China Law Insight : China Business and Intellectual Property Lawyers & Attorneys : King & Wood Law Firm : IP, Arbitration, Litigation, Securities, Foreign Investment

As such, several guidelines have been issued to explore the possibility of establishing specialized IPR Tribunals which would hear all types of IPR-related cases. In this regard, on June 5, 2008, the “Outline of the Nation's Intellectual Property Rights Strategy” promulgated by the National Council requested that courts “look into the establishment of specialized IPR tribunals and IPR appellate courts which have jurisdiction over all IPR civil, administrative and criminal cases.” Furthermore, on March 23, 2009, the Supreme People;s Court promulgated the ”Opinions of the Supreme People;s Court on Several Issues Regarding the Implementation of the National Intellectual Property Strategy” (hereinafter, the “Opinions”) which provided that “research shall be carried out regarding the appropriate adjudication model for IPR-related cases; research on the establishment of specialized IPR tribunals to hear IPR civil, administrative and criminal cases”.
 

In line with the Opinions noted above, at the “China High-Level Forum on IPR Protection” held on April 24, 2009, the Chief Justice of the IPR Tribunal of the Supreme People’s Court announced a list of test courts for the establishment of specialized IPR Tribunals to hear IPR civil, administrative and criminal cases. This list includes three (3) High People’s Courts (in Chongqing, Jiang and Fujian), twelve (12) Intermediate People’s Courts and fifteen (15) District Courts.
 

On July 1, 2009, the Supreme People's Court (“SPC”) released a Circular providing guidelines for courts exercising jurisdiction over cases involving patent and trademark rights grants and rights determinations (hereinafter known as the “Circular”). From July 1, 2009, IP Tribunals of intermediate courts in Beijing and the Beijing High People’s Court will have exclusive jurisdiction over IPR administrative cases of the First and Second Instance for rights grants and rights determinations for patent, trademark, layout design of integrated circuit and new varieties of plants cases. If parties are dissatisfied with the rulings after they have been rendered, parties may file a re-trial application to the court of the next higher level. The re-tried case shall be examined and heard by the IPR Tribunals of the court of the next higher level.
 

The “Circular” is a first step in legislation to establish specialized IPR Tribunals to hear IPR civil and administrative cases, while the “test courts”, as designated by the IPR Tribunal of the Supreme People’s Court, will address, concurrently, civil, administrative and criminal claims. Based upon the success of the adjudications in the “test courts”, IPR criminal cases will be exclusively adjudicated by IPR Tribunals throughout China. With the guidelines set forth in the Circular, as well as the establishment of the “test courts”, the judiciary in China is taking steps towards improving the efficiency of adjudication in IPR cases and unifying the judicial practices.
 

知识产权民事、行政、刑事案件“三审合一”审判模式
徐静 张海若
在中国，传统上知识产权民事、行政、刑事案件分别由知识产权庭、行政庭以及刑事审判庭审理，其中，针对专利、商标授权确权类知识产权行政案件，北京市第一中级人民法院行政庭及知识产权庭均有权受理。上述知识产权案件的审理模式容易出现裁判标准不一的问题。
为解决上述问题，国务院以及最高院先后出台文件，要求探索设立知识产权三审合一的法庭。2008年6月5日，国务院出台《国家知识产权战略纲要》，要求法院“研究设置统一受理知识产权民事、行政和刑事案件的专门知识产权法庭。探索建立知识产权上诉法院”。2009年3月23日，最高院出台《最高人民法院关于贯彻实施国家知识产权战略若干问题的意见》（“意见”），提出要“积极探索符合知识产权特点的审判组织模式，研究设置统一受理知识产权民事、行政和刑事案件的专门知识产权审判庭”。
为贯彻上述“意见”，2009年4月24日举行的中国知识产权高层论坛上，最高院知识产权庭审判长颔中林公布了三审合一试点法院的名单，进行“三审合一”试点的高院有3个：重庆市高级法院、江苏省高级法院、福建省高级法院。中院“三审合一”的有12个，基层法院进行“三审合一”的有15个。
2009年7月1日，最高院出台《关于专利、商标等授权确权类知识产权行政案件审理分工的规定》（“规定”），明确规定“专利、商标、集成电路布图设计和植物新品种案件4种授权确权类知识产权行政案件，自7月1日起将统一 由知识产权审判庭审理。”根据该规定，北京市有关中级人民法院知识产权审判庭将作为专利、商标等授权确权类知识产权行政案件的一审法院，北京市高级人民法院知识产权审判庭作为此类案件的二审法院。同时，该规定还明确了专利、商标等授权确权类知识产权行政案件再审分工，即当事人对于人民法院就此类案件所作出的生效判决或者裁定不服，向上级人民法院申请再审的案件，由上级人民法院知识产权审判庭负责再审审查和审理。据悉，对于7月1日之前已经受理的案件，原由行政审判庭审理的，将继续由行政审判庭审理完结，如上诉，也仍然由上级人民法院的行政审判庭审理。
此次最高院正式发文，确定知识产权行政案件和民事案件统一由知识产权审判庭审理，已经迈出了三审合一的第一步。同时，最高院指定的试点法院也已开展了三审合一的审判试点工作。基于试点结果，最高法将考虑是否将刑事案件统一归属知识产权庭审理。上述规定的出台以及试点法院的建立，有助于法院逐步提高知识产权案件审判效率、实现知识产权审判标准的统一。
 

2. Simplifying and Improving Flexibility of Litigation Procedures

For example, on December 17th of 2008, the Supreme Court promulgated the Circular on Application of the Provisions on Time Limit for Evidence Production under Several Provisions on the Evidence for Civil Actions. Such an interpretation allows for more flexibility on the time limits in evidence production and requires the court to adjudicate cases in a more just and efficient manner. This development is also applicable to all types of IPR litigations.

At the recent National Symposium on the Court Trial of Intellectual Property Rights held at the end of November 2008, the Supreme Court specially held a discussion on how to make it more convenient for plaintiffs (especially foreign plaintiffs) during legal proceedings, and clearly indicated that all the cases which meet the acceptance requirements shall be heard in a timely manner in accordance with the law. Currently, foreign rights owners usually delegate a representative within China to initiate the legal proceedings, and the court has a more complex set of procedures for such an arrangement. Some courts even require the rights owners to sign on the bills of complaints personally, and prohibit the local representative to sign on their behalf. The Supreme Court now, however, has standardized the process, allowing authorized delegates to initiate legal proceedings on behalf of foreign rights owners. Thus, the inconvenience currently faced by foreign rights owners may be minimized in 2009.

3. Taking into Account the Interests of All Parties and Carefully Sustaining Claims for Injunction

It is foreseeable that in 2009, the courts will place a stronger emphasis on the balance between the interest of the rights owners and the interest of the public, and prevent IP right owners from abusing their power. This means that the standards applicable to patent infringement determination, especially to equivalence infringement, may be tightened; in cases where the rights owners have allowed their rights to be infringed and take no action over a lengthy period of time, should they finally do take action and seek an injunction and if the order of injunction could potentially tip the balance between the interest of the parties, or impact economic activity so as to go against the public interest, the court may consider not granting the injunction. For some infringing acts, if public interest may be affected, the court may rule for compensation to be paid rather than grant the injunction. At present, the application for injunction can usually be granted by the court if the claim of infringement may be established by the rights owners.

In summary, it is foreseeable that due to the publication of the Outline of the National Intellectual Property Strategy in China, judicial protection will play a leading role in safeguarding IPRs. Furthermore, China’s intellectual property rights protection policy is undergoing change and adjustment in order to integrate further with the development trends of global IPRs protection.
 

在2009年即将到来、而全球经济危机正给世界大部分国家造成巨大影响的时刻，中国最高人民法院正在研究调整知识产权的司法政策。这些新的政策导向为我们勾绘了2009年可能出现在中国知识产权司法保护领域的一些新气象：

一、 加大知识产权侵权赔偿力度，贯彻全面赔偿原则

最高人民法院近期数次强调，在知识产权审判中，应运用灵活多样和合理可行的损害赔偿计算方法，使权利人受到的损害获得足够的赔偿，彻底剥夺侵权行为人因侵权而获得的利益，切实提高侵权代价；对于受害人正当合理的维权成本要给予赔偿；在适用法定赔偿时，对于合理的维权成本应另行计赔，不列入法定赔偿额之内。而目前，中国的法定赔偿最高额是五十万元（于2008年12月27日颁布、2009年10月1日生效的第三次修改后的《专利法》已将最高金额调整到人民币一百万元），并且包含了对权利人因维权所发生的费用的补偿。由于损害赔偿的举证难度较大，而法定赔偿的金额较低，不能得到足够的、实质性的赔偿是权利人普遍面临的难题。这一问题可望在2009年得到改善。

二、 简化或放宽诉讼程序

例如，今年12月17日，最高人民法院颁布了关于适用《关于民事诉讼证据的若干规定》中有关举证时限规定的通知，该通知对举证期限等问题做出了更加灵活的规定，有利于人民法院以更加公正高效的方式进行案件的审判。该通知同样适用于各类知识产权诉讼。

最高人民法院在此次全国法院知识产权审判座谈会上特别讨论了如何便利当事人（尤其是外国当事人）诉权的行使，并明确指出符合受理条件的起诉均应依法及时受理。目前，外国权利人通常授权我国境内代理人代为提起诉讼，法院的相关程序性要求比较繁琐。部分法院还要求权利人必须在起诉书上签章，不得由代理人代为签署。此次最高人民法院明确统一，凡经权利人明确授权代理提起诉讼的代理人，均可以权利人名义提起诉讼。因此，该等不便可望在2009年得以免除。

三、 兼顾社会各方利益，审慎适用停止侵权责任形式

可以预计，在2009年，法院在知识产权案件的审理中将更加注重知识产权权利人与社会公共利益的平衡，防止知识产权权利人滥用权利。这体现为，专利侵权的判定标准，尤其对等同侵权的情况，可能会适度从严掌握；权利人长期放任侵权、怠于维权，在其请求停止侵权时，倘若责令停止侵权会在当事人之间造成较大的利益不平衡，或者影响经济活动从而违反公共利益，法院可以审慎地考虑不再责令停止行为；对于一些侵权行为，如果要求其停止侵权可能导致违反公共利益，则可能仅判令侵权人承担损害赔偿，而不必停止侵权。而目前，如果权利人提起的侵权诉讼可能成立，则停止侵权的申请一般能获得法院支持。

综上，可以预见，由于中国《国家知识产权战略纲要》的颁布，司法手段将成为知识产权保护的主导角色。而中国知识产权保护的司法政策正在酝酿着调整和转变，更融于全球知识产权保护的发展趋势。
 

Providing South Korea as an example, Dr. Cave commented on the fast development and implementation of broadband in that country, and added to that example the Singapore government's policy “for creating a very high speed broadband network throughout the island.” According to Dr. Cave, “This approach yields much quicker results, and can also be used to support local equipment development and manufacture.”

As the conversation progressed from these Asian countries towards China, Dr. Cave pointed out that while he is not a China expert, in his opinion,

“…it is obvious that mobile voice, in China, as in India and elsewhere, is transforming the consumer market place. Mobile also provides a fertile opportunity for the development of Chinese technologies and standards. I have recently prepared a report for the GSM Association, a coalition of mobile operators, which argues that mobile communications thrive in a relatively unregulated atmosphere -- one which utilises competing operators' desires to win customers with keen prices and new services."

Dr. Cave commented that this transforming marketplace naturally progresses towards mobile broadband and that the next decade will see increasing broadband speeds, In fact, securing access to broadband has become intrinsically tied to a country's economic growth. Dr. Cave further commented on mobile broadband that

“A country which loses out in this race [to develop mobile broadband networks] risks suffering major economic loss. In areas where there is no fixed network, wireless is the key, and many technologies are or will be available -- 3G, varieties of 4G, Wi-max, etc. ”

Dr. Cave provided as an example the Australian company, Telstra, which has built a wireless network within a short time period which delivers high speed broadband to 99% of the population. He commented that Telstra's network

“…is encouraging its competitors to follow suit. If this sort of network is replicated in other countries, and if enough spectrum is made available to support the traffic, the capacity of less affluent countries to 'catch-up' could have remarkable effects. There will still be a need to develop fibre-based networks for business, and in areas where they are already available, but these might take second place to wireless networks in meeting household demand. The good thing about wireless technologies is that they are inherently competitive, so the need for regulation is more limited than it is for monopoly fixed networks; this state of ‘permanent competition’ imposes on operators a permanent need to invest to retain customers and capture new ones. ”

However, while certain areas develop best with minimal regulatory interference, Dr. Cave added that others require regulatory interaction to ensure fair competition in an international market. He emphasizes that

“business customers - especially large corporations – [need to] get the range and quality of services which assist them in competing successfully in international markets. This involves creating regulatory incentives to extend fibre deployment in business districts.”

Dr. Cave added that he sees enormous scope for China in the communications equipment market. He commented, “[China] has a large home market, and already a major international one, where its success is increasingly based on technological rather than price-based competition.”

When asked about the future of copyright protection for data exchanged over the
Internet, through phone devices, or through other web-related devices, Dr. Cave pointed to the market power shift from networks to content that has occurred in the last two decades. He states

“From this point of view, the proponents of net neutrality, such as Google, are fighting off an attempt by network operators such as AT&T and Verizon to re-assert themselves. However, content is only as valuable as its copyright protection is effective, and peer-to-peer exchanges, social networking sites and other developments endanger its value. But this is a new manifestation of the permanent battle between owners and would-be copiers. The copyright owners use technology such as digital rights management and new business models such as low-cost music downloads to make their paid offerings more palatable to consumers.”

As our discussion with Dr. Cave came to a close, he predicted that while copyright owners won't lose this battle over copyright, the way they are remunerated may change significantly.

Click here for the PDF version.

专家看通信技术的发展
——专访通信规制经济学家Martin Cave 博士

采写：Serwat Perwaiz*

当谈到感兴趣的主要领域时，Cave博士表示，他特别关注“无线电频谱技术的革新和使用自由化”。因为，“在过去的十年里，无线电频谱为语音技术和宽带无线技术提供了技术支持，并推动了后两项技术的飞速发展”。Cave博士还介绍了欧洲和美国的标准模式与亚洲国家的模式的区别。他表示，欧美的标准模式是“依靠最激烈的竞争实现最低程度的监管，从而减小该技术对政府政策和财政津贴的依赖”。而亚洲国家的模式主要依赖“政府政策驱动”。

Cave博士指出，当今宽带发展迅速、使用日益普遍，韩国就是一个例子。新加坡政府也推出了“在全国建立高速宽带网络”的政策。Cave博士称，“这种做法的效果立竿见影，并能促进本土的通信设施的开发和制造”。

谈到中国时，Cave博士表示，他并非中国问题的专家，但是认为：“很明显，在中国，如同印度和世界上其他国家一样，移动通信正在转变消费者市场。同时也为中国的技术和行业标准的发展提供了良好的契机。”在最近为移动营运商联盟全球移动通信协会（GSM Association）准备的报告中，他指出，移动通信在一个相对缺乏规范的环境中迅猛发展，这种环境会导致竞争者通过压低价位和推出新业务来赢得顾客。”

Cave博士说，转型中的市场会很自然地朝移动宽带的方向发展，未来十年中，宽带的速度将不断加快。事实上，保证宽带的使用已与一个国家的经济增长紧密联系在一起。Cave博士对移动宽带的功能做出了如下评价：如果一个国家（移动宽带网络的发展）落后于其他国家，将面临遭受重大经济损失的危险。在没有有线网络的区域内，无线技术尤为重要，能够或将能发挥作用的其他技术，还有第3代移动通信技术（3G），各种第4代移动通信技术（4G），全球通用微波通信技术（Wi-max）等等。

Cave博士以澳大利亚电信公司（Telstra）为例进行说明。该公司在很短时间内建成了无线网络，并向全国99%的居民提供高速宽带。他认为，Telstra的网络“激励了其他竞争者追随其脚步。如果这种网络应用于其他国家，并且有足够的频谱来支持流量，较为贫穷的国家赶上来的能力可能会得到显著提高。为商业活动发展光纤网络的需求仍然存在。但在已有光纤网络的地区，此类网络在满足家庭使用方面，可能成为无线网络以外的第二选择。无线技术本身具有竞争性，因此与占据垄断地位的有线网络相比，政策法规无需对无线网络作出过多限制。这种“永久性的竞争”使得运营商永远都需要不断投入资本，以维系现有客户群并开发新客户。”

Cave博士进一步指出，虽然对市场的某些方面来说，最低程度的监管对其发展最为有利，而其他方面却需要监管来保证国际市场上的公平竞争。他强调，公司型客户，尤其是大公司，（需要）得到全面和高质量的服务，以帮助其在国际市场的竞争中立于不败之地。这包括通过立法鼓励在商业区发展光纤网络。

Cave博士认为，中国的通信设备市场有巨大的发展空间。他表示：“中国具有一个巨大的国内市场，也是国际市场的一个主要成员，而这一成功更多地是依靠技术进步而非价格竞争。”

当问到对于互联网、电话设备或其它网络设备进行数据传输的的著做权保护的前景，Cave博士指出，在过去的二十年里，市场能量正从网络转向其内容。他表示：“从这一点来看，网络中立性的提倡者，如谷歌（Google），正在与美国电话电报公司（AT&T ）以及Verizon等网络营运商进行较量以维护自身的利益。但是，内容只有在著作权的有效保护下才有价值，而点对点（peer-to-peer）数据交换、交友网站和其它技术的发展都可能危及其价值。而这也是内容所有者和潜在的复制者将进行持久战的表现之一。著作权人使用技术（如数字版权管理）及新的商业模式（如低成本音乐下载）等，使其网上付款式销售更为消费者所接受。

在采访的最后，Cave博士对网络著作权的保护做出了预测。他认为，著作权人将不会输掉这场著作权的斗争，但他们获得报酬的方式可能会发生重大的改变。
 

Conditions to be Considered - the regulations introduce factors for the authorities considerations such as whether an import will unfavorably influence the PRC domestic industry’s development, adverse affect upon public morality or environment.

Validity Period - the amended Article 9 states that the validity period for the Proposal for Technology Import License will be set within the range of one to three years. As the previous law did not set limits it is not clear what this restriction will mean in practice.

Procedural Changes – the new regulations require on-line registration with a MOFCOM website before an applicant can collect a Technology Import License. More importantly, contracts which include royalty payments require the technology importer/exporter to make a recordal within 30 days after the base figure for the royalty has been determined. This requirement appears to be an on-going requirement for subsequent years.

Requirements in respect of free technology transfers have been relaxed. Under current law the technology importer or exporter should re-register any amendment to a free technology import or export contract. The June 2008 amendments simplify this by requiring the technology importer or exporter to comply with an amendment recordal procedure rather than re-registering. However, the current practice of the vast majority of companies in China – i.e. doing nothing – is simpler still. However, a failure to follow up properly will make taking legal action against a breaching importer more difficult still.

By Mark Schaub, Partner