China Law Insight : China Law Insight: China Commercial and Intellectual Property Lawyers and Attorneys, Full Service Law Firm: King & Wood

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。
 

促发这次改革的最直接、最根本原因是新民诉法关于再审程序的修订。修订前的民诉法中规定，当事人申请再审的，可以向原审法院或上一级法院提出。而依据新民诉法第178条的规定，当事人对已经发生法律效力的判决、裁定，认为有错误的，只可以向上一级人民法院申请再审。这就意味着大量的再审案件将涌入上一级法院，并直接导致各高级法院和最高法院工作量的增大。新标准的实施可以减少高级法院和最高法院受理一、二审案件的数量，一定程度上缓解了其办案压力，这样才能够更好地发挥上级法院的审判监督职能。该标准将与新民诉法同日配套实施。

这次新标准的出台虽然对保障新民诉法的顺利实施，完善我国各级法院的功能分工有着积极意义，但同时也存在一些令人担忧的地方。目前很多地方的基层法院的法官已是超负荷工作，新标准的出台必将导致基层法院的工作量继续显著增加，且基层法院受理的案件也将涉及标的额更大、法律关系更复杂、审理难度更大，如何保证基层法院的审判质量？可以说，这些问题对基层法院法官的素质和基层法院的建设都提出了更高的要求，亟待于最高法院出台进一步的措施来规范。