert opinion. As such, technical fact-finding is increasingly scientific interms of approach.

 

The High People’s Court of Zhejiang Province has developed workingguidelines for technical experts, and employed 20 technical experts to helpresolve the problems relating to technical fact-finding. The High People’sCourt of Hubei Province has set up three expert databanks to provideintellectual support for adjudication-related professional issues.

 

Optimised the work of people’s assessors. The participation methods andprocesses of people’s assessors in hearing cases were standardised, theirparticipation mechanism improved, and additional expert assessors as neededfor adjudication of intellectual property cases selected. Thus, the courts haveensured that the people’s assessors exercise their official powers according tolaw, and effectiveness of their participation improved. The NanningIntermediate People’s Court in Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region hasincreased its use of expert assessors. Participation of expert assessors inhearing 58 cases involving complex technical issues has improvedadjudication quality.

 

(iii) Persisted in pursuing justice for the people, and continued to expandthe scope of judicial services for intellectual property

 

The people’s courts have conscientiously observed the party’s mass line inintellectual property adjudication, and have taken the initiative to practise justice forthe people as a work objective by going into the grass-root level, getting to know themasses, listening to the voices of the people and understanding them, and havecontinued to improve judicial measures to provide convenience and benefits for thepeople.

 

Greater guidance on defending rights and litigation procedures. Thecourts have provided more information on matters such as rights and duties,burden of proof and litigation risks, and have helped rights-holders manageinfringement problems and defend their rights rationally.For example, the Huangshi Intermediate People’s Court of Hubei Provinceregularly distributes the “Legal Risks Warning Card”, “Handbook on theRisks in Intellectual Property Protection” etc. to local businesses, and hashelped companies set up their “rights-protection response mechanism” and“litigation guidance mechanism”. The courts have also stepped up efforts inpreserving evidence and in collecting evidence ex-officio. Whenever thecircumstances satisfy the conditions for evidence preservation orinvestigation and collection of evidence, the courts would promptly take theappropriate measures to reduce the burden of proof on the part of the rightsholders.

 

 Organised circuit tribunals as needed. The High People’s Court of HenaProvince has progressively organised circuit adjudication for intellectualproperty cases. More than 400 cases were heard by the circuit tribunal, thushave successfully dealt with many intellectual property cases of immensecomplexity, or that the parties were highly antagonistic. More than 2o,000persons from all walks of life, including deputies to people’s congresses,members of political consultative conferences, teachers and students oftertiary institutions have observed the circuit tribunal. The impact wasencouraging.

 

The Chuzhou Intermediate People’s Court of Anhui Province activelyexplored the possibility of setting up a circuit tribunal in cities and countieswith higher intellectual property cases, and has given full play to its guidingrole of the justice system.

 

The Yili Prefecture branch court of the High People’s Court of the XinjiangUygur Autonomous Region has set up a circuit work station for judges at theKorgos Economic and Technological Development Zone, where judges aresent to the work station monthly to adjudicate on-site. 

 

Launched legal advisory services. The people’s courts of Jinlin , Fujin,Anhui and Guizhou extended their adjudication responsibilities by movingthe gantry of intellectual property protection forward, thus providing “homedelivery of legal services” for key enterprises, science & technology parks.The courts reached out to businesses to understand their needs for intellectualproperty protection, and helped them solve legal issues relating to thecreation, administration, operation and protection of intellectual property.Additionally, they also helped businesses raise their awareness to beinnovation-driven and in risk-prevention, so as to strengthen their ability toprevent and defuse operational risks and develop their capabilities ininnovation and development. The courts’ efforts were well-received by thebusinesses.

 

More active in providing judicial recommendations. The courts haveprovided guidance and direction in the form of judicial recommendations forstriking, common and recurrent problems. The recommendations were givento the relevant departments to enable substantive resolution of the problems.For example, the Hubei High People’s Court has provided judicialrecommendations to the local government on copyright infringement ofinternet cafés, so as to guide intellectual property users to operate lawfullyand facilitate the industry’s healthy development. The Guizhou HighPeople’s Court addressed the problem of notarised documents beinginadmissible as a result of procedural flaws by giving its judicialrecommendations to the provincial judicial office, bring to the office’sattention the need for regulated notarisation. The Hainan High People’sCourt submitted to the provincial government judicial recommendations onprotection of special trademark resources to help improve their protection.The high people’s courts of Shanxi and Shanghai have also progressivelybecome more active in providing judicial recommendations. In doing so, thecourts have effectively served the relevant authorities and have helped themimprove the use, administration and protection of intellectual property rights.

 

 

(iv) Persisted in strengthening protection, and continued to step up judicialpublicity on intellectual property rightsJudicial publicity is an important channel through which the people’s courtsenable the society at large to understand how judicial protection of intellectualproperty works.

It is also an important vehicle to promote the rule-of-law spirit injudicial protection, as well as a key avenue to elevate the society’s respect forknowledge and increase awareness of the concept of intellectual property protection.In 2013, the people’s courts managed to gain insight into the work involvingjudicial protection of intellectual property and focused on the key aspects of the work.For publicity, they have developed innovative publicity formats, focused on keypublicity efforts, and have leveraged the role of publicity media such as media ownedby the people’s courts, the news media, micro-message (Weixin) and microblog(Weibo). The courts have mobilised the strengths of different parties to createpublicity synergies, thereby augmenting the effectiveness of the publicity. A publicityweek was carefully planned around 4.26 World Intellectual Property Day.SPC published the Ten Major Cases, Ten Major Innovative Cases and FiftyTypical Cases on Judicial Protection of Intellectual Property for 2012, and theSupreme People’s Court’s Annual Report on Intellectual Property Cases (2012) topresent to the general society a lively and vivid picture of the results of increasedjudicial protection of intellectual property. Local courts have also taken an activestance in generating publicity and in response to the public’s interest in judicialprotection of intellectual property by publishing updates on judicial protection ofintellectual property and cases adjudicated, organised press conferences, and bygoing on the streets and distributing publicity pamphlets.

 

For example, the High People’s Court of Inner Mongolia Autonomous Regionorganised a publicity week under the theme “Implement the Intellectual PropertyStrategy, Support Innovation-Driven Development”. Legal awareness publicityactivities extended to company offices and school grounds;During the publicity week, the courts in Jiangsu Province organised 9 pressconferences, set aside more than 1,800 places for observation of court hearing, andvisited more than 100 companies, during which more than 5,000 publicitypamphlets were given out.

 

The Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps Branch Court of the HighPeople’s Court of the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region organised a series of rich,interesting and people-friendly publicity activities based on the theme “IntellectualProperty Helps Remodel Economic Growth”.

 

The Hefei Intermediate People’s Court of Anhui Province visited the “SeedStreet” (“Zhongzi Yitiaojie”) to hear a case on new plant varieties. It invitedmanagement staff of the seed management station and seed sellers to observe thehearing. By using cases to teach the law, judicial publicity was more effective incommunicating messages and influencing mind-sets.

 

 

(v) Persisted in synergistic development, and continued to vitaliseintellectual property cooperation and exchanges

 

With deepening economic globalisation, greater cultural diversity and increasinginformation accessibility, increased intellectual property protection must stay on thepath of cooperation for mutual benefits and joint development.

 

Strengthened inter-departmental coordination and cooperation to formcombined protection forces. In 2013, the people’s courts have continued tocoordinate the relationship between judicial protection and administrativeprotection of intellectual property by escalating cooperation with theadministrative and law enforcement departments to establish amulti-dimensional protection regime.

 

The high people’s courts of Anhui, Jiangxi and Guangxi provinces haveworked rigorously to establish a joint mechanism in intellectual propertyprotection and an information-sharing platform. The High People’s Court ofHenan Province have stepped up coordination and cooperation with theintellectual property administrative authorities to expand avenues forresolution of intellectual property disputes.

 

Strengthened international exchanges to raise our internationalprofile. SPC has sent representatives to participate in intellectual propertywork groups meetings between China and the United States, Europe, Russiaand Switzerland, as well as in international meetings on negotiations ofChina-Switzerland and China-Korea free trade zones. In doing so, we haveshown our intellectual property achievements, and demonstrated China’sposition and determination to continue strengthening intellectual propertyprotection. The courts have received nearly 100 high level delegates from theUnited States, Japan and European Union, and have responded positively tothe concerns of the foreign visitors, clarified misunderstandings andshowcased on achievements in judicial protection of intellectual property;therefore, established a positive international profile.

 

To widen exchange channels and amplify the exchange outcomes, SPC hasestablished an International Exchange (Shanghai) Base for JudicialProtection of Intellectual Property, and have relied upon the support of theShanghai High People’s Court to receive delegations from the United States,Japan, Korea, Canada and Switzerland, and have received highcommendations from the guests.

 

 

III. Focused on achieving greater judicial impartiality and credibility, andbuttressed adjudication supervision and administration

 

Judicial impartiality is an important aspect in establishing the rule of law inChina. It is the lifeline of the people’s courts and the fundament for establishingjudicial credibility. In 2013, the people’s courts have focused hard on judicialimpartiality and judicial credibility as the main guideposts to improve the norms forjudicial protection, strengthen adjudication administration and supervision mechanism,and intensify guidance for adjudication and research. These undertakings wouldimprove the quality and efficiency of intellectual property adjudication, and ensurethat every case heard, could stand up to the test of the law, of history and of thepeople.

 

(i) Established robust judicial protection regulations, and facilitateduniformity in the standards employed in judicial protection

 Further strengthened judicial guidance. To ensure that the amendedCivil Procedural Law is correctly applied and that patent cases areadjudicated smoothly, SPC issued on January 2o13, the Supreme People’sCourt Notice Regarding Printing the List of Patent Agents Recommended bythe All-China Patent Agents Association to regulate participation of patentagents participating in civil procedures involving patent dispute.To ensure that the newly amended Trademark Law is correctly implemented,SPC has promptly drafted and published the Supreme People’s Court’sInterpretations of Issues Regarding Jurisdiction and Scope of Application ofLaw during Adjudication of Trademark Disputes after the Implementation ofthe Decision on the Amendment of the Trademark Law.

 

 Further strengthened adjudication guidance. In March 2013, SPCconvened the 3rd National Work Conference on Intellectual PropertyAdjudication in Xi’an of Shanxi Province. The conference adopted theprinciples and spirit of the 18th Party Congress and the 1st session of the 12thNational People’s Congress. Participants reviewed the results andexperiences of the people’s courts in adjudication of intellectual propertyduring past five years, analysed the current situation, and identified theguiding principles and tasks pertaining to intellectual property adjudicationnow and during the subsequent period. Issues that require particular attentionwhen applying the law during intellectual property adjudication were alsostudied. The conference was extremely meaningful, as it has provided a cleardirection for intellectual property adjudication for 2013 and for a short periodof time in the future.

 

In April 2013, SPC held a national workshop for chief judges of intellectualproperty tribunals of all courts. The workshop centred on the practicalities ofintellectual property adjudication and focused on the themes of judicialimpartiality, improving judicial credibility and advancing governance of thecountry based on law. The workshop also discussed the current situationsfacing intellectual property adjudication and the need to grasp accuratelyjudicial policy, and was able to unify minds and drive progress.To ensure implementation of the spirit of the 3rd National Work Conferenceon Intellectual Property Adjudication, the high people’s courts of Zhejiang,Fujian, Shandong and Guangdong etc. also convened intellectual propertywork meetings for all the courts within the province to plan and delegatework pertaining to intellectual property adjudication in 2013, so as to ensurethat adjudication is carried in a regulated and orderly manner.

 

Developed adjudication instruction materials. SPC has publishedbooks and materials as Instruction Manual on Intellectual PropertyAdjudication, Trends in Intellectual Property Adjudication, and Reflectionsand Prospects in Trademark Adjudication, which have reviewed operationalmaterials as important normative documents and instructional opinions, workoverview, statistics, research outcomes, typical cases, which have providedthe quickest route to providing instructions of adjudication operations. TheBeijing High People’s Court has developed and released a Manual onDetermination of Patent Infringement, which has standardised andcoordinated the law enforcement standard for patent cases in Beijing.

 

(ii) Intensified adjudication research, and expanded avenues tostandardise application of the law

 

Judicial protection of intellectual property must face the most vibrant sectors ofall creative activities: economic, scientific, culture and arts; hence, new issuescontinue to emerge, and judicial protection perpetually faces new demands andchallenges. The important means with which adjudication of intellectual propertyemploys a scientific approach is to strengthen research guidance for intellectualproperty cases and their adjudication, and to promptly standardise adjudicationcriteria and respond to the new needs in judicial protection of intellectual property.In 2013, the people’s courts directed their attention to key and difficult aspects inintellectual property adjudication to find creative ways and research anchor points,organise adjudication research, review experiences and resolve new issues. Theefforts were fruitful. SPC centred on establishing the criteria for determining patentinfringement, adjudication standards in granting and validating patents rights foradministrative cases, application of the Trademark Law, standards in granting andvalidating trademark rights for administrative cases, protection of well-known marksand service marks, protection of trade secrets, and application of the law for copyrightdisputes involving Karaoke operators etc., and conducted thematic researches inpreparation for drafting the corresponding judicial interpretations.

 

In January 2013, SPC organised in Xiamen, Fujian Province, a national seminaron internet new technology and new business models and competition.In July 2013, SPC established in Zunyi City Intermediate People’s Court inGuizhou, a “Supreme People’s Court Intellectual Property Judicial ProtectionResearch Base for the Spirits Industry”. The research base will better enablediscovery of issues relating to judicial protection of intellectual property, hencehealthy development for the industry. To further facilitate research, SPC organised thefirst national award for excellence in intellectual property research outcome, and hascompleted the preliminary selection from 193 research reports.

 

Based on the practical realities, local people’s courts also organised differentresearch activities. For example, the Chongqing High People’s Court collaboratedwith the relevant authorities to jointly organise the “International Conference onTrademark Infringement and Monopoly in the Internet Environment”, and the“High-Level Forum on Judicial Protection for Computer Software Copyright in theCloud Computing Environment”. Tianjin High People’s Court organised the researchactivity on “Intellectual Property Judicial Protection of Cultural and CreativeBusinesses in Tianjin”. The Guangdong High People’s Court conducted researchbased on the theme of “Exploring and Improving the Judicial Evidentially System toResolve the Difficulty in Determining Damages for Intellectual PropertyInfringement”, and carried out pilot studies in 14 basic and intermediate people’scourts.

 

 

The high people’s courts of Beijing, Hebei, Liaoning, Shanghai, Jiangsu,Guangxi, Yunnan, Shanxi, Qinghai and Ningxia also conducted research on specificthemes based on key and difficult issues at the local level. This had be useful inproviding guidance for adjudication operations.

 

(iii) Strengthened adjudication management, and improved upon thesupervision and evaluation system to establish a scientific and effectivesystem

 

An important institutional safeguard for judicial impartiality is the establishing ofa management system that aligns accountability with powers, that supervises the useof powers, that misconduct is held accountable, and that violation of the law will bepunished, which operates under a strict adjudication management and supervisionpowers, and which regulates the exercise of discretionary rights to prevent losing thecontrol of powers and deviation from behavioural norms.

 

 

In 2013, the people’s courts of all levels have established, improved andimplemented systems and mechanisms to ensure adjudication quality and efficiency,and have continued to review and promptly promoted experiences and practices thatcould help improve adjudication quality and efficiency. Indeed, the quality andefficiency of intellectual property adjudication have evidently improved.The courts have also tightened management of the adjudication process, trackedand monitor the major processes and major areas in adjudication, and implementedregular reporting of case disposal. They have also improved on the timing of casedisposal to ensure that conclusion of cases is evenly distributed throughout the year.These measures have improved the quality of adjudication.The Shanxi High People’s Courts have implemented online case-handling, suchthat the entire process of receiving and hearing a case, panel deliberation andannounce of decision is regulated, such that every phase in the adjudication process istraceable and evidence-based.

The courts have also:

Improved upon the quality of adjudication by organising joint meetings ofpresiding judges, full bench meetings and expert assessment meetings for difficult andcomplex cases, so as to ensure quality of adjudication. Quality reviews for areconducted to instil in judges the mindfulness of exquisiteness in quality.

 Improved the review and evaluation mechanism for case quality, refined theevaluation standards, specified the criteria for determining miscarriage of justice andfor accountability and recourse, so as to discover problems in time, correct errors, andprevent any miscarriage of justice.

Assessed, reviewed and compared written judgements to improve theirquality, and have effectively prevented clerical errors etc., such that writtenjudgements become the vehicle that embody the entire adjudication process, thegrounds of judgement, and enablers of social supervision. To encourage better qualitywriting, SPC has initiated selection activities for 3rd National Excellence in WrittenJudgements for Intellectual Property Case, and have completed the preliminaryselection from 483 written judgements.

 

IV. Focused on strengthening the basics at the grass-root level, andcontinued to improve upon the quality of the judicial team

 

Justice for the people, judicial impartiality and improving judicial credibility, aregoals that hinge upon the team of people and whose key lie within the grass-roots.The people’s courts have always attached a high priority to strengthening theintellectual property adjudication team, so that the people would experience equityand justice for every case handled by the judiciary. The team of adjudicators would beproper and professional and armed with the required expertise. Hence, the courts havefocused on building the team by adopting a scientific approach, so that the intellectualproperty adjudication team would be politically firm, professionally sound, with agood attitude and of high integrity.

 

(i) Strengthened institutional-building

 

A robust institution is the prerequisite for good intellectual property adjudication.In 2013, the people’s courts have conscientiously carried out the Opinions on SeveralIssues Concerning Implementation of the National Intellectual Property Strategy, andhave continued to step up efforts in establishing specialised adjudication authoritiesfor intellectual property cases, so as to lay a firm foundation for adjudicatingintellectual property cases at the basic level.

 

In Tibet Autonomous Region, the intermediate people’s courts in Linzhi,Shannan, Naqu and Ali have established specialised intellectual property adjudicatoryorgans. In Fujian Province, the basic courts in Gulou, Siming and Jinjiang haveestablished intellectual property tribunals. In Hubei Province the intermediatepeople’s couts of Xiangyang, Yichang, Huangshi, Huanggang and Jingmen haveestablished intellectual property tribunals, such that specialised adjudicatory organswould facilitate the professional development of intellectual property adjudication. InBeijing’s Haidian District, the people’s court has set up the first basic court dispatchtribunal focusing mainly on hearing intellectual property cases. This was to lendstrength for the establishment of a National Indigenous Innovation DemonstrationZone within Zhongguancun.

 

At the same time, the people’s courts of all levels have continued to build uptheir manpower for the adjudication team, as judges who are well-rounded incapabilities were selected to strengthen the intellectual property adjudication team andto ensure that intellectual property adjudication is supported by a strong talent pool.

 

 

(ii) Strengthened capacity-building


Under the new circumstances, where intellectual property adjudication hasdeveloped rapidly, there is urgent demand for intellectual property judges to improvetheir judicial skills and standard to serve the people well, ensure equity and justice, aswell as to resolve conflicts and disputes and shape public opinion. The people’s courtshave always focused their efforts on improving the capabilities of intellectual propertyjudges as an important means to improve judicial protection of intellectual property.The means replied upon include organising training and seminars on specific themes,on-the-job training, exchanges and temporary job postings, observation of hearings,and setting up practice bases for intellectual property protection, so as to continue tostep up the intensity and extensiveness of education and training.

 

 Strengthened learning of political theory. The people’s courts ofdifferent levels have captured the essence of the spirit of the 18th PartyCongress and of President Xi Jinping’s series of important discourse to guideintellectual property judges to be steadfast in their beliefs, develop a socialistrule-of-law concept, and nurture and practise the core values of socialism.This would strengthen their self-confidence in their pursuit of socialism, intheir theoretical belief and in the system, and would lay a firm foundation forconcept of judicial impartiality.

 

 Strengthened training of professional skills. SPC continued to use theintellectual property training course provided by the National Judges Collegeas vehicle to organise training for intellectual property judges. It hasincreased training for judges located in the central and western regions, andhave deployed intellectual property judges to conduct touring lectures in thewestern region.

 

The Heilongjiang High People’s Court has introduced specialised intellectualproperty training, and has organised judges’ forum to train expert judges inthe field of intellectual property; the Hubei High People’s Court hasorganised the “Five Ones” capacity-building activity, so as to build a team ofintellectually-inclined judges; the Yunnan High People’s Court has heldjudges’ salons, and has specially organised reviewers from the Patent ReviewBoard of SIPO to conduct touring lectures in intermediate people’s courtsthat have jurisdiction for adjudicating patent cases; the Zhejiang HighPeople’s Court and the provincial judges’ college have jointly organisedtraining courses on intellectual property adjudication and training courses forkey personnel, so as to increase the level of training for adjudicators.Also, the Chongqing High People’s Court has actively organised exchangeactivities with tertiary institutions as a way to align resources and fill eachother’s needs and lacks and to raise the level of professionalism inadjudication; the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region’s High People’s Courthas organised trainings to hone professional skills in intellectual propertyadjudication, so as to train judges on the most current issues in intellectualproperty; the Beijing High People’s Court has explored the “practicaltraining system” (shi xun zhi) as a training model to improve training foryounger judges and has laid a solid foundation for the sustainabledevelopment of intellectual property adjudication. Judge Chen Jinchuan,member of the court’s judicial committee and Chief Judge of the IntellectualProperty Tribunal, has been received the “Award of Excellence in CopyrightAchievement”

 

(iii) Strengthened nurturing of judicial attitude


Judicial attitude is the external embodiment of judicial impartiality, whichdirectly concerns the feeling and evaluation of the people toward judicial impartiality.In 2013, the people’s courts took the opportunity presented in the activity oneducating judges on the party’s mass line to incorporate education on nurturing ofjudicial attitude. Every adjudicator must have the courage to face problems, and tolook at themselves critically to discover their flaws and inadequacies. Based on theoverall requirement to “look at yourself, tidy yourself, clean yourself and cureyourself”, criticisms and self-criticisms were carried out, such that the most strikingproblems as reflected by the general public were addressed. Judges have strictlyobserved the eight-point regulations concerning improving working attitudes andclose contact with the masses, as well as the six measures as required by the SPC, sothat justice for the people is truly implemented. The courts were stringent in enforcingthe proper judicial attitudes and imposed strict disciplines, which have translated intoimproved awareness of the sense of purpose and sense of responsibility as publicservants on the part of the intellectual property adjudicators. This has ensured theadjudication team for intellectual property are advanced in mind-sets and pure inspirit.

 

(iv) Strengthened judicial integrity


Integrity has always been a key task as part of capacity-building for judges in thepeople’s courts. In 2013, every level of the people’s courts were working vigorouslyto fight corruption, and to build a more robust system of integrity risk prevent systemby strengthening responsibility in management supervision and stepping upaccountability and recourse. By organising centralised education, educating aboutconsequence, and conferences on special themes as democratic living andheart-to-heart discussions, the courts were able to teach and guide intellectualproperty adjudicators that they should uphold the requirement to be “practical andupright for the people; that they should treasure power, be careful when using power,using their powers well; that they should not be moved by temptations or enticed bydistractions; that they should be diligent in initiating judicial inspection andsupervision of adjudication operations to tighten administration and plugadministration gaps. In doing so, power abuse would be locked away, and the judgeswould be upright, the courts would be clean, and justice would be fair.Conclusion

 

2o14 is the critical year to carry out the principles and spirit of the 3rd Plenary Sessionof 18th CPC Central Committee and to see to fruition the 12th Five-year plan. This isalso the critical year to stabilise growth, restructure the economy and drive reform.Under the strong leadership of party central committee led by General Secretary XiJinping, the people’s courts must persist in the path of socialism with Chinesecharacteristics, and be guided by the Deng Xiaoping Theory, the “Three Represents”and the scientific approach to development. They must adhere to discharging theirresponsibilities lawfully, to delivering justice for the people, to achieving judicialimpartiality, and must perform intellectual property adjudication based on the spirit ofreform and innovation. They must also continue to expand the mainstream role ofjudicial protection for intellectual property rights and level of protection forintellectual property. They must stay determined and enterprising, resolute andunrelenting. And they must contribute even more to opening new pages in intellectualproperty adjudication, to forging ahead with the innovation-driven developmentstrategy, and to realising the China dream in the pursuit of renaissance of the Chinesenation.

>> Back