#文章僅代表作者觀點，不代表IPRdaily立場#

原標題：最高人民法院知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法庭年度報告（2019）

IPRdaily消息：近日，最高人民法院知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法庭發(fā)布年度報告（2019）。報告指出，統(tǒng)一專利等技術(shù)類知識產(chǎn)權(quán)案件裁判標準，是法庭設(shè)立的重要目標。2019年，法庭立足司法審判職能，依法公正高效審結(jié)了一批專業(yè)技術(shù)性較強的知識產(chǎn)權(quán)案件，形成了一批具有典型示范作用的標桿性判決，建設(shè)實施“統(tǒng)一裁判標準系統(tǒng)工程”，進一步推動了技術(shù)類知識產(chǎn)權(quán)案件裁判尺度的統(tǒng)一。

最高人民法院

知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法庭年度報告

（2019）

前言

十八大以來，以習近平同志為核心的黨中央大力實施創(chuàng)新驅(qū)動發(fā)展戰(zhàn)略，高度重視知識產(chǎn)權(quán)保護，從建設(shè)知識產(chǎn)權(quán)強國和世界科技強國的戰(zhàn)略高度，作出設(shè)立最高人民法院知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法庭(簡稱“法庭”)的重大戰(zhàn)略決策部署。2019年1月1日，法庭正式揭牌成立，成為世界范圍內(nèi)首個在最高法院層面設(shè)立的專門化知識產(chǎn)權(quán)審判機構(gòu)，行使統(tǒng)一審理全國范圍內(nèi)專利、壟斷等技術(shù)類知識產(chǎn)權(quán)上訴案件的終審職能，承擔進一步統(tǒng)一技術(shù)類知識產(chǎn)權(quán)案件裁判尺度、進一步提高審判質(zhì)量和效率、進一步提升司法公信力和國際影響力、進一步為加強創(chuàng)新驅(qū)動發(fā)展戰(zhàn)略和國家知識產(chǎn)權(quán)戰(zhàn)略實施提供司法保障的職責使命。

自成立以來，法庭始終堅持以習近平新時代中國特色社會主義思想為指導(dǎo)，全面貫徹落實黨的十九大和十九屆二中、三中、四中全會精神，切實增強“四個意識”、堅定“四個自信”、做到“兩個維護”。圍繞黨中央賦予的職責使命，積極在最高司法層面統(tǒng)籌國內(nèi)國際兩個大局，堅持“高起點、高標準、高水平、國際化”標準，秉持“創(chuàng)新、精進、智慧、卓越”庭訓(xùn)，不斷深化技術(shù)類知識產(chǎn)權(quán)審判領(lǐng)域改革，充分發(fā)揮技術(shù)類知識產(chǎn)權(quán)審判激勵和保護創(chuàng)新、促進科技進步和社會發(fā)展的職能作用，保障和服務(wù)國家經(jīng)濟社會發(fā)展大局，并在知識產(chǎn)權(quán)國際司法保護實踐和規(guī)則形成中貢獻中國經(jīng)驗和中國智慧，努力推動知識產(chǎn)權(quán)國際規(guī)則和治理體系朝著開放包容、平衡有效的方向發(fā)展。

一、立足審判職能，加強典型示范，進一步統(tǒng)一技術(shù)類知識產(chǎn)權(quán)案件裁判尺度

統(tǒng)一專利等技術(shù)類知識產(chǎn)權(quán)案件裁判標準，是法庭設(shè)立的重要目標。2019年，法庭立足司法審判職能，依法公正高效審結(jié)了一批專業(yè)技術(shù)性較強的知識產(chǎn)權(quán)案件，形成了一批具有典型示范作用的標桿性判決，建設(shè)實施“統(tǒng)一裁判標準系統(tǒng)工程”，進一步推動了技術(shù)類知識產(chǎn)權(quán)案件裁判尺度的統(tǒng)一。

（一）立足審判職能，公正審理案件

2019年，法庭共受理技術(shù)類知識產(chǎn)權(quán)案件1945件，審結(jié)1433件，結(jié)案率73.7%。其中，受理民事二審實體案件962件，審結(jié)586件；受理行政二審案件241件，審結(jié)142件；受理管轄權(quán)異議二審案件481件，審結(jié)446件；受理其它類型案件261件，審結(jié)259件。

1.案件數(shù)據(jù)統(tǒng)計分析

（1）案件來源統(tǒng)計分析

2019年，法庭共受理各類二審案件1684件。其中，一審法院為中級人民法院的為1678件，占比99.6%，一審法院為高級人民法院的為6件，占比0.4%。

就案源地區(qū)分析，案件排名前十位的分別為北京知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法院（376件）、廣州知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法院（297件）、上海知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法院（143件）、南京知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法庭（107件）、深圳知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法庭（96件）、寧波知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法庭（85件）、蘇州知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法庭（71件）、杭州知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法庭（70件）、青島知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法庭（67件）、濟南知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法庭（53件）。上述數(shù)據(jù)大致反映出技術(shù)類知識產(chǎn)權(quán)糾紛在全國的分布情況，并表明：越是經(jīng)濟發(fā)達地區(qū)，涉技術(shù)類知識產(chǎn)權(quán)的經(jīng)濟活動越活躍，相關(guān)糾紛也越多。

（2）案件類型統(tǒng)計分析

在法庭受理的962件民事二審實體案件中，侵害實用新型專利權(quán)糾紛454件，侵害發(fā)明專利權(quán)糾紛234件，涉計算機軟件糾紛142件，涉專利代理、許可合同糾紛40件，技術(shù)合同糾紛26件，涉植物新品種權(quán)糾紛20件，涉技術(shù)秘密糾紛12件，涉壟斷糾紛9件，專利申請權(quán)及專利權(quán)權(quán)屬糾紛9件，涉確認不侵權(quán)糾紛8件，涉職務(wù)發(fā)明人報酬糾紛7件，涉集成電路布圖設(shè)計糾紛1件。其中，占比較高的糾紛類型分別為侵害實用新型專利權(quán)糾紛（47.2%）、侵害發(fā)明專利權(quán)糾紛（24.3%）、涉計算機軟件糾紛（14.8%）。

在法庭受理的241件行政二審案件中，行政授權(quán)確權(quán)類案件230件，行政處罰類案件7件，其他行政案件4件。在行政授權(quán)確權(quán)類案件中，發(fā)明專利權(quán)無效行政糾紛80件，發(fā)明專利申請駁回復(fù)審行政糾紛71件，實用新型專利權(quán)無效行政糾紛57件，實用新型專利申請駁回復(fù)審行政糾紛9件，外觀設(shè)計專利權(quán)無效行政糾紛13件。其中，占比較高的糾紛類型分別為發(fā)明專利權(quán)無效行政糾紛（33.2%）、發(fā)明專利申請駁回復(fù)審行政糾紛（29.5%）、實用新型專利權(quán)無效行政糾紛（23.7%）。

（3）裁判結(jié)果統(tǒng)計分析

2019年，法庭共審結(jié)二審案件1174件。其中，以維持原審裁判方式結(jié)案的為731件，以撤訴方式結(jié)案的為280件，以調(diào)解方式結(jié)案的為71件，調(diào)撤率為29.9%，以發(fā)改方式結(jié)案的為92件，發(fā)改率為7.8%。法庭發(fā)改的92件案件中，民事二審實體案件66件，管轄權(quán)異議二審案件21件，行政二審案件5件。

在法庭審結(jié)的586件民事二審實體案件中，以維持原審裁判方式結(jié)案的為236件，以撤訴方式結(jié)案的為213件，以調(diào)解方式結(jié)案的為71件，調(diào)撤率為48.5%，以發(fā)改方式結(jié)案的為66件，發(fā)改率為11.3%。

在法庭審結(jié)的142件行政二審案件中，以維持原審裁判方式結(jié)案的為126件，以撤訴方式結(jié)案的為11件，以改判方式結(jié)案的為5件，改判率為3.5%。

在法庭審結(jié)的446件管轄權(quán)異議二審案件中，以維持原審裁判方式結(jié)案的有369件，以撤訴方式結(jié)案的有56件，以撤改方式結(jié)案的有21件，撤改率為4.7%。

（4）審理周期統(tǒng)計分析

2019年，法庭二審實體案件平均審理周期為73天，管轄權(quán)異議二審案件平均審理周期為29.4天。法官人均結(jié)案39.2件。

（5）涉外、涉港澳臺案件統(tǒng)計分析

2019年，法庭共受理174件涉外、涉港澳臺案件。其中，民事二審實體案件50件，行政二審案件52件，管轄權(quán)異議二審案件71件，其他案件1件。按地域統(tǒng)計，涉歐盟國家75件，涉美國54件，涉日本15件，涉韓國4件，涉加拿大、以色列各2件，涉澳大利亞、南非各1件，涉港澳臺20件。

法庭共審結(jié)98件涉外、涉港澳臺案件。其中，審結(jié)的實體案件為35件，外方當事人勝訴（包括部分勝訴）21件，港澳臺方當事人勝訴3件，內(nèi)地當事人勝訴11件。

2.案件特點分析

（1）整體案件特點

2019年，法庭審理的技術(shù)類知識產(chǎn)權(quán)案件在整體上具有以下特點：涉及技術(shù)領(lǐng)域廣，社會影響大，程序交織案件多，審理周期短，平等保護中外當事人的合法權(quán)益，加大司法保護力度的導(dǎo)向明顯。

第一，涉及技術(shù)領(lǐng)域廣。當事人訴請保護的知識產(chǎn)權(quán)類型涵蓋了醫(yī)藥、基因、通信、機械、農(nóng)林業(yè)等諸多與國計民生、前沿科技、衣食住行密切相關(guān)的領(lǐng)域。

第二，案件社會影響大。一是案件涉及的知識產(chǎn)權(quán)市場價值較高，權(quán)利人一審主張侵權(quán)賠償額超過1000萬人民幣的案件有17件，過億元的有3件；二是案件涉及標準必要專利、醫(yī)藥專利等前沿科技和國計民生，社會關(guān)注度高。

第三，程序交織案件多。法庭受理不少競爭性互訴案件，當事人在不同法院相互提起多個民事、行政訴訟，涉及不同審級、不同程序的關(guān)聯(lián)案件多。法庭從審理程序、裁判尺度、統(tǒng)籌調(diào)解等多方面著手協(xié)調(diào)處理，成效較好，2019年審結(jié)的二審案件調(diào)撤率達29.9%。

第四，案件審理周期短。由于民事與行政程序交織、技術(shù)事實查明難度大等多方面因素，技術(shù)類知識產(chǎn)權(quán)案件的審理周期一般比較長。法庭2019年審結(jié)的二審實體案件平均審理周期僅為73天，技術(shù)類知識產(chǎn)權(quán)維權(quán)周期長的問題得到有效改善。

第五，平等保護中外當事人的合法權(quán)益。法庭受理的涉外、涉港澳臺案件占比8.9%，有部分案件屬于當事人之間跨國訴訟的一部分，與國外專利侵權(quán)訴訟相互影響。法庭堅持對中外各類市場主體的知識產(chǎn)權(quán)依法一視同仁、平等保護。

第六，加大司法保護力度的導(dǎo)向明顯。運用誠信訴訟機制，在拒不履行文書提出命令、故意毀損被保全產(chǎn)品等情形下采取不利于該行為人的事實推定。在審結(jié)案件中，權(quán)利人勝訴案件占比61.2%。

（2）專利民事案件特點

法庭審理的專利民事案件具有以下特點：

第一，以權(quán)利要求解釋與等同侵權(quán)判定為主要爭議的案件較多。權(quán)利要求解釋關(guān)系到專利權(quán)保護范圍的確定與侵權(quán)比對的結(jié)果，法庭通過個案裁判在功能性特征的認定標準、主題名稱對權(quán)利要求保護范圍的限定作用、捐獻原則的適用等方面進行了深入探索。多起案件涉及等同侵權(quán)判斷問題，如何在維護權(quán)利要求公示作用的同時，給予專利權(quán)人以公平保護，成為案件審理的難點。

第二，合法來源抗辯、現(xiàn)有技術(shù)抗辯、先用權(quán)抗辯為最常見的抗辯事由。提出合法來源抗辯的案件占比最大，爭點多集中在舉證責任的分配、免除賠償責任的范圍等方面?，F(xiàn)有技術(shù)抗辯的提出較為隨意，當事人在二審程序中才首次提出該抗辯的案件占有一定比重。

第三，具有商業(yè)維權(quán)色彩的關(guān)聯(lián)案件占有一定比例。此類案件表現(xiàn)為權(quán)利人以同一專利在全國各地進行批量商業(yè)維權(quán)，所涉專利多為未經(jīng)實質(zhì)審查的實用新型專利，被訴侵權(quán)人多為居于商品流通環(huán)節(jié)下游的小型銷售商。

（3）專利行政案件特點

法庭審理的專利行政案件具有以下特點：

第一，涉發(fā)明專利、涉高新技術(shù)領(lǐng)域的案件多。三種專利類型中，最具技術(shù)含量的發(fā)明專利的案件數(shù)量，在無效宣告和駁回復(fù)審案件中均居于首位，體現(xiàn)了創(chuàng)新主體和相關(guān)公眾對專利價值的重視。在技術(shù)領(lǐng)域方面，機械領(lǐng)域的案件總數(shù)最多，但在無效宣告案件中，電學(xué)領(lǐng)域與機械領(lǐng)域的案件數(shù)并列最多，其中不乏通信技術(shù)、計算機等高新技術(shù)領(lǐng)域的糾紛。化學(xué)領(lǐng)域的無效宣告案件雖總體數(shù)量不多，但普遍集中于醫(yī)藥、生物技術(shù)等重要產(chǎn)業(yè)領(lǐng)域。

第二，多數(shù)案件以創(chuàng)造性判斷為主要爭點。涉及創(chuàng)造性判斷的案件共92件，在審結(jié)的專利行政案件中占比約70%；在撤改一審裁判的案件中，涉及創(chuàng)造性判斷的占比80%。法庭在該類案件的審理中，注重通過“三步法”判斷非顯而易見性，規(guī)范商業(yè)成功因素等輔助判斷的適用，對化合物藥物新晶型、涉保藏生物材料等類型發(fā)明的創(chuàng)造性判斷進行探索，確保真正有價值的發(fā)明創(chuàng)造依法獲得保護。

第三，駁回復(fù)審案件中自然人作為申請人的案件較多。在審結(jié)的57件專利駁回復(fù)審案件中，自然人作為申請人的案件占比75%以上，絕大多數(shù)因不具備創(chuàng)造性、少數(shù)因不具備實用性或不符合授權(quán)主題而被駁回。因錯誤理解專利行政訴訟起訴期限的計算方式而導(dǎo)致起訴不予受理的10件案件中，申請人均為自然人。

（4）涉計算機軟件案件特點

法庭審理的涉計算機軟件案件具有以下特點：

第一，案件類型較為集中。計算機軟件案件主要包括合同案件和侵權(quán)案件兩類。其中，計算機軟件合同案件占全部計算機軟件案件總量的80%以上。

第二，爭議焦點較為集中。尤其是計算機軟件合同案件的爭議焦點，主要集中在開發(fā)成果是否交付、交付內(nèi)容是否符合約定、履行中的變更是否已經(jīng)達成合意、遲延履行應(yīng)當如何認定等問題。

第三，審理難度差異大。計算機軟件侵權(quán)案件中，如果雙方對于軟件侵權(quán)的技術(shù)事實爭議較大，則往往涉及復(fù)雜的源程序比對，審理難度很大；反之則審理難度較低。計算機軟件合同案件中，如果合同約定模糊、有關(guān)履約標準難以確定，則審理難度較大；反之則審理難度較低。

（5）管轄案件特點

法庭審理的管轄案件具有以下特點：

第一，案件數(shù)量較多。基于訴訟策略、管轄規(guī)則復(fù)雜性、管轄連結(jié)點更多等因素，被訴侵權(quán)人在知識產(chǎn)權(quán)案件中對于管轄權(quán)異議有更大爭辯空間。

第二，新難問題較多。如壟斷協(xié)議糾紛的管轄是否適用協(xié)議中的仲裁條款，共謀達成壟斷協(xié)議的行為實施地可否作為壟斷糾紛的管轄連結(jié)點，未起訴銷售商的情況下能否將網(wǎng)絡(luò)平臺商作為管轄連結(jié)點，確認不侵權(quán)案件中專利權(quán)人主張的侵權(quán)行為實施地可否作為管轄連結(jié)點，等等。這些問題反映出，伴隨科學(xué)技術(shù)、商業(yè)模式以及維權(quán)實踐的不斷發(fā)展，技術(shù)類知識產(chǎn)權(quán)案件的管轄呈現(xiàn)出日趨復(fù)雜與多樣化的特點。

第三，司法態(tài)度較寬容。法庭審結(jié)446件管轄權(quán)異議二審案件，以撤改方式結(jié)案的僅為21件，占比4.7%。出于保護權(quán)利人依法行使訴訟權(quán)利，以及適度促進司法競爭的考慮，法庭對權(quán)利人選擇案件管轄連結(jié)點持較為寬容的司法態(tài)度，尊重權(quán)利人對糾紛管轄法院的選擇權(quán)。

（6）其他類型案件特點

法庭審理的涉植物新品種權(quán)案件具有以下特點：第一，涉及的品種與人們?nèi)粘Ｉ钕⑾⑾嚓P(guān)，如玉米、水稻、蜜柚、花卉等；第二，技術(shù)事實的查明難度較大，尤其是“同一性”的判斷難度較大；第三，案件涉及的法律問題多元化，如訴訟主體資格、品種權(quán)保護范圍、合法來源抗辯、侵權(quán)賠償數(shù)額等。

法庭審理的技術(shù)合同案件，多數(shù)以違約行為的審查認定為審理重點，技術(shù)事實的查明對違約行為的認定多具有重大影響。

法庭審理的涉技術(shù)秘密案件，涉及程序問題較多，程序規(guī)則得到進一步明確。

（二）樹立標桿案例，發(fā)揮示范作用

法庭作出的裁判是最高人民法院的裁判，具有終局性和權(quán)威性。法庭充分利用技術(shù)類知識產(chǎn)權(quán)案件二審集中管轄的優(yōu)勢，打造出一批有社會影響力、有統(tǒng)一法律適用標準價值的標桿案例，發(fā)揮引領(lǐng)示范作用。

2019年3月27日，知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法庭由庭長羅東川、副庭長王闖等五人組成合議庭敲響法庭“第一槌”，公開開庭審理了上訴人廈門盧卡斯汽車配件有限公司、廈門富可汽車配件有限公司與被上訴人法國瓦萊奧清洗系統(tǒng)公司等侵害發(fā)明專利權(quán)糾紛一案。從立案、開庭到結(jié)案送達，案件審理過程用時僅50天。該案涉及專利侵權(quán)糾紛的先行判決問題，具有前沿性。通過該案，法庭明晰了功能性特征的認定標準，闡明了判令停止侵害的部分判決尚未發(fā)生效力時臨時禁令的獨特價值，明確了判令停止侵害的部分判決制度和臨時禁令制度并存適用的條件和規(guī)則。該案被確定為最高人民法院指導(dǎo)性案例，并被評為2019年十大民事行政案例。

以“第一槌”為樣板，法庭根據(jù)不同技術(shù)領(lǐng)域知識產(chǎn)權(quán)的特性，通過個案智慧總結(jié)類案經(jīng)驗，樹立了一批標桿案件。如在機械領(lǐng)域，上訴人無錫海斯凱爾醫(yī)學(xué)技術(shù)有限公司與被上訴人彈性測量體系彈性推動公司、原審被告中日友好醫(yī)院侵害發(fā)明專利權(quán)糾紛案，所涉專利為“肝病無創(chuàng)診斷儀”，該案對專利侵權(quán)訴訟中權(quán)利要求保護范圍的解釋、舉證責任的分配、相同和等同技術(shù)特征的判斷等問題確立了裁判規(guī)則。在醫(yī)藥領(lǐng)域，上訴人國家知識產(chǎn)權(quán)局與被上訴人伊拉茲馬斯大學(xué)鹿特丹醫(yī)學(xué)中心、羅杰?金登?克雷格發(fā)明專利駁回復(fù)審行政糾紛案，涉及的發(fā)明為前沿生物基因技術(shù)藥物，法庭厘清了專利創(chuàng)造性判斷與說明書充分公開等法律標準的關(guān)系，促使專利審查實踐中創(chuàng)造性判斷標準回歸核心和本質(zhì)，并對如何在創(chuàng)造性判斷中避免“后見之明”給出了明確指引。在通信領(lǐng)域，上訴人深圳市吉祥騰達科技有限公司與被上訴人深圳敦駿科技有限公司等侵害發(fā)明專利權(quán)糾紛案，所涉專利為“一種簡易訪問網(wǎng)絡(luò)運營商門戶網(wǎng)站的方法”，該案以網(wǎng)絡(luò)通信領(lǐng)域的技術(shù)特點為重要考量因素，確定了多主體實施方法專利的侵權(quán)判斷規(guī)則：以生產(chǎn)經(jīng)營為目的，未經(jīng)許可將專利方法的實質(zhì)內(nèi)容固化在被訴侵權(quán)產(chǎn)品中，對專利權(quán)利要求的技術(shù)特征被全面覆蓋起到了不可替代的實質(zhì)性作用，即構(gòu)成侵害方法專利權(quán)。在植物新品種領(lǐng)域，上訴人蔡新光與被上訴人廣州市潤平商業(yè)有限公司侵害植物新品種權(quán)糾紛案，所涉植物新品種為“三紅蜜柚”，該案對植物新品種權(quán)保護范圍以及被訴侵權(quán)行為的認定等問題確立了裁判規(guī)則，指出在植物體既是繁殖材料又是收獲材料的情形下，應(yīng)審查被訴侵權(quán)的銷售者將其作為繁殖材料還是收獲材料進行銷售的真實意圖。

（三）實施系統(tǒng)工程，統(tǒng)一裁判標準

一年來，法庭建設(shè)和實施“統(tǒng)一裁判標準系統(tǒng)工程”，形成專項規(guī)范、分段保障、嚴管重點的工作體系，為統(tǒng)一技術(shù)類知識產(chǎn)權(quán)案件的裁判標準提供了制度和體系保障。

在制度建設(shè)方面，制定了《知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法庭統(tǒng)一裁判標準實施細則》，明確將涉及同一專利的案件原則上分配給同一法官或者合議庭，保障裁判標準統(tǒng)一。在前端梳理方面，采取系統(tǒng)比對、人工復(fù)核等多項措施識別類案，將涉及相同專利的民事案件、民行交叉案件與當事人關(guān)聯(lián)案件等類案集中分配給同一合議庭。在中間把控方面，完善法官會議制度，法庭全年召開了34次法官會議，統(tǒng)一了120個裁判規(guī)則，并印發(fā)《法官會議紀要摘編》和《辦案提示》，使法官及時掌握重要裁判標準和類案辦理方式；利用“知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法庭講壇”“新知大講堂”等平臺，推動法庭內(nèi)部形成裁判共識；舉辦“知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法庭工作部署暨業(yè)務(wù)培訓(xùn)班”“全國法院技術(shù)類案件審判實務(wù)培訓(xùn)班”，加強對下指導(dǎo)和裁判規(guī)則的向下傳導(dǎo)。在末端審核方面，發(fā)揮法官會議對標桿案件、重大敏感案件的裁判文書的把關(guān)作用，實施文書評查制度，提升裁判文書質(zhì)量。在重點案件方面，建立大要案專報和指導(dǎo)機制，編發(fā)28期《知產(chǎn)法庭工作信息》及特刊，為領(lǐng)導(dǎo)決策提供參考。

二、深化機制改革，推動智能辦案，進一步提高技術(shù)類知識產(chǎn)權(quán)案件審判質(zhì)效

作為世界范圍內(nèi)首個在最高法院層面設(shè)立的審理全國范圍專利等技術(shù)類知識產(chǎn)權(quán)上訴案件的專門化司法機構(gòu)，法庭銳意進取，勇當改革先行者和探索者，創(chuàng)新體制機制，推進信息化建設(shè)，強化隊伍能力，全方位多措施提升技術(shù)類知識產(chǎn)權(quán)案件審判質(zhì)效。

（一）發(fā)揮制度優(yōu)勢，創(chuàng)新審理機制

以創(chuàng)新的方式保護創(chuàng)新，以改革的思維推進改革。一年來，法庭在技術(shù)類知識產(chǎn)權(quán)案件訴訟制度方面實現(xiàn)了一系列突破和創(chuàng)新。

實行集中統(tǒng)一管轄制度和中國特色“飛躍上訴”制度。根據(jù)全國人大常委會《關(guān)于專利等知識產(chǎn)權(quán)案件訴訟程序若干問題的決定》，法庭集中統(tǒng)一管轄全國范圍技術(shù)類知識產(chǎn)權(quán)民事和行政上訴案件。無論技術(shù)類知識產(chǎn)權(quán)案件一審裁判由中級人民法院還是高級人民法院作出，對其提起的上訴均由法庭受理。最高人民法院在中級人民法院一審的技術(shù)類知識產(chǎn)權(quán)案件的上訴管轄上，跨越了高級人民法院，形成了具有中國特色的“飛躍上訴”制度。這不僅有助于統(tǒng)一裁判標準和縮短糾紛解決周期，也凸顯了中國最高司法層面對技術(shù)類知識產(chǎn)權(quán)案件的司法政策和裁判規(guī)則。

探索涉及同一專利民事與行政案件的協(xié)同審理機制。我國專利制度采用民事侵權(quán)程序與行政無效程序的二元分立體制，該體制在實踐中產(chǎn)生的問題是：一方面，專利民事侵權(quán)程序往往受到行政無效程序的影響和制約，程序交疊造成維權(quán)周期延長和維權(quán)結(jié)果反復(fù)；另一方面，專利權(quán)人可能利用分立程序做出不同的權(quán)利要求解釋，在無效程序中以限縮的保護范圍爭取獲得確權(quán)，而在民事侵權(quán)訴訟中以擴大的保護范圍獲得侵權(quán)認定中的優(yōu)勢，從而“兩頭獲利”。法庭充分利用審理權(quán)限集中的優(yōu)勢，在北京知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法院與其他地方法院的支持配合下，建立涉及同一專利民事與行政案件審理工作協(xié)同推進機制，實現(xiàn)權(quán)利效力判斷與侵權(quán)判斷兩大訴訟程序和裁判標準的對接，從機制層面解決專利訴訟周期長、權(quán)利人就同一專利在不同案件中對權(quán)利要求解釋不一致的問題。具體做法是，法庭匯總涉及相同專利的民事、行政案件信息，轉(zhuǎn)遞至專門受理專利行政訴訟的北京知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法院，協(xié)調(diào)案件審理進程、統(tǒng)一案件裁判標準。對于已進入二審階段的此類案件，法庭在“前端梳理”識別的基礎(chǔ)上，積極探索在現(xiàn)行法律框架下破解“二元分立”問題的審理機制。如樂金電子（天津）電器有限公司與廈門實正電子科技有限公司專利權(quán)無效行政糾紛、侵權(quán)糾紛兩案，涉及同一專利，法庭組成相同合議庭，指派相同技術(shù)調(diào)查官，合并召開庭前會議，聚焦審理共同涉及的權(quán)利要求解釋問題，并記載在裁判文書中，架起了專利行政確權(quán)訴訟與民事侵權(quán)訴訟之間的溝通橋梁，是實現(xiàn)專利侵權(quán)民事訴訟與確權(quán)行政訴訟裁判標準對接的一次有益探索。

建構(gòu)“1+76”技術(shù)類知識產(chǎn)權(quán)審判格局，建立統(tǒng)籌聯(lián)動機制。全國有32個高級人民法院、44個中級人民法院對技術(shù)類知識產(chǎn)權(quán)案件享有一審管轄權(quán)，以法庭為上訴機構(gòu)的“1+76”審判格局已初步構(gòu)建，形成“全國一盤棋、上下一條線”，逐步發(fā)揮出統(tǒng)籌聯(lián)動機制的優(yōu)勢和整體效能。一年來，法庭以統(tǒng)籌聯(lián)動機制為依托，擴展糾紛化解渠道方式，跨區(qū)域調(diào)解80個專利侵權(quán)案件，實現(xiàn)了“庭未開、案已結(jié)，人未走、事已了”的良好效果。如在上訴人佟勇華、寧波照華公司與被上訴人余姚普德水器材廠等侵害發(fā)明專利權(quán)糾紛一案中，法庭了解到該案當事人就涉案專利與相關(guān)專利在不同地區(qū)、不同法院尚有其他未結(jié)案件，遂聯(lián)系杭州知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法庭、寧波知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法庭，協(xié)調(diào)合作、共同參與調(diào)解工作，推動涉及三地兩級法院的8個案件一攬子化解。在上訴人江蘇寶雕公司與被上訴人重慶銀鋼公司等侵害發(fā)明專利權(quán)糾紛一案中，法庭在江蘇、四川、重慶等地高級法院的支持下，跨地域、跨程序一攬子化解7件一審、二審與再審案件。

實行全國范圍巡回審判制度。堅持以人民為中心，依托最高人民法院六個巡回法庭和地方法院，探索“知產(chǎn)法庭+巡回法庭”巡回審判模式，建立“勘驗+庭審”案件審理機制，到糾紛發(fā)生地或者一審人民法院所在地巡回審理案件，方便當事人訴訟，促進糾紛就地就近從快解決。一年來，法庭赴南京、深圳、濟南、鄭州、格爾木等地，對潛水泵、大型絲印機等不便運輸?shù)拇笮蜋C械設(shè)備進行現(xiàn)場勘驗，共完成23個案件的現(xiàn)場勘驗和巡回審判，方便了群眾訴訟，豐富了“楓橋經(jīng)驗”的知識產(chǎn)權(quán)保護實踐。如在上訴人東莞市騰飛網(wǎng)印設(shè)備有限公司與被上訴人廣東皓達科技有限公司、原審被告珠海紅森電路板有限公司侵害實用新型專利權(quán)糾紛一案中，因被訴侵權(quán)的大型絲印機不便運輸，且被訴侵權(quán)人上訴主張一審法院未就涉案專利權(quán)利要求1包含的50余項技術(shù)特征進行一一比對，故合議庭決定到位于珠海的工廠現(xiàn)場進行侵權(quán)比對，并在位于深圳的最高人民法院第一巡回法庭公開開庭審理了本案，最終在查明技術(shù)事實的基礎(chǔ)上支持了上訴人的上訴請求。

完善技術(shù)事實查明機制。首先，牽頭籌建“全國法院技術(shù)調(diào)查官、技術(shù)咨詢專家?guī)臁?，匯集全國各地技術(shù)調(diào)查官、技術(shù)咨詢專家360余人，覆蓋30多個技術(shù)領(lǐng)域。其中既有人民法院聘任的技術(shù)調(diào)查官，也有來自國家知識產(chǎn)權(quán)局、科技企業(yè)、高校、科研院所的交流、兼職、志愿者等形式的技術(shù)調(diào)查官與技術(shù)咨詢專家，有效解決技術(shù)事實查明人才來源單一、領(lǐng)域不均、供應(yīng)不足的問題。其次，建立“全國法院技術(shù)調(diào)查資源共享機制”，適用《最高人民法院關(guān)于技術(shù)調(diào)查官參與知識產(chǎn)權(quán)案件訴訟活動的若干規(guī)定》，推動在全國范圍內(nèi)按需調(diào)派技術(shù)調(diào)查官，或參照該規(guī)定調(diào)派技術(shù)咨詢專家。共享機制與專家?guī)靺f(xié)同發(fā)力，使技術(shù)調(diào)查人才通過統(tǒng)一調(diào)派在全國范圍內(nèi)按需流動，發(fā)揮既有資源的最大效用。2019年7月，應(yīng)寧夏回族自治區(qū)銀川市中級人民法院申請，法庭調(diào)派一名機械領(lǐng)域的技術(shù)調(diào)查官參與“免耕式雙壟溝全鋪膜覆土聯(lián)合作業(yè)機”發(fā)明專利侵權(quán)糾紛一案的審理工作。2019年11月，法庭應(yīng)天津知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法庭申請，綜合考慮地域、領(lǐng)域、人員等情況，通過“全國法院技術(shù)調(diào)查官、技術(shù)咨詢專家?guī)臁睆谋本┲R產(chǎn)權(quán)法院調(diào)派一名生物醫(yī)藥領(lǐng)域的技術(shù)調(diào)查官參與“作為心血管的標志和治療靶的1L1RL-1”發(fā)明專利侵權(quán)糾紛一案的審理工作。2019年12月，南京知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法庭積極調(diào)派計算機軟件領(lǐng)域技術(shù)調(diào)查官，協(xié)助最高人民法院知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法庭計算機軟件侵權(quán)案件審理，本案復(fù)雜的源程序事實問題得以正確查明，當事人在新事實的基礎(chǔ)上自愿達成和解，案件得以圓滿解決。最后，針對實踐中存在的技術(shù)調(diào)查官工作認知習慣差異大、參與訴訟細節(jié)規(guī)范不統(tǒng)一等問題，法庭牽頭組織北京、上海、廣州三家知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法院，以及天津、深圳、南京、蘇州等地知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法庭共同編寫，發(fā)布《技術(shù)調(diào)查官工作手冊（2019）》，為全國法院技術(shù)調(diào)查官查明技術(shù)事實提供工作指引和范式。

（二）加強信息化建設(shè)，推動智能辦案

信息化技術(shù)是提升司法審判質(zhì)效的重要手段，法庭高度重視信息化建設(shè)工作，探索大數(shù)據(jù)、人工智能等新一代信息技術(shù)在審判工作中的應(yīng)用，在裁判規(guī)則數(shù)據(jù)庫、科技法庭、遠程質(zhì)證等方面取得了積極進展，并對信息化建設(shè)工作的未來發(fā)展進行了統(tǒng)籌規(guī)劃。

第一，建立以法律適用具體規(guī)則為中心的新型裁判規(guī)則數(shù)據(jù)庫。首批上線的裁判規(guī)則來自最高人民法院指導(dǎo)案例、最高人民法院知識產(chǎn)權(quán)年度報告、全國法院典型案例，以及法庭2019年審結(jié)的具有指導(dǎo)意義的案例，由法庭法官提煉、撰寫，再進行系統(tǒng)梳理和分類。使用者在該數(shù)據(jù)庫輸入關(guān)鍵詞，即可獲得以“規(guī)則腦圖”和“規(guī)則列表”兩種形式展現(xiàn)的相關(guān)裁判規(guī)則。這一展現(xiàn)形式，是根據(jù)案件的類型、領(lǐng)域等特點，按照法律邏輯予以構(gòu)建，呈現(xiàn)系統(tǒng)性的知識結(jié)構(gòu)，區(qū)別于通常的簡單羅列形式，可引導(dǎo)使用者主動學(xué)習并掌握相關(guān)規(guī)則。該數(shù)據(jù)庫既可運用于輔助類案審理，也可運用于檢驗審判質(zhì)效。目前，裁判規(guī)則數(shù)據(jù)庫試運行版已經(jīng)完成，即將正式上線運行，為全國法院技術(shù)類知識產(chǎn)權(quán)案件智能審判提供有力支持。

第二，建設(shè)集信息化終端運用、同步圈畫技術(shù)、AR技術(shù)、語音識別技術(shù)與電子簽名技術(shù)等多項技術(shù)于一體的科技法庭。開庭時，法官席的信息化終端與辦案系統(tǒng)連通，法官可調(diào)閱電子卷宗資料。終端內(nèi)嵌同步圈畫技術(shù)，質(zhì)證過程中，法官和當事人均可通過各自終端用不同顏色的線條、色塊在證據(jù)上進行標記，實現(xiàn)同步圈畫?？萍挤ㄍミ€可運用AR技術(shù)，通過AR眼鏡的現(xiàn)實增強技術(shù)將電路布圖等比較微小、結(jié)構(gòu)精密的證據(jù)投到大屏上，便于查看細微結(jié)構(gòu)?？萍挤ㄍサ恼Z音識別技術(shù)與電子簽名技術(shù)，可以將語音轉(zhuǎn)換為文字實時生成庭審記錄，并以電子簽名代替?zhèn)鹘y(tǒng)簽字，通過一次電子簽名即可實現(xiàn)在庭審筆錄的每一頁均完成簽名。

第三，利用高清視頻遠程傳輸技術(shù)進行遠程質(zhì)證。對于不便移送的證據(jù)，法庭通過高清視頻遠程傳輸技術(shù)進行遠程質(zhì)證。在上訴人北京熱刺激光技術(shù)有限公司、上海容東激光科技有限公司與被上訴人上海嘉定馬陸東方激光管廠侵害發(fā)明專利權(quán)糾紛一案中，被訴侵權(quán)產(chǎn)品系玻璃易碎品，不便遠途運輸，法庭與一審法院上海知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法院溝通協(xié)作,實現(xiàn)了證據(jù)的遠程實時展示與質(zhì)證比對。

第四，統(tǒng)籌規(guī)劃信息化建設(shè)工作的未來發(fā)展。法庭制定了《知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法庭智能化建設(shè)三年發(fā)展規(guī)劃（2019-2021）》，明確信息化建設(shè)目標和思路，提出了“一個平臺”“兩個服務(wù)”“三個場景”“四個連接”“五個重點項目”的建設(shè)思路，打造全面覆蓋、互聯(lián)互通、跨界融合、深度應(yīng)用、透明便民、安全可控的法庭智能化辦案系統(tǒng)?！耙粋€平臺”是指法庭電子訴訟平臺，面向法官、訴訟參與人、社會公眾提供全方位智能服務(wù)?！皟蓚€服務(wù)”是指堅持服務(wù)人民群眾、堅持服務(wù)審判工作。“三個場景”是指將信息化建設(shè)成果體現(xiàn)在訴訟服務(wù)、科技法庭、大數(shù)據(jù)分析平臺三個場景中?！八膫€連接”是指連接有關(guān)下級法院、外部單位、當事人、社會公眾?！拔鍌€重點項目”是指裁判規(guī)則數(shù)據(jù)庫、大數(shù)據(jù)分析平臺、外部數(shù)據(jù)交互平臺、兩級協(xié)同平臺與遠程庭審系統(tǒng)、知產(chǎn)法庭云。

（三）強化隊伍建設(shè)，提升司法能力

隊伍建設(shè)是審判事業(yè)行穩(wěn)致遠的基礎(chǔ)和保障。技術(shù)類知識產(chǎn)權(quán)審判兼具專業(yè)性、前沿性和國際性等特點，審判人員既要有堅定的政治立場，又要有高超的業(yè)務(wù)能力，還需有慎獨慎微的廉潔品質(zhì)，方能有效提升司法能力，成為審判質(zhì)效提升的人才保障。

法庭下設(shè)8個合議庭以及訴訟服務(wù)中心與綜合辦公室，共140名工作人員。法官42人，全部具有碩士研究生以上學(xué)歷，其中37.5%為博士研究生學(xué)歷，22.5%有理工科背景，17.5%有海外留學(xué)經(jīng)歷。部分法官是從最高人民法院選派，多數(shù)法官是從全國專利審判較為成熟的地方法院借調(diào)，還有3名法官是在國家知識產(chǎn)權(quán)局的支持下來法庭交流。法庭的審判隊伍，經(jīng)過層層篩選，實現(xiàn)了優(yōu)中選優(yōu)，是一次全國范圍內(nèi)的“沙場點兵”。法庭充分發(fā)揮人才優(yōu)勢，高標準、嚴要求、多渠道進一步加強隊伍建設(shè)，努力鍛造一支政治堅定、清正廉潔、精通法律、熟悉技術(shù)、既理解中國國情又具有國際視野的審判隊伍。

第一，加強政治建設(shè)，提升隊伍凝聚力。法庭堅持以習近平新時代中國特色社會主義思想為指導(dǎo)，增強“四個意識”、堅定“四個自信”、做到“兩個維護”，堅持黨對人民法院工作的絕對領(lǐng)導(dǎo)，確保黨中央決策部署在法庭得到不折不扣的貫徹落實，確保知識產(chǎn)權(quán)審判工作正確政治方向。落實新時代黨的建設(shè)總要求，全面提升隊伍素質(zhì)能力，樹立正確選人用人導(dǎo)向，弘揚正氣，創(chuàng)先爭優(yōu)，充分調(diào)動各位干警的積極性、主動性和創(chuàng)造性，激勵法庭干警在新時代新環(huán)境有新?lián)斝伦鳛椤?/p>

第二，加強業(yè)務(wù)建設(shè)，提升隊伍履職能力。根據(jù)知識產(chǎn)權(quán)領(lǐng)域思維活躍、知識更新快、國際化程度高等特點，法庭積極創(chuàng)造條件，針對性地加強知識產(chǎn)權(quán)業(yè)務(wù)培訓(xùn)與外語能力培訓(xùn)，提升隊伍履職能力。一年中，舉辦兩期全國審判實務(wù)培訓(xùn)班，深入講解司法政策和裁判規(guī)則，促進全國條線工作統(tǒng)一思想、步調(diào)一致；開展多層次業(yè)務(wù)培訓(xùn)，搭建“新知大講堂”“法庭講壇”等高質(zhì)量常態(tài)化學(xué)習平臺，邀請全國知名專家學(xué)者到法庭授課，并向地方法院同步直播，提升審判隊伍的業(yè)務(wù)素質(zhì)；組建法庭外語工作組，開展線上線下日常外語培訓(xùn)，翻譯域外裁判及前沿學(xué)術(shù)文章。法庭充分發(fā)揮全國審判業(yè)務(wù)專家的榜樣作用，發(fā)揮以點帶面的“領(lǐng)頭羊”作用，努力成為全國法院技術(shù)類專業(yè)審判隊伍的熔爐和學(xué)校。

第三，加強廉潔建設(shè)，鍛造作風過硬隊伍。一方面，根據(jù)審判工作實際，借助新媒體，探索形成“線上線下全覆蓋、教育管理全天候”黨建工作法，以“黨員之家”“學(xué)思踐悟”“知否，知否？”等不同主題的線上互動微平臺，以及“黨建園地”宣傳廊等線下學(xué)習教育平臺為媒介，以立體化、年輕態(tài)、互動性為導(dǎo)向，搭建黨建學(xué)習平臺，緊貼工作實際設(shè)置學(xué)習內(nèi)容，采取互動問答、互教共享的方法檢視學(xué)習效果，打造喜聞樂見的黨建品牌，在中央和國家機關(guān)工委《旗幟》雜志舉辦的第二屆黨建創(chuàng)新成果評選活動中被評為“百優(yōu)案例”。另一方面，建立以《知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法庭關(guān)于從嚴治庭防范風險的意見》為統(tǒng)領(lǐng)的“1+N”制度體系，形成規(guī)章制度50余項，采取發(fā)送“知產(chǎn)家書”等創(chuàng)新形式，增強制度的執(zhí)行力和約束力，推動形成良好的廉政生態(tài)。

三、推進司法公開，開展國際交流，進一步提升司法公信力和國際影響力

在全面建設(shè)法治社會，推進司法體系和司法能力現(xiàn)代化的背景下，社會對司法公開的廣度與深度有著極高的要求。法庭在社會關(guān)注、國際矚目中誕生，秉持高度的自覺性、崇高的使命感，主動推進司法公開，積極參與國際交流，使國內(nèi)外能夠全面、客觀地了解法庭技術(shù)類知識產(chǎn)權(quán)司法保護的制度與實踐。

（一）深化司法公開，提升司法公信力

圍繞“努力讓人民群眾在每一個司法案件中感受到公平正義”目標，法庭以司法公開為核心，以司法宣傳為抓手，不斷增強司法工作的透明度，促進司法公信力的提升。

以司法公開為核心，依法充分公開審判信息。法庭依托最高人民法院搭建的中國審判流程信息公開網(wǎng)、中國庭審公開網(wǎng)、中國裁判文書網(wǎng)、中國執(zhí)行信息公開網(wǎng)等四大公開平臺，實現(xiàn)審判流程的全方位公開。在庭審公開方面，法庭以公開、直播為原則，以不公開為例外。案件的庭審過程既可以在互聯(lián)網(wǎng)上實時觀看，也可以庭后登錄中國庭審公開網(wǎng)查看錄像。重大案件全流程公開，以公開促公正。在裁判文書公開方面，對于依法應(yīng)予公開的裁判文書，法庭及時通過中國裁判文書網(wǎng)發(fā)布。為提升公眾對裁判的認知度，法庭制作的裁判文書均附有裁判要點，對案件所涉法律問題、裁判觀點、裁判結(jié)果均予以簡要釋明，以清晰、理性的釋法闡理讓正義講得明、看得見。

以司法宣傳為抓手，全方位展示法庭工作情況。2019年3月27日，法庭的“第一槌”案件開庭審理，經(jīng)中央電視臺等數(shù)十家媒體進行全媒體直播和廣泛報道，庭審網(wǎng)絡(luò)直播第一時間觀看量達1800余萬次。4月下旬，法庭舉辦“公眾開放周”“知識產(chǎn)權(quán)保護集中開庭周”“法官進校園”等一系列活動，邀請來自社會各界的公眾和媒體記者參觀法庭，體驗訴訟材料電子遞交、典型案例線上檢索等智能化系統(tǒng)，旁聽公開庭審；安排法官走進清華大學(xué)、中國人民大學(xué)、北方工業(yè)大學(xué)等高校，宣介法庭的基本情況與我國知識產(chǎn)權(quán)司法保護的發(fā)展。12月9日至13日，法庭開展“集中宣判周”活動，對6件具有標桿意義的案件進行集中宣判，旁聽的業(yè)界人士表示：“旁聽庭審讓我感受到了知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法庭審判的專業(yè)性和客觀性?！狈ㄍミ€充分利用中英文官網(wǎng)及微信公眾號及時發(fā)布各類司法信息，共計發(fā)稿390篇，點擊量1601.2萬次。

（二）開展國際交流，增強國際影響力

法庭通過對外交流，學(xué)習借鑒國際上保護知識產(chǎn)權(quán)的成功做法，同時向世界講述中國知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法治故事，為世界法治文明貢獻中國智慧。一年中，法庭共開展外事交流活動32次，其中接待來訪18次，出訪8次，參加國內(nèi)涉外活動6次。

第一，加強交流互鑒，“迎進來”充分展示嚴格保護知識產(chǎn)權(quán)國家形象。自成立以來，法庭堅持深化知識產(chǎn)權(quán)國際交流合作，先后接待了世界知識產(chǎn)權(quán)組織、國際知識產(chǎn)權(quán)保護協(xié)會、美國知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法律協(xié)會、美中貿(mào)易全國委員會、國際法院等組織到庭參觀座談。世界知識產(chǎn)權(quán)組織總干事弗朗西斯?高銳在法庭揭牌成立時發(fā)來視頻表示祝賀，認為法庭的成立“體現(xiàn)了中國對知識產(chǎn)權(quán)保護的莊嚴承諾,表達了中國為知識產(chǎn)權(quán)提供更加公正高效司法保護的堅定決心”。美中貿(mào)易全國委員會會長克雷格?艾倫來法庭參訪時表示，法庭的設(shè)立“對于打造國際化、市場化、法治化的營商環(huán)境具有重要意義”。美國知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法律協(xié)會執(zhí)行董事麗莎?約根森參訪時表示，“知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法庭有素質(zhì)非常高的法官，案件的審理會很有效很全面，會對以后的判決一致性有很大的影響?！眹H法院院長阿布杜勒卡維?艾哈邁德?優(yōu)素福到訪時表示，“國際上的知識產(chǎn)權(quán)專家、律師們都會非常關(guān)注知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法庭所做的判決?！ㄍケ囟〞τ谥R產(chǎn)權(quán)中具有爭議的熱點問題有自己的判斷，比如藥品可及性與強制許可、壟斷案件中相關(guān)市場界定、專利權(quán)人和專利使用者、社會公共利益之間關(guān)系的平衡等。我相信發(fā)展中國家會尤其關(guān)注中國在上述類似問題中的作用和采取的路線。”古巴最高人民法院院長魯本?雷米希奧?費羅到訪時表示，“最高法院的各個法庭就各種類別的案件進行專門的數(shù)據(jù)處理，進行案例的匯總以及檢索，這非常具有學(xué)習借鑒意義。最令人稱道的是隨著信息技術(shù)的使用，讓這些高科技的技術(shù)進入到法庭來幫助法官對高技術(shù)類的案件做出更為正確的審判，這是非常好的應(yīng)用。”

第二，堅持國際視野，“走出去”用心講述中國知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法治故事。法庭通過積極參與國際交流活動，展示中國技術(shù)類知識產(chǎn)權(quán)司法保護的成果，宣傳中國技術(shù)類知識產(chǎn)權(quán)司法保護的理念，爭取國際社會對于中國知識產(chǎn)權(quán)保護情況的認知、理解和認同，為知識產(chǎn)權(quán)國際規(guī)則的制定貢獻中國智慧和中國方案。2019年5月，法庭副庭長王闖率中國專利法官代表團一行8人，赴法國、盧森堡和德國進行技術(shù)類知識產(chǎn)權(quán)案件審判專題交流，向歐洲知識產(chǎn)權(quán)司法和實務(wù)界介紹法庭的設(shè)立與我國技術(shù)類知識產(chǎn)權(quán)司法審判制度的創(chuàng)新發(fā)展，傳遞了我國大力加強知識產(chǎn)權(quán)司法保護的強烈信號。2019年6月，法庭副庭長周翔參加由國際知識產(chǎn)權(quán)保護協(xié)會中、日、韓三國分會聯(lián)合主辦的“2019AIPPI中日韓三國分會交流會”，并做英文主旨演講，全面介紹法庭的機構(gòu)設(shè)置和創(chuàng)新工作機制，以及中國知識產(chǎn)權(quán)司法保護的最新發(fā)展。一年中，法庭還有多位法官“走出去”講述中國知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法治故事，如赴美國哈佛大學(xué)、耶魯大學(xué)進行英文宣講，赴英國參加2019年度AIPPI世界大會“模擬法庭”活動，赴瑞士參加世界知識產(chǎn)權(quán)組織執(zhí)法咨詢委員會會議，赴西班牙參加歐盟知識產(chǎn)權(quán)局舉辦的“知識產(chǎn)權(quán)調(diào)解大會”，赴新加坡參加知識產(chǎn)權(quán)周活動全球論壇，赴南非參加“國際無性繁殖觀賞植物與果樹育種者協(xié)會”年會，赴韓國參加WIPO“知識產(chǎn)權(quán)爭端解決繼續(xù)教育課程”，等等。

四、加強調(diào)查研究，統(tǒng)籌推進合作，進一步加強國家戰(zhàn)略司法保障

技術(shù)類知識產(chǎn)權(quán)司法保護，事關(guān)創(chuàng)新驅(qū)動發(fā)展戰(zhàn)略實施與經(jīng)濟社會文化高質(zhì)量發(fā)展，對提升國家戰(zhàn)略實力具有重要意義。法庭充分利用案件數(shù)量多、涉及技術(shù)領(lǐng)域廣的調(diào)研優(yōu)勢，結(jié)合司法審判深入開展調(diào)查研究，服務(wù)決策并提出立法建議，同時積極推動知識產(chǎn)權(quán)保護共同體的構(gòu)建，形成保護合力，促進中央決策和國家戰(zhàn)略精神落地生根。

（一）加強調(diào)查研究，服務(wù)國家發(fā)展大局

第一，起草編制了《知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法庭發(fā)展規(guī)劃（2019-2021）》，對法庭建設(shè)的指導(dǎo)思想、發(fā)展原則、發(fā)展目標、主要任務(wù)、基礎(chǔ)保障、組織實施等方面進行了統(tǒng)籌謀劃，推動法庭長遠發(fā)展，確保中央部署落到實處。

第二，推進各項專題調(diào)查研究。來自全國各地區(qū)、各技術(shù)領(lǐng)域的大量案件為調(diào)研工作提供了優(yōu)質(zhì)資源，法庭以審判團隊為基礎(chǔ)，根據(jù)審判工作需要與法官的研究興趣，圍繞專利法修改、反壟斷、技術(shù)秘密、集成電路布圖設(shè)計、5G技術(shù)、植物新品種等戰(zhàn)略領(lǐng)域與重點問題成立調(diào)研小組，開展專題調(diào)研。已形成《關(guān)于藥品專利鏈接制度的立法建議》《關(guān)于植物新品種權(quán)案件裁判文書分析情況的報告》《專利侵權(quán)案件審理周期及專利無效循環(huán)訴訟實證研究》等9項調(diào)研成果，并就專利法第四次修改向全國人大常委會法工委提交《關(guān)于改革和完善專利無效程序立法的建議》。法庭還與廣州知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法院交流合作，就標準必要專利等問題開展調(diào)研，研究與行業(yè)發(fā)展相適應(yīng)的審判規(guī)則。

第三，植物新品種調(diào)研取得可喜成果。法庭被農(nóng)業(yè)農(nóng)村部評為2019年全國農(nóng)業(yè)植物新品種保護先進集體。為提高中國種業(yè)的自主創(chuàng)新能力，為種業(yè)發(fā)展及國家糧食安全提供司法保障，法庭在審理好植物新品種糾紛案件的基礎(chǔ)上，開展了一系列調(diào)研工作。梳理全國法院近十年審理的植物新品種糾紛案件，形成人民法院植物新品種裁判十年綜述；與農(nóng)業(yè)農(nóng)村部開展植物新品種保護聯(lián)合調(diào)研，赴湖南、海南兩省實地考察，為湖南種業(yè)硅谷、海南自貿(mào)試驗區(qū)和自貿(mào)港的建設(shè)建言獻策；基于調(diào)研掌握的農(nóng)情、種情、維權(quán)實情，圍繞擴大品種權(quán)保護范圍、對實質(zhì)性派生品種進行保護的緊迫性等問題，撰寫植物新品種司法保護專題調(diào)研報告。

（二）推動構(gòu)建保護共同體，形成保護合力

第一，加強與行政部門的溝通合作，形成技術(shù)類知識產(chǎn)權(quán)司法、行政保護合力。自成立以來，法庭積極與國家知識產(chǎn)權(quán)局、農(nóng)業(yè)農(nóng)村部、國務(wù)院反壟斷執(zhí)法部門等溝通合作，不斷提升交流與合作水平，推動形成多方合力，積極服務(wù)保障創(chuàng)新驅(qū)動發(fā)展戰(zhàn)略。加強與國家知識產(chǎn)權(quán)局的合作。雙方就電子送達、遠程交換證據(jù)、數(shù)據(jù)共享等工作基本達成一致，并確定了數(shù)據(jù)交換方式。為確?；ハ嗵峁┑臄?shù)據(jù)內(nèi)容能夠穩(wěn)定快速交換，雙方將進一步研究交換數(shù)據(jù)的專線連接方案。加強與農(nóng)業(yè)農(nóng)村部的合作。法庭與農(nóng)業(yè)農(nóng)村部就植物新品種保護開展聯(lián)合調(diào)研，受農(nóng)業(yè)農(nóng)村部邀請參加農(nóng)業(yè)植物新品種保護工作研討會、植物新品種保護條例修訂研討會、農(nóng)業(yè)植物新品種保護十大典型案例評審會等會議。法庭亦邀請農(nóng)業(yè)農(nóng)村部專家做植物新品種保護專題講座。雙方研究建立溝通合作的長效機制，合力保護國家糧食安全。加強與國務(wù)院反壟斷執(zhí)法部門的合作。就禁止壟斷協(xié)議及反壟斷執(zhí)法規(guī)章的制定，法庭積極為國家市場監(jiān)督管理總局提供修改意見和建議。法庭法官受聘擔任國務(wù)院反壟斷委員會專家咨詢組成員，參與中國競爭政策論壇、大數(shù)據(jù)與反壟斷會議等，為反壟斷競爭政策及法律問題提供咨詢意見。

第二，加強與律師協(xié)會、學(xué)術(shù)界等法律職業(yè)共同體的溝通，形成知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法治保護合力。2019年5月29日，中華全國律師協(xié)會知識產(chǎn)權(quán)專業(yè)委員會參訪法庭，圍繞法庭的建設(shè)發(fā)展、相關(guān)立法的完善、訴訟體驗的優(yōu)化等問題，與法庭法官座談交流。2019年11月23日，法庭庭長羅東川應(yīng)邀出席中國知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法律實務(wù)研討會暨中華全國律師協(xié)會知識產(chǎn)權(quán)專業(yè)委員會2019年年會，介紹法庭情況，并圍繞知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法律人才培養(yǎng)與法律職業(yè)共同體建設(shè)發(fā)表演講。法庭還邀請中國科學(xué)院院士等專家學(xué)者，為法庭干警講授課程，并研討技術(shù)類知識產(chǎn)權(quán)審判相關(guān)法律問題和技術(shù)問題。法庭探索與高校建立長效合作機制，提供司法實踐資源助力高校人才培養(yǎng)。

第三，加強與社會各界的交流，凝聚全社會齊抓共管的知識產(chǎn)權(quán)保護合力。法庭注重通過交流匯聚社會各界智慧資源和專業(yè)合力，共同提升知識產(chǎn)權(quán)司法保護的品質(zhì)和效率，整體提升我國營商環(huán)境。法庭以各項司法宣傳活動為契機，歡迎社會各界人士觀摩庭審、交流座談。一年中，法庭共接待63批970余人次參訪，其中特約監(jiān)督員、特邀咨詢員、全國及地方人大代表和政協(xié)委員29人次。法庭的調(diào)研小組就涉外專利案件管轄及法律適用、專利侵權(quán)損害賠償、植物新品種保護等問題，先后與多家科技創(chuàng)新企業(yè)、專利和法律服務(wù)機構(gòu)進行座談，聽取各方面意見與建議，與社會各界攜手構(gòu)建知識產(chǎn)權(quán)大保護工作格局。

結(jié)束語

2020年是中國全面建成小康社會、實現(xiàn)第一個百年奮斗目標的收官之年，也是國家創(chuàng)新驅(qū)動發(fā)展戰(zhàn)略目標實現(xiàn)過程中，進入創(chuàng)新型國家行列、基本建成中國特色國家創(chuàng)新體系、有力支撐全面建成小康社會目標的實現(xiàn)之年。知識產(chǎn)權(quán)作為創(chuàng)新發(fā)展的基本保障和重要支撐，承載著重要歷史使命，也對司法保護工作提出了更高要求。在新的歷史節(jié)點，法庭將堅持以習近平新時代中國特色社會主義思想為指導(dǎo)，不畏艱險，不懼挑戰(zhàn)，充分發(fā)揮審判職能作用，加大司法保護力度，服務(wù)創(chuàng)新驅(qū)動發(fā)展戰(zhàn)略，以強有力的司法手段激發(fā)全社會創(chuàng)造熱情，釋放創(chuàng)新創(chuàng)業(yè)活力，努力營造法治化、國際化、便利化的國際一流營商環(huán)境，為實現(xiàn)“兩個一百年”奮斗目標、為建設(shè)知識產(chǎn)權(quán)強國和世界科技強國提供更加有力的司法服務(wù)和保障，為實現(xiàn)中華民族偉大復(fù)興的中國夢做出新的更大貢獻！

Annual Report of

the Intellectual Property Court of

the Supreme People’s Court

(2019)

Introduction

Since the 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China (CPC), the Central Committee of the CPC with President Xi Jinping as the core leader has actively implemented an innovation-driven development strategy, attached immense importance to intellectual property rights protection, and made major strategic decisions and arrangements for the establishment of the Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People’s Court (hereinafter referred to as “the IP Court”) to build China into an IP power and a science and technology power in the world. On January 1st, 2019, the IP Court was officially unveiled and became the first specialized IP court at the highest court level worldwide. The IP Court exercises final instance judicial function by hearing appeals on patents, monopoly and other technology-related IP cases from across China. It also undertakes the responsibilities and mission to further unify judicial standards for technology-related IP cases, improve the quality and efficiency of trials, enhance judicial trustworthiness and international influence, and provide judicial guarantees for strengthening innovation-driven development strategies and the implementation of national intellectual property strategies.

Since its establishment, guided by the Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, the IP Court has comprehensively implemented the decisions formulated at the 19th National Congress of the CPC, and the second, third and fourth plenary sessions of the 19th Central Committee of the CPC, enhanced the “Four Consciousnesses”, fostered “Four Matters of Confidence”, and ensured “Two upholds”. Focusing on the duties and missions entrusted by the Party Central Committee, the IP Court actively seeks a holistic approach at the highest judicial level to both the domestic and international situations, focusing on the “high starting point, high caliber, high level, and international standards” and adhering to the court motto of “Innovation, Perseverance, Prudence, and Preeminence,” and continues to deepen reforms in the field of technology-based intellectual property trials and gives full play to the function of technology-related intellectual property trials to stimulate and protect innovation and to promote scientific and technological progress and social development, so as to safeguard and serve the overall national economic and social development, to contribute Chinese experience and wisdom in the formulation of international intellectual property protection practice and rules, and to strive to promote open, inclusive, balanced, and effective development of international intellectual property rules and governance systems.

Ⅰ. Focus on the function of trial to strengthen typical exemplary effect of model cases and further unify the standards for adjudicating technology-related IP cases

Unifying the standards for adjudicating patent and other technology-related IP cases is the primary goal of the IP Court. In 2019, the IP Court focused on the function of trial and concluded a number of closely technology-related IP cases justly and efficiently in accordance with the law. A number of model judgments that have typical exemplary effect were made, and the “systematization project to unify judicial standards” has been implemented, further promoting the unification of judicial standards for technology-related IP cases.

1. Focus on the function of trial to try cases fairly

In 2019, the IP Court accepted a total of 1,945 technology-related IP cases and concluded 1,433 cases, with a closing rate of 73.7%. Among the newly accepted cases, 962 were civil substantive cases of second instance, of which 586 were concluded; 241 were administrative cases of second instance, of which 142 were concluded; 481 were challenge to jurisdiction cases of second instance, of which 446 were concluded; and 261 were other types of cases, of which 259 were concluded.

(1) Statistical analysis of the cases

① Statistical analysis of the source of cases

In 2019，the IP Court accepted a total of 1,684 various types cases of second instance. Among them, 1,678 were appealed against judgments made by Intermediate People’s Courts in the first instance, accounting for 99.6%; and 6 were appealed against judgments made by High People’s Courts in the first instance, accounting for 0.4%.

In terms of the source regions of the cases, the top ten include: Beijing Intellectual Property Court (376 cases), Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court (297 cases), Shanghai Intellectual Property Court (143 cases), Nanjing Intellectual Property Tribunal (107 cases), Shenzhen Intellectual Property Tribunal (96 cases), Ningbo Intellectual Property Tribunal (85 cases), Suzhou Intellectual Property Tribunal (71 cases), Hangzhou Intellectual Property Tribunal (70 cases), Qingdao Intellectual Property Tribunal (67 cases), and Jinan Intellectual Property Tribunal (53 cases). The above data roughly reflect the distribution of technology-related IP disputes across the country. It is clear from the above data that economically developed regions tend to have more economic activities involving technology-related intellectual property and accordingly, there are more related disputes.

②Statistical analysis of the types of cases accepted

Among the 962 civil substantive cases of second instance accepted by the IP Court, there were 454 disputes over infringement of utility model patent rights, 234 disputes over infringement of invention patent rights, 142 disputes over computer software, 40 disputes over patent agency and licensing contracts, 26 disputes over technical contracts, 20 disputes over new plant variety rights, 12 disputes over technical secrets, 9 disputes over monopoly, 9 disputes over patent application rights and patent ownership, 8 disputes over confirmation of non-infringement, 7 disputes over remuneration to service inventors, and 1 dispute over layout design of integrated circuits. The majority of the cases are disputes over infringement of utility model patent rights (47.2%), disputes over infringement of invention patent rights (24.3%), and disputes over computer software (14.8%).

Among the 241 administrative cases of second instances accepted by the IP Court, there are 230 cases of administrative grant and affirmation, 7 administrative penalty cases, and 4 other administrative cases. Among the cases of administrative grant and affirmation, there are 80 administrative disputes over invalidation of patent rights, 71 administrative disputes over reexamination of invention patent applications, 57 administrative disputes over invalidation of utility model patent rights, 9 administrative disputes over reexamination of utility model patent applications, and 13 administrative disputes over invalidation of design patent rights. The majority of the cases are administrative disputes over invalidation of invention patent rights (33.2%), administrative disputes over reexamination of invention patent applications (29.5%), and administrative disputes over invalidation of utility model patent rights (23.7%).

③ Statistical analysis of judgment results

In 2019, the IP Court concluded a total of 1,174 cases of second instance. Among them, 731 cases were concluded with the decisions of the first instance being affirmed; 280 cases were concluded with the appeals being withdrawn, 71 cases were concluded through mediation, with the mediation and withdrawal rate of 29.9%; and 92 cases were concluded by either being sent back for retrial or reversal of decisions on appeal, with the send back and reversal rate of 7.8%. Of the 92 send back for retrial or reversal cases concluded by the IP Court, there were 66 civil substantive cases of second instance, 21 cases of second instance on challenge to jurisdiction, and 5 administrative cases of second instance.

Of the 586 civil substantive cases of second instance concluded by the IP Court, 236 were concluded with the decision of the first instance being affirmed; 213 cases were concluded with the appeals being withdrawn, 71 cases were concluded through mediation, with the mediation and withdrawal rate of 48.5%; and 66 cases were concluded by either being sent back for retrial or reversal of decisions on appeal, with the send back and reversal rate of 11.3%.

Of the 142 administrative cases of second instance concluded by the IP Court, 126 cases were concluded with the decision of the first instance being upheld; 11 cases were concluded with the appeals being withdrawn; and 5 cases were concluded by reversal of decisions on appeal, with the reversal rate of 3.5%.

Of the 446 cases of second instance on challenge to jurisdiction concluded by the IP Court, 369 cases were concluded with the decisions of the first instance being affirmed; 56 cases were concluded with the appeals being withdrawn; and 21 cases were concluded by reversal of decisions on appeal, with the reversal rate of 4.7%.

④ Statistical analysis of trial period

In 2019, the average trial period for substantive cases of second instance tried by the IP Court was 73 days, and 29.4 days for cases of second instance on challenge to jurisdiction. The closing rate was 39.2 cases per judge.

⑤ Statistical analysis of cases involving a party from foreign country, Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan Region

In 2019, the IP Court accepted 174 cases involving a party from foreign country, Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan region. Among them, there were 50 civil substantive cases of second instance, 52 administrative cases of second instance, 71 cases of second instance on challenge to jurisdiction, and 1 other case. By region, there were 75 cases involving EU countries, 54 cases involving the United States, 15 cases involving Japan, 4 cases involving South Korea, 2 cases involving Canada and Israel, respectively, 1 case involving Australia and South Africa, respectively, and 20 cases involving Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan.

The IP Court concluded 98 cases involving a party from foreign country, Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan region. Among them, 35 substantive cases were concluded, of which 21 were won by foreign parties (including partially won), 3 were won by Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan parties, and 11 were won by parties of the Chinese mainland.

(2) Case characteristics analysis

① Overall characteristics of cases

In 2019, technology-related IP cases tried by the IP Court share the following characteristics: they involve a wide range of technologies; they have a large social impact; many of them involve interconnected procedures; the trial period is short; the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese and foreign parties are equally protected; and the direction for increasing the judicial protection is clear.

(i) The cases involve a wide range of technologies. The types of intellectual property rights claimed by the parties involve many fields that are closely related to national economy, people’s livelihood, cutting-edge technology, clothing, food, housing, and transportation, including medicine, gene, telecommunications, machinery, agriculture, and forestry.

(ii) The cases have a large social impact. One is the high market value of the intellectual property involved in the cases. There are 17 cases of first instance in which the obligee claimed infringement damages of over RMB 10 million, including 3 cases with claims over RMB 100 million. Two is the high degree of attention from society when the cases involve cutting-edge technologies or national economy and people’s livelihood, such as standard essential patents (SEPs), pharmaceutical patents, etc.

(iii) The cases involve interconnected procedures. The IP Court accepted many mutually competitive litigation cases where the parties file multiple civil and administrative litigations against each other in different courts. There were many related cases involving different trial levels and different procedures. The IP Court achieved good results by coordinating and handling the cases from the aspects of trial procedures, judgment standards, holistically mediation, etc., and the percentage of mediation and withdrawal rate of second instance cases concluded in 2019 was 29.9%.

(iv) The trial period of the cases is short. Due to various factors such as interconnected civil and administrative procedures, and difficulty in finding technical facts, the trial period for technology-related IP cases is generally longer. However, the average trial period for substantive cases of second instance concluded by the IP Court in 2019 was only 73 days, which indicated that the trial period for cases involving the protection of technology-related intellectual property rights had been considerably shortened.

(v) The legitimate rights and interests of Chinese and foreign parties are equally protected. The cases involving a party from foreign country, Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan region accounted for 8.9% of all cases accepted by the IP Court. Some of the cases were part of transnational litigation between the parties, which interplayed with foreign patent infringement litigation and together constituted an integral part of the parties’ business competition strategy. The IP Court continues to insist on equal treatment and equal protection of the intellectual property rights of both Chinese and foreign market entities of various types, according to law.

(vi) The direction for increasing the judicial protection is clear. A good-faith litigation mechanism is adopted and in the event of refusal to perform an order on presenting documents, intentional damage to the product in preservation, etc., a presumption of fact against the actor is taken. Among the cases concluded, cases supporting the obligee’s claims according to law, account for 61.2%.

② Characteristics of civil patent cases

The civil patent cases heard by the IP Court have the following characteristics:

(i) There are many cases where claim construction and the determination of equivalent infringement are the main disputes. Since claim construction is related to the determination of the scope of protection of patent rights and the result of comparing infringing technologies, through the judgment in individual case, the IP Court conducts in-depth exploration of the identification criteria of functional features, the limitation of subject names on the protection scope of the claims, and the application of the dedication doctrine. As there are many cases involving the judgment of equivalent infringement, how to maintain the publicity function of patent claims while granting fair protection to patent holders becomes the main difficulty in hearing such cases.

(ii) The legitimate source defense, the prior art defense, and the preemption defense are the most common defenses. Cases where the legitimate source defenses are proposed, account for the largest proportion, and most of the disputes focus on the distribution of burden of proof and the scope of exemption from liability for damages. The prior art defense is relatively arbitrary, and parties who file or present the prior art defense for the first time during the second-instance procedure, account for a large proportion.

(iii) Related cases with commercial rights protection account for a certain proportion. In such cases, the obligee carries out large-scale and centralized commercial rights protection across the country with the same patent. Most of the patents involved are utility model patents that have not been substantively examined, and most of the alleged infringers are small downstream vendors in the goods supply chain.

③ Characteristics of administrative cases concerning patents

The administrative cases concerning patents heard by the IP Court have the following characteristics:

(i) There are many cases involving invention patents and high-tech fields.Among the three types of patents, invention patents are the most technical, and invention patent cases rank first among declaration of invalidity cases and reexamination cases, reflecting the importance attached to patent value by inventors and the relevant public. In terms of the technical field, most number of cases involves the mechanical field, but among declaration of invalidity cases, cases in the electrical field and the mechanical field account for the most number. There are also many disputes in high-tech fields such as telecommunication technology and computers. Although the total number of declaration of invalidity cases is small in the chemical field, they are generally concentrated in important industries such as pharmaceuticals and biotechnology.

(ii) Judgment of inventiveness is the main dispute in most cases. There were a total of 92 cases involving inventiveness judgment, accounting for about 70% of patent administrative cases, and among the cases where the judgment of the first instance was reversed, 80% involve examination of inventiveness. In the trial of such cases, the IP Court judges attach importance to determination of non-obviousness by using the “three-step approach”, standardize auxiliary considering factors such as commercial success, and explore judgment of inventiveness concerning compound medicines in new crystalline form, preserved biomaterials, etc., so as to ensure that truly valuable inventions are protected according to law.

(iii) Among the cases sent back for retrial, many cases have natural persons as the applicants. Of the 57 reexamination cases, 75% of the cases have natural persons as the applicants. Most of them were dismissed due to lacking of inventiveness, and a few lacking of either practical applicability or patent subject matter eligibility. The applicants were natural persons in 10 cases where the cases were not accepted due to a misunderstanding of the calculation method for the time limit of litigation filing in patent administrative litigation.

④Characteristics of cases concerning computer software

Cases concerning computer software heard by the IP Court have the following characteristics:

(i) The types of the cases are relatively concentrated. There are mainly two types of software cases: contract cases and infringement cases and the former accounts for over 80% of its total number.

(ii) The focus of the disputes is relatively concentrated. In particular, software contract cases mainly focus on whether the software are developed and delivered, whether the software developed meets the agreement, whether the parties have agreed on the changes in performing the contract, and whether there is delay in performance, etc.

(iii) The difficulty of settlement varied greatly. In software infringement cases, if there is an argument about the technical facts of infringement, complex comparison of the source program, which proves difficult, is usually necessary between the allegedly infringing software and the copyrighted software; if no such argument occurs, the case is easy to solve. In software contract cases, if the agreement terms are vague or the performance standards are not well defined in the contract, the case is difficult to solve; otherwise, it proves easy.

⑤Characteristics of cases concerning jurisdiction

Cases concerning jurisdiction heard by the IP Court have the following characteristics:

(i) The number is large. Based on the litigation strategy, the complexity of jurisdictional rules, and the existence of more jurisdictional connection points, the alleged infringer has more arguments to challenge the jurisdiction in IP cases.

(ii) There are many new issues with great difficulties. These issues include whether the arbitration clause in the agreement applies to the jurisdiction of monopoly agreement disputes; whether the place where a monopoly agreement is reached can be considered as the connection point for the jurisdiction of monopoly disputes; can the network platform provider be taken as the connection point for jurisdiction in cases where the vendor is not sued; whether the place where the act of infringement is committed claimed by the patent owner can be the connection point for jurisdiction in the disputes over confirmation of non-infringement, etc. These issues reflect that with the continuous development of technology, business models, and rights protection practices, the jurisdiction of technology-related IP cases has become increasingly complex and diverse.

(iii) The judicial position is relatively lenient. Of the 446 cases of second instance on challenge to jurisdiction concluded by the IP Court, only 21 were concluded by reversal, accounting for 4.7%. In order to protect the obligee’s in exercising its litigation rights according to law and to moderately promote judicial competition, the IP Court has a more lenient judicial position towards the obligee’s choice of connection point of jurisdiction and respects the olibgee’s right to choose the court of dispute jurisdiction.

⑥ Characteristics of other types of cases

Cases concerning new plant variety rights heard by the IP Court have the following characteristics:

(i) The varieties involved are closely related to people’s daily lives, such as corn, rice, honey pomelo, flowers, etc.

(ii) The identification of technical facts is more difficult, and it is especially difficult to determine the “identity.”

(iii) The legal issues involved in the cases are diverse, such as the standing of parties in the litigation, the scope of protection of variety rights, the defense of legitimate sources, and the amount of damages, etc.

Most of the technical contract cases heard by the IP Court take the review and judgment of breach of contract as the focus of the trial, and the technical fact finding has a major impact on the determination of breach of contract.

The cases concerning technical secret heard by the IP Court involve many procedural issues, through which the IP Court has further clarified the procedural rules.

2. Create model cases with typical exemplary effect

Judgments rendered by the IP Court are judgments of the Supreme People’s Court, and are final and authoritative. The IP Court comprehensively leverages its centralized jurisdiction over technology-related IP cases of second instance to create model cases with typical exemplary effect, social influence, and uniform legal application standards.

On March 27th, 2019, the collegial panel of the IP Court consisting of Chief Judge Luo Dongchuan and Deputy Chief Judge Wang Chuang “struck the gavel for the first time” when they tried in public the first technology-related IP case—an invention patent infringement dispute of Xiamen Lukasi Automobile Parts Co., Ltd. and Xiamen Fuke Automobile Parts Co., Ltd. (Appellants) v. VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE (Respondent). From filing time of this second instance case to court hearing, closing and service of judgment, the IP Court took only 50 days. The case involved a frontier issue of preliminary judgment on patent infringement. Through this case, the IP Court clarified the criteria for determining functional feature, the unique value of the preliminary injunction when the preliminary decision involving the permanent injunction has not yet taken effect, and the applicable conditions and rules when the preliminary injunction and the preliminary judgment involving permanent injunction coexist. The case was identified as a guiding case by the Supreme People’s Court, and included in the “Top Ten Model Civil and Administrative Cases in 2019”.

Taking “this first gaveled case” as a model, the IP Court summarized its experiences from individual cases to try similar cases based on the characteristics of intellectual property in different technical fields, and established a number of model cases. For example, in the field of machinery, the invention patent infringement case of Wuxi Hisky Medical Technologies Co., Ltd. (Appellant) v. Echosens (Respondent) and China-Japan Friendship Hospital (Defendant in the first instance) was tried by the IP Court. The patent involved was that of a “non-invasive diagnostic instrument for liver disease.” The case established the rules for claim construction in patent infringement litigation, the distribution of burden of proof and the determination of the literal and equivalent infringement. In the field of pharmaceuticals, an administrative reexamination dispute over invention patent of the National Intellectual Property Administration, PRC (Appellant) v. Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam and Roger Kingdon Craig (Respondents) was tried by the IP Court. The IP Court clarified the relationship between the patent inventiveness examination and the full disclosure of the specification and other legal standards, promoted the inventiveness examination standards to return to the core and essence in patent examination, and gave clear guidance on how to avoid "hindsight" in the inventiveness examination. In the field of telecommunications, the invention patent infringement case of Shenzhen Jixiang Tenda Technology Co., Ltd. (Appellant) v. Shenzhen Dunjun Technology Co., Ltd. (Respondent) involved the patent for “a method for easy access to a portal website of a network operator”. This case, taking the technical characteristics of the network telecommunication field as an important consideration, set up a new adjudication rule on multi-actor method patent infringement, that is, if the alleged infringer, without the patentee’s permission, realizes the substance of the patented method of the allegedly infringing product for the purpose of production and operation, and plays an irreplaceable and substantial role in the comprehensive coverage of the technical features of the patent claims; then in such a case, it should be held as an infringement on the method patent. In the field of new plant varieties, the case of dispute over new plant variety rights of Cai Zinguang (Appellant) v. Guangzhou Runping Commercial Co., Ltd. (Respondent) involved a “three red pomelo” new plant variety. The case established the adjudication rules on the scope of protection of new plant variety rights and the determination of an infringement. It established that where the plant is both propagating and harvested material, the true intention of the allegedly infringing seller to sell it as a propagating material or harvested material should be examined.

3. Implement a systemization project to unify judicial standards

Over the past year, the IP Court has built and implemented the “systemization project to unify judicial standards”, and established a working system with special standards, subsection guarantees, and strict management of key points, providing institutional and system guarantees for the unified judicial standards for technology-related IP cases.

With respect to system development, the “Implementation Rules for Unifying Judicial standards of the IP Court” was formulated, which clarifies and distributes cases involving the same patent to the same judge or collegial panel in principle, to ensure the uniformity of judicial standards. With respect to front-end sorting, multiple measures such as system comparison and manual review have been adopted to identify similar cases. Civil cases involving the same patent, interconnected civil-administrative cases, and cases with related parties, are collectively allocated to the same collegial panel. With respect to mid-end control, the judge meeting system has been improved. The IP Court held 34 judge meetings throughout the year, unified 120 adjudication rules, and issued the Excerpts from the Minutes of Judge Meetings and Tips for Handling Cases, so that judges can master important judicial standards and case handling methods in a timely manner. Using platforms such as “The IP Court Forum” and “The New Knowledge Lecture Hall,” the IP Court managed to establish adjudication consensus within the IP Court. It also organized “The IP Court Work Deployment and Professional Training Courses” and “Adjudication Practice Training Courses for Technical Cases in People’s Courts,” to strengthen transmission of guidance and adjudication rules to the lower courts. With respect to back-end review, the judge meetings have been used to check the judgment documents of model cases and major sensitive cases. A document evaluation system has been set up to improve the quality of judgment documents. With respect to key cases, a special case report and guidance mechanism for major cases has been established, with 28 Work Information of the IP Court issues and special issues being compiled and distributed, to provide references for leadership decisions.

Ⅱ. Deepen institutional reform, promote intelligent case handling, and further improve the quality and effectiveness of technology-related IP case trials

As the first specialized judicial institution established at the highest court level in the world to handle nationwide patent and other technology-related IP appeals, the IP Court is determined to forge ahead, act as a pioneer and explorer for reform, innovate systems and mechanisms, promote informatization, strengthen team capabilities, and take comprehensive and multiple measures to improve the quality and effectiveness of technology-related IP case trials.

1. Leverage institutional strengths and innovate the trial mechanism

The IP Court aims to protect innovations in an innovative manner and promotes reform with a reform mindset. Over the past year, it has achieved several breakthroughs and innovations in the litigation system for technology-related IP cases.

Implement a centralized and unified jurisdiction system and a “Leapfrog Appeal” system with Chinese characteristics. According to the Decision of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress on Several Issues concerning Judicial Procedures for Patent and Other Intellectual Property Cases, nationwide civil and administrative appeals involving technology-related intellectual property are tried under the unified jurisdiction of the IP Court. Whether the first-instance judgment of a technology-related IP case is made by an Intermediate People’s Court or a High People’s Court, all appeals are handled by the IP Court. In terms of the technology-related IP appeals against the first instance judgment made by an Intermediate People’s Court, a “Leapfrog Appeal” system with Chinese characteristics has been created. The appeals leapfrog a High People’s Court from an Intermediate People’s Court to the Supreme People’s Court. This not only helps to unify judicial standards and shorten the duration of dispute resolution, but also highlights the judicial policy and adjudication rules for technology-related IP cases at the highest judicial level in China.

Explore a collaborative trial mechanism for civil and administrative cases involving the same patent. China’s patent system adopts a dual system for civil infringement procedures and administrative invalidation procedures. Problems arising from the implementation of this system are: on the one hand, civil infringement procedures concerning patents are often affected and constrained by the administrative invalidation procedures, and the overlapping procedures results in longer time required for patent protection and relapsed results; on the other hand, patentees can use separate procedures to make different claim constructions by arguing for a limited scope of protection in administrative invalidation procedures to obtain affirmation and an expanded scope of protection in civil infringement proceedings to obtain an advantage in the determination of infringement, thus the patentee can “profit from both sides.” With the support of Beijing Intellectual Property Court and other local courts, the IP Court has taken full advantage of its centralized jurisdiction, and established a collaborative advancement mechanism for civil and administrative cases involving the same patent, to synergize the determination of the patent validity and the determination of infringement, thus resolving the problem of long period for patent litigation and the plaintiff’s inconsistent claim constructions for the same patent in different cases at the mechanism level. The specific approach is that the IP Court collects the information of the cases involving the same patent and forwards it to the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, to coordinate the trial process and to unify the judicial standard. For cases that have entered the second-instance stage, the IP Court actively utilizes the trial mechanism to solve the problems arising from the dual system under the current legal framework, on the basis of “front-end sorting.” For example, the patent invalidation administrative dispute and infringement dispute of Lejin Electronics (Tianjin) Electrical Appliance Co., Ltd. v. Xiamen Power Electronic Technology Co., Ltd. involved the same patent. The IP Court established the same collegial panel and appointed the same technical investigators to convene a pre-trial meeting, focused on the claim construction issues involved in both cases, and recorded them in the judgment document. By doing so, a bridge of communication between the administrative litigation and the civil litigation is built, which enabled coordination of judicial standards for the civil litigation concerning patent infringement and the administrative litigation concerning patent invalidation.

Develop a “1+76” model for technology-related IP case trials and establish an integrated coordination mechanism. There are 32 High People’s Courts and 44 Intermediate People’s Courts in China that have jurisdiction over technology-related IP cases of first instance. A preliminary “1 + 76” model for technology-related IP case trials with the IP Court as the appellate body has been developed to ensure overall planning and nationwide concerted efforts, and to gradually exert the advantages and overall effectiveness of an integrated coordination mechanism. Over the past year, the IP Court has utilized the integrated coordination mechanism to expand dispute resolution channels and mediate 80 patent infringement cases across regions, and has achieved satisfactory results by “closing cases before the court session begins and resolving disputes before the relevant parties depart.” For example, in the invention patent infringement case of Tong Yonghua and Ningbo Zhaohua Environmental Technology Co., Ltd. (Appellants) v. Yuyao Pude Water Equipment Factory, et al. (Respondents), the IP Court found out that the parties involved had other outstanding cases in different regions and courts with respect to the same patent and other relevant patents; the IP Court then contacted Hangzhou IP Tribunal and Ningbo IP Tribunal. These three courts at three regions and two levels coordinated, cooperated, and jointly participated in the mediation and settled eight cases with one package solution. In the invention patent infringement case of Jiangsu Baodiao Motor Vehicle Co., Ltd. (Appellant) v. Chongqing Yingang Technology (Group) Co., Ltd. et al. (Respondents), with the support of the High People’s Courts in Jiangsu, Sichuan, Chongqing, etc., the IP Court achieved a resolution of 7 cases of first-instance, second-instance and retrial, across regions and procedures.

Implement a nationwide circuit trial system. Insisting on putting the people at the center, supported by the 6 Circuit Courts of the Supreme People’s Court and the local courts, the IP Court has explored the circuit trial model of “the IP Court + Circuit Courts”, established a case trial mechanism of “Investigation + Court Hearing”, and arranged circuit trials of the case at the place where the dispute occurred or where the People’s Court of first instance is located, so as to facilitate litigation and promote prompt and on-spot resolution of disputes. Over the past year, the IP Court visited Nanjing, Shenzhen, Jinan, Zhengzhou, Golmud, and other places to conduct onsite investigations on submersible pumps, large screen printing machines, and other large mechanical equipment that are difficult to transport. A total of 23 cases’ onsite investigations and circuit trials were completed, which facilitated the litigation by the public and enriched the intellectual property protection practice of “Fengqiao Experience”. For example, in the case of infringement of utility model patent rights of Dongguan City Topfly Packaging and Printing Co., Ltd. (Appellant) v. Haoda Screen Printing Machinery (Respondent), and Zhuhai Hongsen Circuit Board Co., Ltd. (defendant in the first instance), since it was inconvenient to transport the alleged infringer’s large screen printing machine, and as the alleged infringer had appealed that the court of first instance did not separately compare the 50 technical features included in the patent claim 1 involved, the collegial panel decided to visit the factory in Zhuhai to compare the suspected infringements. The case was heard in public at the First Circuit Court of the Supreme People’s Court in Shenzhen. Finally, the Appellant’s appeal was supported on the basis of ascertained technical facts.

Improve the technical fact finding mechanism. First, the IP Court has led the preparation of the “Database of Technical Investigators and Technical Consulting Experts for Chinese Courts,” bringing together more than 360 technical investigators and technical consulting experts from all over the country, covering more than 30 technical fields. These include technical investigators employed by the People’s Courts, as well as technical investigators and technical consulting experts from China National Intellectual Property Administration, scientific and technological enterprises, universities, research institutes working as exchange personnel, part-timers, volunteers, etc., which has helped effectively solve the problems of single source, unbalanced distribution in fields, and insufficient talent supply. Second, the IP Court has established a “Technical Investigation Resource Sharing Mechanism for Chinese Courts,” adopted the Several Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Technical Investigators’ Participation in Legal Proceedings of Intellectual Property Cases, and has promoted the on-demand deployment of technical investigators nationwide or dispatching of technical consulting experts based on the Several Provisions. The sharing mechanism and the database work together to enable technical investigation talents to be dispatched on demand throughout China based on unified deployment, maximizing the effectiveness of existing resources. In July 2019, the IP Court deployed a technical investigator in the mechanical field, at the request of the Intermediate People’s Court of Yinchuan of Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region, to participate in the trial of a patent infringement case of a “no-tillage double-furrow all-plastic-film mulching and earthing combined machine”. In November 2019, the IP Court, at the request of the Tianjin IP Tribunal, took into account the overall situation with respect to the region, field, personnel, etc., and deployed a technical investigator in the field of biomedicine from the Beijing Intellectual Property Court through the “Database of Technical Investigators and Technical Consulting Experts for Chinese Courts”, to participate in the patent infringement case trial for “1L1RL-1 as a cardiovascular disease marker and therapeutic target”. In December 2019, Nanjing IP Tribunal proactively arranged its technical investigator in the computer software field to facilitate the IP Court in handling of a computer software copyright infringement case, in which the complicated source-code-related facts were correctly ascertained, and hence the parties settled their dispute through mediation in a sound way on the basis of the newly ascertained technical facts. Third, to solve the practical problems that exist, such as the difference in work and knowledge cognition habits of technical investigators, inconsistency in litigation details, and other issues, the IP Court took the lead in organizing three Intellectual Property Courts in Beijing, Shanghai, and Guangzhou, and the IP Tribunals in Tianjin, Shenzhen, Nanjing, Suzhou, and other places, to jointly compile and publish the Work Manual of Technical Investigators (2019). The manual provides work guidelines and standards for technical investigators of Chinese courts, with respect to ascertaining technical facts.

2. Strengthen informatization development and promote intelligent case handling

Information technology is an important means to improve the quality and effectiveness of judicial trials. The IP Court attaches immense importance to the development of information technology and explores the application of new generation of information technology such as big data and artificial intelligence in trial work. Positive progress has been made in terms of database of adjudication rules, technology IP Court, remote cross-examination, etc., and overall planning has been made for future informatization development.

First, establish a new database of adjudication rules focused on specific rules for the application of law. The first batch of adjudication rules that came online have come from the guiding cases of the Supreme People’s Court, the annual reports on intellectual property of the Supreme People’s Court, the typical cases of Chinese courts, and the guiding cases concluded in 2019 by the IP Court that were extracted and written by the judges of the IP Court. These were then systematically sorted out and classified. Users can input keywords in the database to obtain related adjudication rules in the form of “mind map of rules” and “l(fā)ist of rules.” These two formats are constructed according to the legal logic and the characteristics of the types and fields of the cases, presenting a systematic knowledge structure that differs from the usual simple enumeration format, and can guide users to actively learn and master related rules. The database can be used not only to assist judges in hearing similar cases, but also to test the quality of trials. At present, the trial version of the adjudication rules database has been completed and will be formally made operational soon, providing strong support for intelligent trial of technology-related IP cases by Chinese courts.

Second, build a technology IP Court that combines the use of information terminals, synchronized marking technology, AR technology, voice recognition technology, electronic signature technology, etc.

During the court’s session, the information terminal of the bench is connected to the case handling system, so that judges can access the electronic files. The terminal has an embedded synchronized marking technology. During the cross-examination process, both the judges and the relevant parties can simultaneously mark the evidence with different colored lines and highlights, using their respective terminals. The technology IP Court can also use AR technology. Using AR glasses, the circuit layout and other small and high precision evidence can be projected on the large screen, making it easy to view minute structures. The voice recognition technology and electronic signature technology of the technology IP Court can convert voice into text to generate court records in real time, and replace traditional signatures with e-signatures, respectively. Each page of the court records is signed with just one e-signature.

Third, use remote high-definition video transmission technology for remote cross-examination. For evidence that cannot be easily transported, the IP Court conducts remote cross-examination using remote high-definition video transmission technology. In the case of infringement of invention patent rights of Beijing Reci Laser Technology Co., Ltd. and Shanghai Rongdong Laser Technology Co., Ltd. (Appellants) v. Shanghai Jiading Malu Dongfang Laser Tube Factory (Respondent), the alleged infringing product was a fragile glass product, which could not be easily transported over a long distance. The IP Court communicated and collaborated with the court of first instance, i.e., Shanghai Intellectual Property Court, to remotely display and conduct remote cross-examination of evidence in real time.

Fourth, prepare overall plans for future informatization development work. The IP Court formulated the Three-year Development Plan for the Intelligent Construction of the IP Court (2019-2021), which clarified the goals and ideas of informatization development. The Plan proposed the concept of “one platform”, “two services”, “three scenarios”, “four connections”, and “five key projects”, to create an intelligent case handling system for the IP Court that is safe and controllable, supports comprehensive coverage, interconnection, cross-border integration, in-depth application, and is transparent and convenient. “One platform” refers to the IP Court’s electronic litigation platform, which provides a full range of intelligent services for judges, litigants, and the public. “Two services” refers to insisting on serving the people and serving the trial work. “Three scenarios” indicates that the results of informatization development are reflected in three scenarios: litigation service, the technology IP Court, and the big data analysis platform. “Four connections” refer to connecting the relevant lower courts, external units, parties, and the public. “Five key projects” include the adjudication rules database, the big data analysis platform, the external data interaction platform, the two-level collaboration platform & remote court hearing system, and the IP Court cloud.

3. Strengthen team building and enhance judicial capacity

Team building is the foundation and guarantee for stable and long-term development of the judiciary. Technology-related intellectual property case trials have the characteristics of professionalism, cutting-edge technology, and international scope. The judges must have a firm political position, exceptional professional capabilities, and be prudent and honest, to effectively improve judicial capacity and become the talent guarantee for improving the quality and effectiveness of trials.

The IP Court has 8 collegiate panels, a litigation service center, and a general office. The IP Court has totally 140 staff members, 42 of whom are judges, all of them possessing a master’s or above degree. Among them, 37.5% have doctoral degrees, 22.5% have a background in science and engineering, and 17.5% have overseas study experience. Some judges are selected from the Supreme People’s Court, most of the judges are seconded from local courts across the country that have mature experiences in patent trials, and three other judges are exchange judges from China National Intellectual Property Administration. After several rounds of selection, the IP Court’s trial team consists of elite judges, selected in a way like “screening an army on the battleground” across the country. The IP Court takes full advantage of its talents and has further strengthened team building while maintaining high standards and strict requirements, by utilizing multiple channels. It has strived to forge a trial team possessing a firm political position, with members who are upright and honest, proficient in the law, familiar with technology, possess knowledge of China’s national conditions, and have an international perspective.

First, strengthen political development and enhance team cohesion.Guided by the Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, the IP Court has enhanced the “Four Consciousnesses”, fostered the “Four Matters of Confidence”, and ensured “Two Upholds”, to insist on absolute leadership of the CPC over the people’s courts, to ensure that the Central Committee’s decisions and plans in the IP Court are carried out without compromise, and ensure the right political direction of the intellectual property trial work. The IP Court has implemented the general requirements for Party building in the new era, comprehensively improved the team’s quality and capabilities, chosen the right direction for the selection and employment of personnel, promoted righteousness and strived for excellence, and has fully mobilized the enthusiasm, initiative and creativity of all staff members, and encouraged the staff members of the IP Court to take on new roles and new actions in the new era and new environment.

Second, strengthen professional capabilities and enhance the team’s ability to perform duties. Based on active thinking, fast knowledge update, and high degree of internationalization in the field of intellectual property, the IP Court has actively created conditions to specifically strengthen the trainings in intellectual property and foreign language to enhance the team’s ability to perform its duties. Over the past year, two national trial practice training courses were held to provide in-depth explanation of the judicial policy and adjudication rules and promote harmonization in thoughts and coordination in pace among the IP courts and tribunals across the country. The IP Court also held multi-level professional trainings, built high-quality standardized learning platforms such as the “The New Knowledge Lecture Hall” and “The IP Court Forum,” to invite well-known experts and scholars from across the country to give lectures to the IP Court, and broadcast live to the local courts, to improve the trial team’s professional quality. It established a foreign language working group, carried out daily online and offline foreign language training, and translated foreign court decisions and academic papers on frontier issues. The IP Court has given full play to the pioneering role of its national trial experts, who as the trendsetters can thus be followed by the other staff members of the IP Court, and is striving to become an education base for the IP courts and tribunals across the country to forge the professional technical trial team of Chinese courts.

Third, strengthen integrity and forge a team with excellent work style. On the one hand, based on the actual trial work, the IP Court has managed to explore and establish the Party building work method of “full online and offline coverage, and round-the-clock education and management” with the help of new media. By utilizing interactive online micro-platforms for information dissemination on different themes such as “House of Party Members”, “Learning, Thinking, Practicing and Comprehending”, “Do You Know?”, and offline learning & education platforms such as the “Party Building” promotion gallery, and based on multichannel coverage approach, youthfulness, and interactivity, the IP Court has successfully built a Party building learning platform. It has made the learning content close to the actual work, utilized interactive Q&A and mutual teaching and sharing methods to evaluate the learning result, and has created a well-accepted Party building brand that was listed among the “One Hundred Excellent Cases” at the 2nd Party Building Innovation Achievement Selection Activity organized by Flag of the State Organs Work Committee of CPC Central Committee. On the other hand, it has established the “1 + N” system with the Opinions of the IP Court on Strict Governance of the IP Court to Prevent Risks, as the guiding principle, and established more than 50 regulations. The IP Court adopts innovative forms, such as sending “Intellectual Property Letters to Homes of All Staff Members”, to enhance the execution and binding power of the aforesaid regulations and promote the formation of a clean and honest governance ecosystem.

Ⅲ. Promote judicial openness and carry out international exchanges to further promote judicial trustworthiness and international influence

Against the background of comprehensively building a society governed by law and advancing the modernization of the judicial system and judicial capacity, society has extremely high requirements for judicial openness in terms of both the breadth and depth. The establishment of the IP Court has attracted the attention of the society and the world. It needs to uphold a high degree of consciousness and a noble sense of mission, to actively promote judicial openness and participate in international exchanges, so that the IP Court’s system and practices in judicial protection of technology-related intellectual property can be comprehensively and objectively understood both home and abroad.

1. Deepen judicial openness and enhance judicial trustworthiness

Focusing on the goal “to make people feel fairness and justice in every judicial case”, the IP Court takes judicial openness as the core and judicial publicity as the primary measure, to constantly enhance the transparency of judicial information, and promote improvement of judicial trustworthiness.

With judicial openness as the core, trial information is fully disclosed in accordance with the law. The IP Court utilizes four public platforms built by the Supreme People’s Court, i.e. the China Judicial Process Information Online, tingshen.court.gov.cn, China Judgments Online, and zxgk.court.gov.cn, to realize the full openness of the trial process. In terms of openness of court hearings, the IP Court adheres to the principles of openness and live broadcasting, and considers non-openness as an exception to the rule. Live court hearings can be viewed online in real time, and people can also log in to the tingshen.court.gov.cn website to view the court hearing videos after the court session. Major cases are tried with openness through whole process in order to promote justice with such openness. In terms of the openness of judgments, the IP Court promptly publishes judgments that should be disclosed according to law on China Judgments Online, and regularly counts and reports the status of documents that it has published online. As an effort to boost the public’s awareness of the IP Court’s adjudicative work, all of the adjudicative documents (either written judgments or decisions) as rendered by the IP Court contain the main points of such judgments or decisions, and concisely explain the legal issues involved in the case, plus the opinions and results of the adjudications, so that the relevant parties and the public can clearly understand the results and the basis of the judgments. By doing so, the IP Court gives a clear and rational interpretation of the law, enabling justice to be seen and explained clearly, and highlights judicial civilization and justice.

Comprehensively show the work of the IP Court while focusing on judicial publicity. On March 27th, 2019, after the gavel was struck for the first time at the IP Court, the IP Court opened a court session. Through full-media live broadcasts and extensive reporting by dozens of media including CCTV, the online live broadcast of court hearings received more than 18 million views for the first time. In late April, the IP Court held several activities such as “Public Open Week,” “Court Hearing Week of IPR Protection,” and “Judges to Campus,” inviting people from all walks of life and journalists to visit the IP Court, to experience the intelligent systems such as submission of electronic litigation materials, online search for typical cases, and to attend public court hearings. Judges were invited to visit universities such as Tsinghua University, Renmin University of China, North China University of Technology, etc., to introduce the basic situation of the IP Court and the development of judicial protection of intellectual property in China. From December 9th to 13th, the IP Court carried out the “Judgment Week” activity and pronounced judgments on 6 cases that are of demonstration significance. People from industry who attended said: “Through the hearing, I felt the professionalism and objectivity of the trials conducted by the IP Tribunal.” The IP Court also made full use of its Chinese and English official websites and the WeChat public account to publish all kinds of judicial information in a timely manner. A total of 390 manuscripts were published, which were viewed 16.012 million times.

2. Carry out international exchanges and enhance international influence

The IP Court learns from successful international practices in protecting intellectual property rights through international exchanges, and at the same time tells the world the story of China’s efforts in protecting intellectual property by law, thereby contributing Chinese wisdom to the world’s rule of law and civilization. During the year, the IP Court conducted a total of 32 foreign exchange activities, including 18 incoming exchange visits, 8 outgoing exchange visits, and 6 foreign-related activities in China.

First, strengthen exchanges, mutual learning, and “bringing in,” to comprehensively showcase the national goal of strict protection of intellectual property rights. Since its establishment, the IP Court has insisted on deepening international exchanges and cooperation in intellectual property. It has hosted visits by a number of organizations and has held intensive discussions with their delegates, such as from the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the International Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property (AIPPI), the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA), the US-China Business Council (USCBS), and the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Francis Gurry, the Director General of WIPO sent a video message congratulating the IP Court on its inauguration, and stated that the establishment of the IP Court “embodies China’s solemn commitment to intellectual property protection and expresses China’s strong determination in the provision of more just and efficient judicial protection for intellectual property.” Craig Allen, President of USCBC said during his visit that the establishment of the IP Court “is of great significance for creating an international, market-oriented and rule-of-law business environment.” Lisa Jorgenson, Executive Director of AIPLA said during her visit that, “The IP Court has very high-quality judges, so the trial of cases will be very effective and comprehensive, and this will have a great impact on the consistency of future judgments.” Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf, President of ICJ said during his visit, “International intellectual property experts and lawyers will pay close attention to the judgments made by the IP Court…Surely, the IP Court will have its own judgments on hot controversial issues in intellectual property, such as accessibility of pharmaceuticals and compulsory licensing, relevant market definition in monopoly cases, the balance between the patentee, the patent users, and social public interest, etc. I believe that developing countries will pay particular attention to China’s role in the above-mentioned issues and the approach it has taken.” Rubén Remigio Ferro, President of People’s Supreme Court of Cuba said during his visit, “Each division of the Supreme People’s Court conducts special data processing of various types of cases for summarizing and retrieval, which is worthy of learning. It is commendable that with the use of information technology, these high-tech technologies are used by the IP Court to help judges make more proper judgments in high-tech cases. This is a very good application.”

Second, have an international perspective and “go out” to tell the world the story of China’s efforts in protecting intellectual property based on law.The IP Court actively participates in international exchange activities, demonstrates China’s achievements in the judicial protection of technology-related intellectual property, promotes China’s concept of judicial protection of technology-related intellectual property, and strives to raise international awareness, understanding and recognition of China’s intellectual property protection. It also contributes Chinese wisdom and Chinese solutions to the formulation of international rules on intellectual property rights. In May 2019, a delegation of 8 Chinese patent judges led by Wang Chuang, Deputy Chief Judge of the IP Court, visited France, Luxembourg, and Germany for theme-based exchanges on technology-related IP case trials. They introduced the establishment of the IP Court and the innovative development of China’s judicial system with respect to technology-related intellectual property, to the European intellectual property judicial circles, sending a strong message that China will continue to vigorously strengthen judicial protection of intellectual property rights. In June 2019, Zhou Xiang, Deputy Chief Judge of the IP Court participated in the 2019 AIPPI Trilateral Meeting – AIPPI China, AIPPI Japan, and AIPPI Korea, co-sponsored by AIPPI China, AIPPI Japan, and AIPPI Korea, and gave a keynote speech in English that comprehensively introduced the IP Court’s institutional settings and innovative working mechanisms, as well as the latest developments in judicial protection of intellectual property in China. Over the last year, the IP Court also had a number of judges “going out” to tell the world the story of China’s efforts in protecting intellectual property based on law, including giving presentations at Harvard University and Yale University in the United States, participating in moot court event at the 2019 AIPPI World Congress in the United Kingdom, joining the Law Enforcement Advisory Committee Meeting of WIPO in Switzerland; attending the “Intellectual Property Mediation Conference” organized by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) in Spain, participating in the IP Week Global Forum in Singapore, going to South Africa for participation in the “International Community of Breeders of Asexually Reproduced Horticultural Plant Varieties (CIOPORA)” Annual Meeting, and taking part in the WIPO Academy Education and Training Programs in South Korea, etc.

Ⅳ. Strengthen investigation and research, plan and promote cooperation as a whole, and further enhance national strategic judicial guarantees

Judicial protection of technology-related intellectual property is related to the implementation of innovation-driven development strategies and high-quality economic, social, and cultural development. It is also of immense significance in enhancing national strategic strength. The IP Court comprehensively leverages its advantages of hearing a large number of cases and extensive research in technical fields, carries out in-depth investigation and research related to judicial trials, supports policy-making and proposes legislative proposals. At the same time, the IP Court actively motivates building the intellectual property protection community and forming a joint force for protection, and promotes firm implementation of Central Committee’s decisions and national strategies.

1. Strengthen investigation and research to serve national overall development situation

First, the IP Court drafted and prepared the Three-year Development Plan for the IP Court (2019-2021), to provide an overall plan on the guiding ideology, development principles, development goals, main tasks, basic guarantees, organization, and implementation of the IP Court’s development.The aim is to promote the long-term development of the IP Court and ensure that the Central Committee’s deployment goals are implemented.

Second, promote various special investigations and studies. Numerous cases from various regions and technical fields across the country are high-quality resources for investigation. Keeping in mind the trial team, the IP Court considers the needs of trial work and the research interests of the judges, and has established several research groups for strategic areas and key issues such as patent law revision, anti-monopoly, technical secrets, integrated circuit layout design, 5G technology, new plant varieties, etc. to conduct special research. Nine research results have been formed, including the Legislative Proposal on Drug Patent Linkage System, Analysis Report on the Judgments of Cases of New Plant Variety Rights, Empirical Research on Trial Period of Patent Infringement and ‘Loop Suit’ in Patent Invalidity Litigation.” In the fourth revision of the Patent Law, the Recommendations on Reforming and Perfecting the Legislation of Patent Invalidation Procedures were submitted to the Legislative Affairs Commission of the Standing Committee to the National People’s Congress. The IP Court also communicated and cooperated with the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court to conduct research on issues such as SEPs so as to study trial rules that are compatible with industry development.

Third, the research on new plant varieties has achieved gratifying results.The IP Court was rated as the National Advanced Group for the Protection of New Varieties of Agricultural Plants in 2019 by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs. In order to improve the independent innovation capability of China’s seed industry and provide judicial guarantee for the development of the seed industry and national food security, the IP Court has carried out several investigations based on handling of new plant varieties cases. It sorted out cases over new plant varieties heard by the courts throughout the country over the past decade, and formed a ten-year review of the judgments by Chinese courts on new plant varieties. It carried out a joint research on the protection of new plant varieties with the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs by conducting on-the-spot investigations in Hunan and Hainan provinces, and provided suggestions for the development of Hunan Seed Industry Silicon Valley, Hainan Free Trade Pilot Zone, and Free Trade Port. Based on the agriculture conditions, seed conditions, and current situations of rights protection found by the survey, the IP Court drafted a special investigation report on the judicial protection of new plant varieties, involving issues of expanding the scope of protection of variety rights and the urgency of protecting substantial derived varieties.

2. Promote development of a protection community and establish a joint protection force

First, strengthen communication and cooperation with the administrative departments to establish a joint force for judicial and administrative protection of technology-related intellectual properties. Since its establishment, the IP Court has actively communicated and cooperated with China National Intellectual Property Administration, the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, the anti-monopoly law-enforcing departments of the State Council, etc. to promote multi-party synergy, and actively serve and guarantee an innovation-driven development strategy. Strengthen cooperation with China National Intellectual Property Administration. The two parties basically agreed on electronic services, remote exchange of evidence, data sharing and other works, and determined the data exchange method. In order to ensure that the data provided by each party can be exchanged stably and quickly, the two sides will further study the special line connection scheme for exchanging data. Strengthen cooperation with the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs. The IP Court and the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs carried out joint research on the protection of new plant varieties. At the invitation of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, the IP Court participated in a seminar on the protection of new varieties of agricultural plants, a seminar on the revision of Regulations on the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, and the top ten typical cases review session for the protection of new varieties of agricultural plants. The IP Court also invited experts from the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs to give lectures on the protection of new plant varieties. The two sides conducted extensive studies on how to establish a long-term mechanism for communication and cooperation to jointly protect national food security. Strengthen cooperation with the anti-monopoly law-enforcing departments of the State Council. With respect to formulating regulations on prohibiting monopoly agreements and anti-monopoly enforcement, the IP Court is actively providing suggestions and views on amendments to State Administration for Market Regulation. The IP Court’s judges are invited as members of the expert advisory group of the Anti-Monopoly Committee of the State Council, and regularly participate in China Competition Policy Forum, Big Data and Antitrust Conferences and so on, to provide advisory opinions on antitrust competition policies and other legal issues.

Second, strengthen communication with the professional legal community such as lawyers’ associations and academia to form a joint force for protecting intellectual property rights based on law. On May 29th, 2019, the All China Lawyers’ Association Intellectual Property Committee visited the IP Court. They held in-depth discussions with the IP Court’s judges on issues such as the development of the IP Court, improvement of relevant legislation, and optimization of litigation experience. On November 23rd, 2019, Chief Judge Luo Dongchuan was invited to attend the China Intellectual Property Law Practice Seminar and the 2019 Annual Meeting of the All China Lawyers Association Intellectual Property Committee to introduce the status quo of the IP Court, where he also gave a speech focusing on the cultivation of intellectual property legal talents and the development of the professional legal community. The IP Court also invited experts and scholars including member of the Chinese Academy of Sciences to give lecture to the staff of the IP Court and discuss legal and technical issues regarding technology-related IP case trials. The IP Court also explores the establishment of a long-term cooperation mechanism with colleges and universities, and provides practical judicial resources to support the colleges and universities in their talent training.

Third, strengthen exchanges with people from all sectors of society and ensure joint effort by the whole society to protect intellectual property rights.The IP Court aims to bring together smart resources and professionals from all sectors of society of life through communication, to jointly improve the quality and efficiency of judicial protection of intellectual property rights and the overall business environment in China. The IP Court conducts various judicial publicity activities, to welcome people from all walks of life to observe the trials and to have discussions. During the last year, the IP Court hosted 63 groups of a total of more than 970 visitors, including 29 specially appointed supervisors, specially invited consultants, representatives of national and local People’s Congresses and members of the national and local People’s Political Consultative Conference. The IP Court’s research team has held discussions with several scientific and technological innovation companies, and patent and legal service agencies on issues such as the jurisdiction and choice of law in foreign-related patent cases, patent infringement damages, and protection of new plant varieties, and aims to work with all sectors of society to build a great model of intellectual property protection.

Concluding Remarks

The year 2020 marks the closing year of China’s efforts to build moderately prosperous society in an all-round way and achieve the first of the “Two Centennial Goals.” While in the process of achieving the national innovation-driven development goals, it is also the year that China will enter the ranks of the innovation powerhouses, basically build a national innovation system with Chinese characteristics, and strongly support the realization of the goal of building a moderately prosperous society in an all-round way. As a basic guarantee and important support for innovation and development, intellectual property rights bear an important historical mission, and thus impose higher demands for judicial protection. At this new historical point, the IP Court will adhere to the Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era as a guide, being fearless of hardship and embracing challenges, give full play to its judicial functions and increase judicial protection to serve the innovation-driven development strategy, stimulate the entire society’s passion on creativity and release the vitality of innovation and entrepreneurship through powerful judicial means, strive to create a rule-of-law, international, convenient and world-class business environment, provide more powerful judicial services and guarantees for realizing the “Two Centennial Goals” and building China into an IP power and a science and technology power in the world, and make new and greater contributions towards the realization of the Chinese dream of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation!

來源：最高人民法院知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法庭

編輯：IPRdaily王穎校對：IPRdaily縱橫君

點擊圖片，查看專題詳情！

周五20:00直播！深入剖析區(qū)塊鏈和AI技術(shù)領(lǐng)域高價值專利挖掘與申請策略

「關(guān)于IPRdaily」

IPRdaily是具有全球影響力的知識產(chǎn)權(quán)媒體，致力于連接全球知識產(chǎn)權(quán)與科技創(chuàng)新人才。匯聚了來自于中國、美國、歐洲、俄羅斯、以色列、澳大利亞、新加坡、日本、韓國等15個國家和地區(qū)的高科技公司及成長型科技企業(yè)的管理者及科技研發(fā)或知識產(chǎn)權(quán)負責人，還有來自政府、律師及代理事務(wù)所、研發(fā)或服務(wù)機構(gòu)的全球近100萬用戶（國內(nèi)70余萬+海外近30萬），2019年全年全網(wǎng)頁面瀏覽量已經(jīng)突破過億次傳播。

（英文官網(wǎng)：iprdaily.com 中文官網(wǎng)：iprdaily.cn）

本文來自最高人民法院知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法庭并經(jīng)IPRdaily.cn中文網(wǎng)編輯。轉(zhuǎn)載此文章須經(jīng)權(quán)利人同意，并附上出處與作者信息。文章不代表IPRdaily.cn立場，如若轉(zhuǎn)載，請注明出處：“http://jupyterflow.com/

最高院知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法庭2019年度報告（附：中英文全文）