Civil Procedure Law

Subscribe to Civil Procedure Law via RSS

By Susan Ning, Liu Jia and Angie Ng

On 25 April 2011, the Supreme People’s Court (the Court) published draft rules which govern Anti-Monopoly Law (AML) private actions (Draft Rules)1.   These Draft Rules are entitled "Provisions on Issues Concerning the Application of Law in relation to Trials of Monopoly Civil Dispute Cases".  The Court will consult on these Draft Rules till 1 June 2011.

We note that these Draft Rules provide for applicants to file "joint" applications with others against respondents.  This article outlines what the Draft Rules say about joint applications and outlines how this interacts with the joint application regime pursuant to China’s Civil Procedure Law.

Continue Reading AML Class Actions and The Draft Litigation Rules

By Richard W. Wigley and Xu Jing of King & Wood’s Intellectual Property Group

Among the most frequent questions posed by overseas corporate counsel overseeing litigation involving their companies in P.R.C. courts are those questions relating to evidence collection. For the attorneys from the United States, those questions will often focus upon the "discovery" practices of P.R.C. courts. As they come from a litigation environment which often has liberal discovery options, it often comes as a surprise to foreign attorneys – especially U.S. attorneys – that the P.R.C. legal system has no direct equivalent to U.S.-style discovery practices. Collecting the required evidence in support of litigation in the P.R.C. is subject to very different guidelines from those guidelines of many foreign jurisdictions. This article will take a very brief look at evidence collection practices in the P.R.C. and offer some potential alternatives in the P.R.C. to "discovery" practices.Continue Reading Evidence Collection and Alternatives to “Discovery” in P.R.C. Litigation

By Li Ruihai and Su Juan, King & Wood’s IP Department

Patent ownership disputes arise, when a party challenges the ownership of a patent right at the State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) and files suit with the People’s Court to seek rectification of the ownership of the patent. Article 135 of the General Principles of Civil Law of the PRC (Civil Law) provides that "unless otherwise stipulated by law, the statute of limitations to file civil actions with the People’s Court shall be 2 years." The PRC Patent Law (Patent Law) provides no specific provision regarding the statute of limitations in patent ownership disputes. Hence, issue arises as to whether the court can, upon the defendant’s request, dismiss the plaintiff’s claim for patent ownership due to the statute of limitations for civil actions.

Continue Reading Limitation of Actions Regarding Patent Ownership Disputes

作者：刘军 金杜律师事务所 广州分所 国内诉讼部

2008年3月30日，最高法院公布调整各高级法院和中级法院管辖第一审民商事案件标准，主要从案件标的额方面大幅提高了高级法院和中级法院受理一审民商事案件的门槛，新标准自2008年4月1日起施行。

此次调整将大大减少各高级法院受理一审案件以及最高法院受理二审案件的数量，但同时会导致基层法院受理一审案件数量的激增，相应地中级法院二审案件的办案压力也会一定程度的增大。可以说，新标准的实施后，绝大部分民商事案件的一审、二审工作将由基层法院和中级法院承担。Continue Reading 关于最高法院调整一审民商事案件级别管辖标准的一点看法

Liu Jun, King & Wood’s Guangzhou Office,Domestic Dispute Resolution Practice

On March 30, 2008, a notice was issued by the Supreme People’s Court adjusting the standards for jurisdiction of the high people’s courts and the intermediate people’s courts.The adjustment will reduce dramatically the number of first instance cases tried by the high people’s courts and the Supreme People’s Court, however, it will lead to a huge burden on the basic people’s courts and accordingly the intermediate people’s courts will also see their caseloads increase for cases of second instance. In other words, after the implementation of the new standard, most civil and commercial cases of first and second instance will be charged to the basic and the intermediate people’s courts.The new standard came into force from April 1, 2008…Continue Reading Standards for Cases of First Instance Adjusted by Supreme Court