前言

　　2019年是中华人民共和国成立70 周年，也是实施人民法院第五个五年改革纲要的开局之年。人民法院以习近平新时代中国特色社会主义思想为指导，深入贯彻落实党的十九大和十九届二中、三中、四中全会精神，不断增强“四个意识”、坚定“四个自信”、做到“两个维护”，不忘初心、牢记使命，严格履行宪法和法律赋予的审判职责，持续深化审判体制机制改革，不断提升审判质效，着力打造过硬队伍，开创了知识产权司法保护工作新局面，知识产权司法公信力和国际影响力进一步提升，知识产权审判体系和审判能力现代化进程不断推进，为推动创新驱动发展、创造良好营商环境提供了有力司法服务和保障。

　　一、发挥审判职能作用，加强知识产权司法保护

　　党的十九届四中全会作出坚持和完善中国特色社会主义制度、推进国家治理体系和治理能力现代化重大部署，并提出了完善科技创新体制机制、加快建设创新型国家、强化国家战略科技力量的要求。加强知识产权保护和运用，形成有效的创新激励机制，是提升我国科技创新能力、推动经济高质量发展、推进创新驱动发展战略实施的必然选择。一年来，人民法院紧紧围绕“努力让人民群众在每一个司法案件中感受到公平正义”目标，坚持司法为民、公正司法主线，积极发挥知识产权审判工作在激励和保护创新中的重要作用。

　　2019年，人民法院共新收一审、二审、申请再审等各类知识产权案件481793件，审结475853件（含旧存，下同），比2018年分别上升44.16%和48.87%。

　　（一）提升民事司法保护水平

　　人民法院充分发挥知识产权审判保护创新和维护公平竞争的职能作用，注重通过裁判激励科技创新，促进文化传播，维护竞争秩序，为创新主体提供明确、稳定、可预期的规则指引，让创新创业者坚定信心，提升社会创新活力。2019 年，最高人民法院新收知识产权民事案件2504件，审结1976件，比2018年分别上升174.26%和260.07%。地方各级人民法院共新收知识产权民事一审案件399031件，审结394521件，分别比2018年上升40.79% 和44.02%。其中，新收专利案件22272件，同比上升2.64% ；商标案件65209件，同比上升25.41% ；著作权案件293066件，同比上升49.98% ；技术合同案件3135件，同比上升16.98% ；竞争类案件4128 件，同比下降1.25% ；其他知识产权民事纠纷案件11221件，同比上升49.95%。地方各级人民法院共新收知识产权民事二审案件49704 件，审结48710件，同比分别上升79.95% 和85.29% 。

　　一年来，人民法院审结的具有较大社会影响的知识产权民事案件有：厦门卢卡斯汽车配件有限公司等与法国瓦莱奥清洗系统公司等侵害发明专利权案；本田技研工业株式会社与重庆恒胜鑫泰贸易有限公司等侵害商标权案；和睦家医疗管理咨询（北京）有限公司与福州和睦佳妇产医院等侵害商标权及不正当竞争案；蔡新光与广州市润平商业有限公司侵害植物新品种权案；河北山人雕塑有限公司与河北中鼎园林雕塑有限公司等侵害著作权案；等等。

　　（二）强化对行政行为的司法审查

　　各级人民法院着力强化对知识产权授权确权行政行为和行政执法行为合法性的审查。2019年，最高人民法院新收和审结知识产权行政案件1066件和884 件，比2018 年分别上升70.83%和52.15%。地方各级人民法院共新收知识产权行政一审案件16134件，比2018年上升19.11%。其中，专利案件1661 件，同比上升8.14% ；商标案件14457件，同比上升20.56% ；著作权案件16件，与2018 年持平。审结一审案件17938件，同比上升89.74%。地方各级人民法院新收知识产权行政二审案件7304件，审结5942件，比2018 年分别上升104.88% 和84.71%。其中，维持原判4791件，改判1026 件，发回重审4 件，撤诉613 件，驳回起诉132 件。

　　一年来，人民法院审结的具有较大社会影响的知识产权行政案件有：三星电子株式会社、华为技术有限公司与国家知识产权局发明专利权无效宣告请求行政案；北京康智乐思网络科技有限公司与国家知识产权局、厦门美柚股份有限公司商标权无效宣告请求行政案；等等。

　　（三）加大对知识产权犯罪行为惩罚力度

　　人民法院依法审理知识产权刑事案件，加大刑事保护力度，净化市场环境。2019年，地方各级人民法院共新收侵犯知识产权刑事一审案件5242件，同比上升21.37%。其中，侵犯注册商标类刑事案件4982 件，同比上升21.01% ；侵犯著作权类刑事案件210件，同比上升34.62%。

　　地方各级人民法院共审结侵犯知识产权刑事一审案件5075  件，同比上升24.88% 。在审结的侵犯知识产权刑事一审案件中，假冒注册商标刑事案件2134件，同比上升15.23% ；销售假冒注册商标的商品刑事案件2279 件，同比上升32.19% ；非法制造、销售非法制造的注册商标标识刑事案件423件，同比上升38.69% ；假冒专利刑事案件1 件；侵犯著作权刑事案件191件，同比上升40.44% ；销售侵权复制品刑事案件8件，同比上升33.33% ；侵犯商业秘密刑事案件39件，与去年持平。

　　地方各级人民法院共新收涉知识产权的刑事二审案件808件，同比上升18.30% ；审结807件，同比上升20.81%。

　　一年来，人民法院审结的具有较大社会影响的知识产权刑事案件有：杨明凤、杨茂淦等犯假冒注册商标罪、销售假冒注册商标的商品罪案；林义翔等犯侵犯商业秘密罪案；许振纬等犯假冒注册商标罪案；陈力等犯侵犯著作权罪案；等等。

　　2019年，知识产权审判工作稳中有进，审判质效持续向好，呈现出以下特点。

　　案件数量再创新高。随着全社会知识产权保护意识的不断加强和知识产权司法保护公信力的稳步提升。2019年，人民法院新收和审结各类知识产权案件数量急剧增加，收、结案数量均创历史新高，增幅双双突破40%。从案件分布区域看，北京收案80165件、上海收案23580件、江苏收案20249件、浙江收案27706件、广东收案157363件，共计309063件，占全国法院知识产权收案数量64.15%，依然是知识产权诉讼纠纷较多的地区；从增长速度看，河北、安徽、福建、广西、重庆分别同比上升53.53%、60.30%、64.88%、98.49%、173.66%,涨幅均突破50%，其他地区亦呈现出明显的攀升趋势；从结案情况看，各级法院努力克服案多人少矛盾，结案数量大幅提升。以前述收案最多的地区为例，其结案率分别达到90%以上，圆满完成了审判任务。

　　新型案件不断增多。随着新一轮科技革命和产业变革的蓬勃兴起，新技术、新产品、新业态不断拓展法律边界，涉及互联网、大数据、人工智能、标准必要专利、生物医药等科技前沿领域的知识产权新问题不断涌现，既要对复杂的技术方案进行分析，又需要结合具体案情灵活适用法律。最高人民法院审理了涉及机械、材料、电学、通信、生物医药等领域的专利案件，进一步提炼有关裁判规则；北京知识产权法院审结“首例云服务器被诉侵权案”“冻干形式的稳定药用组合物专利侵权诉前行为保全案”等疑难复杂案件；上海市高级人民法院审结诺基亚公司与华勤通讯技术有限公司侵害发明专利权案，为通讯领域的标准必要专利案件的妥善审理提供了借鉴；广东法院专利案件诉讼标的额超过1000万元的案件有63件，标的总额约为81.8亿元。

　　保护力度持续加大。人民法院认真贯彻《关于完善产权保护制度依法保护产权的意见》，提高知识产权司法救济的及时性和便利性，努力实现侵权损害赔偿与知识产权市场价值的协调性和相称性。北京市海淀区人民法院在UC浏览器诉搜狗输入法流量劫持案中适用裁量性赔偿计算方式确定2000余万元的赔偿金额；内蒙古自治区高级人民法院在广东蓝带集团北京蓝宝酒业公司与河南红火公司等侵害商标权案中将赔偿数额由5万元提高到100万元，加大了对侵权源头的惩治力度；浙江省高级人民法院在杭州莫丽斯科技有限公司、奥普家居股份有限公司诉浙江风尚建材股份有限公司、浙江现代新能源公司侵害商标权及不正当竞争案中判令被告赔偿800万元，维护了“奥普”商标的品牌价值；福建法院在“九牧王”商标纠纷案和“博力谋”商标及不正当竞争案判决中积极采用惩罚性赔偿机制，将侵权损害赔偿金额提高了1倍和2倍。

　　司法效果日益彰显。人民法院在确保完成审判任务的同时，还审结了一批疑难、复杂、新类型及社会广泛关注的案件，发挥了典型案例的示范和指引作用。最高人民法院知识产权法庭敲响“第一槌”并当庭宣判，判决书深入阐释了功能性特征的认定标准，数十家媒体进行全媒体直播和广泛报道，庭审网络直播第一时间观看量达1800余万次，该案从立案、开庭到结案送达仅用50天，凸显公正透明高效。甘肃省高级人民法院审结的涉外植物新品种案件，保护了品种权人的合法权益。上海知识产权法院审理的深圳市朗科科技股份有限公司与创歆贸易（上海）有限公司等侵害发明专利权系列案，总标的达2470万元，涉案专利系移动存储领域的开创性技术，案件审理受到社会广泛关注和肯定。湖南法院审理了一批涉餐饮、创意摄影、百货销售等服务行业的商标侵权和不正当竞争案，引导餐饮行业、百货业、文创产业规范、正当使用商业标识，推动了第三产业良性健康发展。

　　多元解纷成效突出。人民法院坚持把非诉讼纠纷解决机制挺在前面，坚持和发展新时代“枫桥经验”，推进多元解纷体系建设，鼓励当事人通过非诉讼方式化解纠纷，促使各类纠纷解决方式各得其所、各尽其能、多元共治、形成合力，进一步提升了知识产权纠纷解决效率。最高人民法院成功调解陕西白水杜康酒业有限责任公司与洛阳杜康控股有限公司侵害商标权案，一揽子解决了涉“杜康”的所有案件，为地方稳定、企业发展提供了司法保障；最高人民法院建立全国法院统筹联动整体机制，探索“知产法庭+巡回法庭”巡回审理模式及“勘验+庭审”案件审理机制，推动全国48个关联案件一揽子化解，庭前跨区域高效化解80个专利侵权案件，方便群众诉讼，丰富了知识产权领域的“枫桥经验”；北京法院持续推进立案阶段“多元调解+速裁”机制改革，努力推动首都社会治理体系和治理能力现代化；吉林法院注重发挥调解作用，各类知识产权纠纷调解率达75%；安徽省高级人民法院成功调解标的额逾1亿元的中广影视卫星公司与中国电信安徽分公司侵害广播组织权案；山东法院认真落实《山东省多元化解纠纷促进条例》，积极构建化解知识产权纠纷诉调对接平台；湖北法院搭建行政机关、侵权场地租赁方、行业协会、律师调解组织等第三方参与的调解平台，通过协调各方资源，促使达成调解；四川法院与中国（四川）知识产权保护中心签订关于建立知识产权协同保护机制的合作协议，委托其进行涉专利知识产权案件的调解工作；云南法院积极建立知识产权诉前调解制度，为实现部分知识产权案件及时化解创造条件；辽宁法院进一步完善多元化纠纷解决机制，针对事实清楚、争议不大的著作权、商标权、不正当竞争等纠纷案件采取诉前调解，实行诉调对接；新疆法院注重采用多种调解方式化解矛盾，调撤率始终保持相对较高水平。

　　二、深化改革综合配套，优化知识产权司法体系

　　2019年，人民法院以贯彻落实《关于加强知识产权审判领域改革创新若干问题的意见》为重要抓手，加强知识产权审判领域理论创新、制度创新和实践创新，推进知识产权审判领域各项改革举措，不断完善知识产权司法体制机制。

　　（一）最高人民法院知识产权法庭开局良好

　　最高人民法院知识产权法庭的成立，是以习近平同志为核心的党中央从建设知识产权强国和世界科技强国的战略高度作出的重大战略决策部署，是我国知识产权诉讼制度的重大突破和创新，具有里程碑意义。2019年是最高人民法院知识产权法庭运行的开局之年，作为统一审理全国范围内技术类知识产权上诉案件的专门机构，知识产权法庭克服了初创时期的各种困难，奋力推进各方面工作，相继推出多项改革举措，实现良好开局。

　　一是实施“统一裁判标准系统工程”。统一裁判标准是中央设立法庭的首要目标，制定《最高人民法院知识产权法庭统一裁判标准实施细则》等制度，做好前端梳理、加强中间把控、完善末端审核、严管重点案件；完善法官会议制度，同步编发《法官会议纪要摘编》和《办案提示》，及时统一重要裁判标准和类案办理方式。

　　二是探索行政和民事案件同步审理模式。将涉及同一专利侵权民事和确权行政纠纷交同一合议庭审理，实现二元程序和裁判标准的对接。

　　三是优化技术类知识产权案件审判机制。坚持以人民为中心，优化审判管理，充分发挥集中管辖的机制优势和全国法院“1+76”整体效能，推动全国关联纠纷化解。

　　四是推进多元化技术事实查明机制发展。统筹全国法院技术调查资源，包括360余名技术调查官，覆盖30多个技术领域，努力缓解欠发达地区法院技术调查力量不足、发达地区法院技术领域覆盖不全的问题。

　　五是加强信息化和智能化建设。建设裁判规则库和案例库、“大数据知识产权分析平台”等智能平台，探索“知产法庭云”，满足当事人通过互联网提交证据、网上阅卷等需求，为案件智能审判提供技术支持。

　　（二）知识产权法院建设扎实推进

　　为贯彻落实全国人大常委会关于知识产权法院成立以来工作情况的审议意见，最高人民法院继续加强对北京、上海、广州知识产权法院的指导，知识产权法院各项工作扎实推进，进展顺利，成效显著。

　　自2014年底设立以来，知识产权法院受理案件逾10万件，审理了一批具有规则意义和社会影响的重大知识产权案件，在提升审判质效、统一裁判尺度、促进创新驱动发展等方面发挥了积极作用。知识产权法院立足自身职能定位，大胆探索创新，推动司法改革，开创了知识产权审判新局面，推动了我国知识产权审判专门化体系建设。

　　（三）跨区域管辖机制不断优化

　　2017年以来，南京等21个城市中级人民法院内设专门审判机构，跨区域集中管辖部分知识产权一审案件，推动知识产权专业审判机构在全国范围内合理布局。各地知识产权法庭加大探索创新力度，着力提升审判专业化水平，对于推进京津冀协同发展、长江经济带发展、粤港澳大湾区建设等决策部署具有重要意义。

　　南京知识产权法庭大力开展巡回审判，推行专业化、集约化审判模式，积极回应高新技术园区的知识产权保护诉求，为辖区内企业开展自主创新保驾护航；杭州知识产权法庭积极运用互联网技术、建立跨区域协作机制，在为群众提供在线诉讼司法便利的同时，有效促进了法律适用标准统一；郑州知识产权法庭以信息化建设为抓手，采取网上立案、电子送达、微信调解等措施，打破时空限制，不断提高知识产权审判便民化、信息化水平；深圳知识产权法庭立足区位优势，以强化知识产权司法保护为切入点，深度参与广深科技创新走廊、珠三角国家自主创新示范区建设；海口知识产权法庭在全省设置巡回办案点和司法服务联系点，主动提供知识产权司法保护服务。

　　（四）知识产权审判“三合一”改革持续深化

　　2019年，人民法院贯彻落实《最高人民法院关于在全国法院推进知识产权民事、行政和刑事案件审判“三合一”工作的意见》，进一步巩固“三合一”改革工作成效。

　　最高人民法院加大对全国推进“三合一”改革的指导力度，深入开展知识产权刑事案件阅卷调研，掌握第一手刑事案件办理资料，为研究知识产权刑事司法保护规范、修订完善相关司法解释奠定了基础；江苏省高级人民法院开展知识产权犯罪量刑调研，为规范审理知识产权刑事案件的刑罚裁量权与量刑尺度提供参考；浙江法院2019年11月1日起全面实施知识产权民事、行政、刑事“三合一”审判，审理知识产权刑事案件260件、行政案件41件；海南省高级人民法院开展知识产权刑事、行政案件指定管辖调研，明确知识产权案件“三合一”管辖机制。

　　（五）知识产权诉讼制度不断完善

　　人民法院着力完善符合知识产权案件特点的诉讼规则，积极优化知识产权案件审理模式，着力破解制约知识产权司法保护的体制性难题。

　　各级法院积极创新工作机制，强化当事人举证义务，加大依职权调查取证力度，有效减轻权利人维权成本。上海市高级人民法院探索证据出示令制度，依法制裁妨碍举证的行为；湖南省高级人民法院规范律师调查令的工作规程；海南省高级人民法院鼓励当事人充分利用公证、电子数据平台等第三方证据保全方式收集、固定证据。

　　各级法院进一步明确各类人员参与技术事实调查的方式，充分运用技术调查的各种力量资源，构建了有机协调的技术事实查明机制。最高人民法院组建了全国法院技术调查官、技术咨询专家库，建立全国法院技术调查资源共享机制，发布《技术调查官工作手册（2019）》，为全国法院查明技术事实提供工作指引和范式；北京知识产权法院构建了由专业化人民陪审员、技术调查官、专家辅助人、司法鉴定机构共同参与的“四位一体”技术事实查明机制；江苏省高级人民法院与江苏省生物医药功能材料协同创新中心签订关于知识产权技术事实调查协作的框架协议，发挥技术专家的积极作用；新疆生产建设兵团法院在证据保全过程中，聘请专业人士参与侵权种子种植地域和面积的测量、侵权植物的扦样；湖北、湖南、四川、陕西等地高级人民法院组建专家库，充分发挥专家的专业支持作用，提升了法官查明技术事实的准确性。

　　各级法院立足群众多元司法需求，积极优化知识产权案件审理模式，促进案件繁简分流，统一法律适用标准。北京知识产权法院实行快审机制，在商标驳回复审案件中试行“要素式”裁判文书，平均结案时间减少30%；西安知识产权法庭组建速裁组，用20%的审判力量完成70%的案件；成都知识产权法庭探索建立知识产权案件快速审判机制，合理配置审判资源，取得良好效果；海口知识产权法庭实行“立案、审判、执行”一体化运行模式，提高知识产权审判质效；长春知识产权法庭对涉著作权、商标权等类案进行简案速审、快审，五个月审结全年84.8%的案件，大大缩短了审理周期。

　　三、主动延伸司法职能，提升调研指导工作质效

　　人民法院密切关注知识产权司法保护热点问题，依托最高人民法院知识产权司法保护研究中心、司法保护理论研究基地等，加强知识产权保护创新理论和司法政策研究，积极参与知识产权法律修订工作，监督指导职能得以有效发挥。

　　（一）积极参与有关立法

　　积极参与民法典、专利法、商标法、反不正当竞争法、著作权法、商标法实施条例、植物新品种保护条例等法律法规的制定、修订工作；参加专利法第四次修改座谈会、全国政协关于著作权法草案民间文学艺术作品相关会议；开展知识产权诉讼特别程序法调研，确定了总体思路、基本框架、重点内容。

　　（二）强化司法解释工作

　　最高人民法院发布《关于技术调查官参与知识产权案件诉讼活动的若干规定》，明确了技术调查官参与知识产权案件诉讼活动的程序、职责、效力、法律责任等；围绕知识产权诉讼举证责任分配、证据调查收集、证据交换和电子证据的审查判断等，开展专题调研；召开多次研讨会，研究知识产权惩罚性赔偿、商标法和反不正当竞争法适用、商业秘密保护、国防专利纠纷等司法解释起草工作。

　　（三）注重司法政策研究

　　参与起草《关于强化知识产权保护的意见》，强化广州知识产权法院、深圳知识产权法庭等知识产权专业审判机构职能，全面加强粤港澳大湾区在知识产权保护、专业人才培养等领域的合作，深入推进中新广州知识城国家知识产权运用和保护综合改革试验；开展涉自贸区知识产权保护专项调研，围绕自贸区、自贸港建设中的知识产权司法保护问题，提出针对性强的工作举措38条。

　　（四）发挥案例指导作用

　　最高人民法院发布“知识产权案件年度报告（2018）”“中国法院十大知识产权案件和五十件知识产权典型案例”，归纳具有普遍指导意义的司法裁判标准，开展“集中宣判周”活动，对有标杆意义的案件集中公开宣判，进一步发挥新型、疑难、复杂案件规则引领作用；深圳知识产权法庭在总结外观设计专利快审机制改革经验的基础上，有针对性地选择了19个典型案件进行分析；内蒙古自治区高级人民法院召开知识产权审判情况暨典型案例发布会，公布全区法院知识产权典型案例，规范和指导市场主体诚信经营,维护公平竞争的市场经济秩序；河南省高级人民法院发布涉及商标品牌保护的典型案件；四川省高级人民法院首次发布四川省民营企业知识产权司法保护白皮书及典型案例，研究民营企业在知识产权司法保护中存在的问题、原因及建议。

　　（五）深化司法调研工作

　　最高人民法院整理近五年商标注册及使用情况的大数据，研究提出当前法律规制恶意抢注商标行为的措施建议；就图片著作权前沿问题进行研讨，明晰了裁判标准，回应了社会关切；辽宁法院开展涉“一带一路”、自由贸易试验区等知识产权案件的调研，了解相关企业发展的司法保护需求；浙江省高级人民法院深入20多家企业调研，切实回应创新主体司法保护需求；黑龙江法院深入民营企业调研，制作普法宣传手册，进一步提升民营企业知识产权保护力度，助力民营经济发展；湖南法院主动对接企业和高新园区的司法需求，增强企业创新发展意识。

　　最高人民法院围绕专利法修改、药品专利链接、商业模式创新等重点问题进行专项调研，形成《关于改革和完善专利无效程序立法的建议》《关于药品专利链接制度的立法建议》《商业模式创新成果的司法保护问题研究》等调研成果；北京市高级人民法院总结梳理商标授权确权行政案件审理的裁判规则，为权利人寻求司法保护提供行为指引；浙江省高级人民法院针对涉电商平台知识产权案件审理进行调研，总结促进电子商务产业健康发展的司法经验；福建省高级人民法院就如何强化知识产权司法保护、更好服务保障创新创业创造提出意见；江苏省高级人民法院以江苏创新经济发展与司法保护为视角，提出了实施严格知识产权司法保护、为创新经济发展提供高质量司法保障的意见。

　　四、提升司法公开水平，树立知识产权司法公信

　　各级人民法院以公开促公正、以公正树公信。开放、动态、透明、便民的阳光司法机制建设取得明显进展。

　　（一）深化审判公开

　　人民法院深入推进审判流程信息公开工作，严格落实“以公开为原则，以不公开为例外”工作要求，创新庭审公开形式，拓展庭审公开的范围。广东省高级人民法院公开开庭审理街电公司与来电公司侵害实用新型专利权案并全程网络直播，近万人次收看、近百人现场旁听了庭审；四川省高级人民法院公开审理并当庭宣判一起侵害商标权纠纷案件，邀请人大代表、政协委员旁听庭审；内蒙古自治区高级人民法院开展“庭审进校园”活动，公开开庭审理一起侵害著作权纠纷案，师生代表300余人观摩了庭审。

　　（二）加强以案说法

　　最高人民法院组织完成中央电视台法治中国说第三季《大法官说——司法保护知识产权》节目的策划、组稿、录制、播放等一系列工作。该节目是最高人民法院与中央电视台社会与法频道（CCTV-12）共同推出的中华人民共和国成立70周年献礼重点宣传片，该期节目聚焦党的十九大以来中国法治建设新成就和中华人民共和国成立70年来中国法治进程，由最高人民法院副院长陶凯元大法官发表主题演说。据统计，近5000万观众第一时间收看直播，相关的网络新闻共计1357篇，报刊新闻78篇，微博151条，论坛博客99篇，微信文章2238篇，APP报道294篇，知识产权司法保护工作获得社会积极评价。

　　在日内瓦总部举办的第二届世界知识产权法官论坛期间举行《世界知识产权组织知识产权典型案例集·中国卷（2011-2018）》新书发布活动，世界知识产权组织总法律顾问庞德科出席活动并致辞。本案例集由世界知识产权组织总干事弗朗西斯·高锐与中国最高人民法院副院长陶凯元大法官分别作序，是世界知识产权组织计划出版的各国知识产权典型案例集中的第一部，对于充分展示中国知识产权司法保护成就，进一步发挥典型案例的示范作用，扩大我国知识产权司法保护国际影响力具有重要意义。

　　最高人民法院组织开展“集中宣判周”“法官进校园”等活动，加强以案说法，增强全社会尊重知识、保护知识产权的意识。重大案件审判活动注重邀请全国人大代表、政协委员、最高人民法院特约监督员和咨询员、中国科学院院士、律师代表、行业协会代表参加旁听和座谈交流；雄安新区中级人民法院举办“保护知识产权大型广场宣传咨询活动”，向百度、腾讯、京东、华为等新区入驻企业宣传知识产权法律法规；浙江省高级人民法院开设“浙江天平”公众号、“知之汇”网站、“浙知析法”栏目，实现常态化宣传，全年发布文章85篇、直播庭审26次、网站点击量达90万次；江苏省高级人民法院开展“代表委员看法院”暨知识产权司法保护媒体集中采访活动，收到良好效果。

　　（三）注重宣传知识产权法治

　　最高人民法院启动“知识产权司法保护安徽行”，邀请部分全国人大代表、最高人民法院特约监督员及安徽省有关部门代表等，与中央媒体一起走访安徽部分法院和重点高科技企业，就安徽省知识产权保护情况进行调研，关注企业科技创新成果，聚焦司法需求，服务创新主体发展；组织开展“知产法庭公众开放周”“知识产权保护集中开庭周”活动，公开审理涉及医疗器械、网络数据抓取、光学技术等多个高新科技领域的大要案，受到社会广泛关注；举行“法信知识产权版”上线活动，打造以既有的知识产权案例指导平台为基础，融合、升级、研发而成的知识产权一体化大数据服务平台，为全国知识产权法官提供免费检索查阅服务。河北省高级人民法院将“4.26”宣传活动与《奥林匹克标志保护条例》宣传相结合，广泛宣传有关法律法规，效果良好；山西省高级人民法院深入山西省转型综合改革示范区走访调研，充分了解企业需求，就人民法院如何更好地为企业创新服务，营造一流创新环境提出了明确要求；西藏自治区高级人民法院结合民俗习惯和宗教信仰，以喜闻乐见的形式开展汉藏双语法治宣传；宁夏回族自治区高级人民法院开展知识产权法律宣传和法律咨询活动，现场解答群众法律咨询。

　　五、拓展合作交流空间，扩大知识产权司法影响

　　当今世界日益开放和包容，知识产权审判工作既要立足中国实际，又要具有全球思维和国际视野，贡献中国经验和中国智慧。

　　（一）积极服务对外工作大局

　　最高人民法院加强中外经贸磋商中知识产权问题研究，依法加强对下审判指导监督；派员参加多边、双边知识产权对话交流活动，参加海牙国际私法会议《承认与执行外国民商事判决的公约》的谈判工作，为海牙判决项目公约的最终达成和知识产权问题的妥善解决贡献智慧。

　　（二）扩大司法保护国际影响

　　2019年6月，最高人民法院与世界知识产权组织在北京共同举办“WIPO调解在知识产权诉讼中的应用研讨会”。来自世界知识产权组织、新加坡以及中国最高人民法院和地方法院的嘉宾对知识产权组织的替代性纠纷解决机制进行了深入研讨，世界知识产权组织仲裁和调解中心主任艾瑞克·韦伯斯高度赞扬中国法院和世界知识产权组织的合作。派员参加“打击侵权假冒国际合作论坛”，强调依法适用惩罚性赔偿，坚决遏制和威慑重复侵权、恶意侵权等行为，努力营造产权受保护、侵权有代价、犯罪必惩罚的法治环境。

　　最高人民法院副院长罗东川大法官主持了与世界知识产权组织、国际保护知识产权协会、美国知识产权法律协会、国际法院、古巴最高法院、英国高等法院等的20余次交流活动。世界知识产权组织总干事弗朗西斯·高锐表示：“最高人民法院知识产权法庭的成立意义重大，体现了中国对知识产权保护的庄严承诺,表达了中国为知识产权提供更加公正高效司法保护的坚定决心。”国际法院院长阿布杜勒卡维•艾哈迈德•优素福表示，“中国的法律成就不仅体现在整个法治的推动方面，在具体的知识产权领域上的成就也让人非常钦佩。”

　　（三）拓宽对外合作交流渠道

　　通过各种对话平台，积极回应国际社会对中国知识产权司法保护的关注，增进世界各国对中国知识产权司法保护状况的了解，进一步提升知识产权审判的国际影响力。派员参加“世界知识产权组织对华合作与中国知识产权发展趋势”座谈会，积极支持并参与世界知识产权组织的相关合作项目；派员参加世界知识产权组织“知识产权审判大师对话”活动，组建中国专利法官代表团访问欧盟，积极宣介我国知识产权司法保护的最新发展和成就；派员参加世界知识产权组织第二届知识产权法官论坛、第九届亚洲太平洋地区法官竞争法研讨会、国际知识产权保护协会（AIPPI）年会、2019年国际商标年会、欧洲商标协会年会、中日韩三国知识产权保护研讨会等活动。

　　六、夯实队伍建设基础，增强知识产权司法能力

　　人民法院坚持以政治建设为统领，不断提高政治站位，大力推进审判队伍革命化、正规化、专业化、职业化建设，着力锻造一支政治坚定、顾全大局、精通法律、熟悉技术并具有国际视野的知识产权司法审判队伍，为做好新时代知识产权审判工作提供坚实组织保障和人才保障。

　　（一）扎实开展思想政治教育活动

　　人民法院将政治建设摆在首位，深入开展“不忘初心、牢记使命”主题教育活动，充分运用好党内政治生活各项制度，唤醒守初心意识、增强担使命本领；创设“新知大讲堂”“知识产权法庭讲坛”等线上线下党建教育管理平台，探索形成了“线上线下全覆盖、教育管理全天候”的党建工作法，最高人民法院知识产权法庭党支部获得中央和国家机关工委《旗帜》杂志社举办的第二届党建创新成果评选活动“百优案例”奖项，系全国法院系统唯一获奖单位。

　　（二）筑牢干警廉洁自律思想防线

　　人民法院坚持全面从严治党、从严治院，贯彻落实中央八项规定及其实施细则精神，整治“四风”，反对形式主义、官僚主义，人民法院党风廉政建设和反腐败斗争不断向纵深推进。

　　（三）着力加强队伍司法能力建设

　　人民法院牢牢把握“五个过硬”总要求，在新的起点上全面加强队伍建设，努力推进新时代人民法院队伍建设实现新发展，着力打造一支忠诚干净担当的高素质法院队伍。最高人民法院加大统筹协调和对下指导力度，推动各地法院制定知识产权审判专门人才培养和储备规划，建立形式多样的人员交流机制。各地法院以提升司法能力为重点，充分运用专题培训、专题研讨、在职培养、交流挂职、庭审观摩等形式，打造学习型审判队伍，适应知识产权审判工作新形势、新要求，队伍专业化职业化水平不断提升。

　　结束语

　　当今世界正处于百年未有之大变局，全球治理体系和国际秩序变革加速推进，全球新一轮科技革命与产业变革风起云涌，给知识产权司法保护提出了新课题、新任务和新挑战。人民法院将进一步把握新形势新情况，切实履职尽责，充分发挥知识产权司法保护职能，为实现经济持续健康发展和社会大局稳定，为全面建成小康社会和“十三五”规划圆满收官，为建设社会主义现代化强国和国家治理体系、治理能力现代化提供有力司法服务和保障。

Intellectual Property Protection by Chinese Courts(2019)

Introduction

　　2019 was the 70thyear of the founding of the People’s Republic of China. The same year saw theunfolding of the People’s Courts’ Fifth Five-Year Reform Programme (2019–2023).Guided by General-Secretary Xi Jinping’s thought on Chinese socialism for thenew era, the courts implemented the decisions and essential values of the 19thNational Congress of the Communist Party of China (“Party Congress”) and of thesecond, third and fourth plena of the 19th CCP Central Committee. They havealso continued to foster the “four aspects of consciousness”, the “four mattersof confidence” and the “two pillars to safeguard”, never losing sight of theiroriginal aspirations and mission. They pursued the national goal of building acomplete xiaokang society, discharged adjudication duties based on thelaw and the constitution, and intensified reform of the adjudication system toimprove adjudication efficiency, effectiveness and judicial credibility. Theyhave also ensured efficacious discharge of their adjudication duties. Havingdedicated significant effort to building an effective team, the courts rebootedand renewed the intellectual property adjudication regime to further elevatethe credibility and impact of China’s intellectual property adjudication at theinternational level. By continuing to modernise the intellectual property adjudicationregime and capacity, the courts have also enabled the delivery of robustjudicial services and enactment of judicial safeguards to underpin thecountry’s innovation-driven development and creation of a pro-businessenvironment.

　　I. Leveraging the adjudicationprocess for more effective protection

　　The 19th CCP Central Committee’s fourth plenary session issuedimportant directives to advance Chinese socialism and modernise the nationalgovernance system and governance capabilities. The session also gave instructions forthe country to improve systems and mechanisms to encourage technologicalinnovation, redouble efforts to build an innovation-based country andstrengthen national strategic technologies. To elevate China’s technologicaland innovation capabilities, drive quality economic growth and implement ourinnovation-driven development strategy, we need greater protection and utilisationof intellectual property to fashion an effective incentive structure. As thecourts “strive to make the people feel fairness and justice in every judicialcase”—a goal that centres on the people and fair justice—intellectual propertyadjudication has become an important means to incentivise and protectinnovation.

　　In 2019, the courts have accepteda total of 481,793 cases, including first instance and second instance casesand applications for extraordinary legal remedy to reopen cases.475,853 cases(including carried forward cases) were concluded, representing a respectiveyear-on-year increase of 44.16 % and 48.87%.

　　(I) More effective adjudication ofcivil disputes

　　Given the essential role ofintellectual property adjudication in protecting innovation and in levellingthe competitive playing field, adjudication has focused on encouragingtechnological innovation, promoting cultural transmission and maintainingmarket order to provide clear, consistent and predictable rules to guideadjudication and instil confidence among entrepreneurs and innovators.

　　In 2019, the Supreme People’s Court accepted2,504 new civil intellectual property cases and concluded 1,976 cases, respectively174.26% and 260.97% higher than the previous year. In the same year, the localcourts accepted 399,031 and concluded 394,521 first instance civil cases, wherethe respective year-on-year increases were 40.79% and 44.02%. Among the newlyaccepted cases, 22,272 were patent cases (2.64% year-on-year increase); 65,209 trademark cases (25.41% year-on-year increase); 293,066 copyright cases (49.98% year-on-year increase). There were also 3,135 cases ontechnology contract disputes, (16.98% year-on-year increase) and 4,128 unfair competitioncases, including 70 monopoly cases, (49.71% year-on-year increase). Other civil intellectualproperty disputes constituted 11,221 cases, or 49.71% more than last year. Forsecond instance cases, 49,704 were accepted and 48,710 concluded, translatingto a year-on-year increase of 79.95% and 85.29% respectively.

　　High profile civil disputesinvolving intellectual property heard and concluded by the courts during theyear include:

　　French automotive parts manufacturer Valeo Systemes D’Essuyage(plaintiff- appellee)vs. Lukasi Car Accessories(Xiamen) Co. Ltd (respondent-appellant) and Fuke Car Accessories (Xiamen) Co. Ltd. (respondent-appellant)et al. involving a utility patent infringement dispute; HondaMotor Company (plaintiff-appellee- petitioner) vs. Hengsheng Xintai (Chongqing) Trade Company (respondent-appellant-petitionee), Hensim (Chongqing)Group et al. (respondent- appellant-petitionee) involving a trademarkinfringement dispute; Hemujia Medical Management Consultancy(Beijing) Co., Ltd (plaintiff,-appellant-petitioner)vs. Hemujia Obstetrics andGynaecology Hospital (Fuzhou)(respondent-appellee- petitionee) involving unfair competition; Cai Xinguang (plaintiff-appellant) vs. RunpingCommerce (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd(respondent-appellee) involving infringement of new plant variety; and copyrightinfringement case of ShanrenSculpture (Hebei) Co., Ltd(plaintiff-appellant) vs.Zhongding Garden Sculptures (Hebei) Co., Ltd et al. (respondent-appellant) and the People’s Government of Sanhe Township, Bozhou District, Zunyi Cityet al. (respondent-appellee).

　　(II) More rigorous legality review ofadministrative actions

　　The courtshave strengthened legality review of intellectual property granted andvalidated by administrative authorities and of administrative enforcementactions. In 2019, the Supreme People’s Court accepted1,066 intellectual property cases involving administrative disputes andconcluded 884 cases. Compared to last year, the number of cases has risen by70.83% and 52.15% respectively. The same year saw local courts accepting 16,134first instance administrative cases (19.11% increase year-on-year), 1,661were patent cases (8.14% increase year-on-year), 14,457 trademark cases (20.56%increase year-on-year) and 16 copyright cases. 17, 938 first instance caseswere concluded (89.74% increase year-on-year). Local courts also accepted 7,304(104.88% increase year-on-year) second instance administrative cases, and 5,942cases were concluded (84.71% increase year-on-year), of which, decision wasupheld for 4,791 cases, first instance judgement was amended for 1,026 cases; 4cases were remanded for retrial, 613 cases withdrawn, and 132 cases overruled.

　　High profileintellectual property-related administrative disputes heard and concluded bythe people’s courts during the year include Huawei. Technologies, Co, Ltd(plaintiff-appellee) v. Samsung Electronics Co, Ltd (Thirdparty-appellant) and CNIPA (respondent) involving an administrative overthe invalidation of a patent; and Kangzhi Lesi Network Technology (Beijing)Co., Ltd (plaintiff-appellee-petitionee) v. Meiyou InformationTechnology (Xiamen) Co., Ltd (third party-appellant-petitioner) and CNIPA(respondent-appellant) involving an administrative dispute over theinvalidation of a trademark.

　　(III) Stricter sanctions onintellectual property crimes

　　Intellectualproperty crimes were subject to more rigorous adjudication   toclean up the market, therefore better defend intellectual property fromcriminal infringement.

　　In 2019, thelocal courts accepted 5,242 first instance intellectual property-relatedcriminal cases, 21.37% higher than last year, including 4,982 cases relating toinfringement of registered trademarks ( 21.01% increase year-on-year), and 210 oncopyright infringement (34.62% increase year-on-year).

　　At the locallevel, 5,075 first instance cases were concluded during the year (24.88%increase year-on-year), including 2,134 cases involving counterfeiting ofregistered trademarks (15.23% increase year-on-year), 2,279 cases involvedselling goods bearing counterfeit registered trademarks (32.19% increaseyear-on-year), 423 were cases of illegal manufacturing or sale of goods bearingillegally produced registered trademarks (38.69% increase year-on-year); 1 caseinvolved counterfeiting patents, 191 were criminalinfringement of copyright, (40.44% increase year-on-year), 8 involved sellinginfringing reproductions (33.33% increase year-on-year), and 39 involved trade secret infringement crime (no changefrom last year).

　　For second instance intellectual propertycases involving criminal offences, the local courts accepted 808 cases (18.30% increaseyear-on-year), and 807 cases were concluded (23.70% increase year-on-year).

　　High profile criminal cases involvingintellectual property heard and concluded by the people’s courts during theyear include: Yang Fengming, Yang Maogang et al. for counterfeiting aregistered trademark; Lin Yixiang et al. involving infringement of tradesecrets; Xu Zhenwei et al. involving counterfeiting of registeredmark; and Chen Li et al. involving trademark infringement.

　　Intellectual property adjudication has madesteady progress in the year, and has scored higher in quality andeffectiveness. The key features for 2019 are:

　　New highs in caseload. Withincreased social awareness of intellectual property right and greatercredibility of the courts in adjudicating intellectual property disputes, thecourts have faced a spike in caseload. The total number of accepted andconcluded cases for the year 2019 were at historic high, both recording a year-over-yearincrease of more than 40%.

　　By geographical location, Beijing accepted80,165 cases, Shanghai 23,580 cases, Jiangsu Province 20,249 cases, ZhejiangProvince 27,706 cases and Guangdong Province 157,363 cases, totalling 309,063cases. This constituted 64.15% of China’s total case number and the greaterpart of the country’s intellectual property caseload. The areas that experiencedmore than 50% year-on-year increase in caseload were Hebei Province (53.53%),Anhui Province (60.30%), Fujian Province (64.88%), Guangxi Autonomous Region(98.49%) and Chongqing Municipality (173.66%). Despite facing manpowershortages, the courts have managed to dispose of a large number of cases duringthe year, with the total disposal number reaching historic high. Other thanbeing the most active regions, the courts in Beijing, Shanghai, JiangsuProvince, Zhejiang Province and Guangdong Province have also achievedcommendable disposal rates of more than 90%.

　　Continued emergence of new case genres. As the newround of technological revolution and industrial transformation rapidlyemerges, legal boundaries are increasing tested and pushed by new technologies,new products and new forms of business. New intellectual property issuesinvolving cutting-edge technology relating to the Internet, big data,artificial intelligence, standard essential patents, biomedicine have also continuedto emerge, requiring detailed examination of complex technological solutionsand creative application of the law, based on the merits of each case. Someexamples are:

　　The Supreme People’s Court: Heardpatent cases involving mechanics, material science, electrical engineering,communications, biopharmaceuticals, and fine-tuned the adjudication rules baseon the derived insights.

　　Beijing Intellectual Property Court: Heard andconcluded many significant and complex cases, including the first case relatingto the infringement of cloud servers, and preservation of evidence duringpre-trail for a case involving the infringement of a patent relating to the productionof stable lyophilised pharmaceutical composition.

　　Shanghai High People’s Court: Concluded Nokiavs. Shanghai Huaqin Communication Technology Co., Ltd involving the infringementof a utility patent. The case provides reference for tryingcommunications-related SEP disputes in the future.

　　Guangdong Province: The courtshave heard 63 patent cases, each involving a jurisdictional amount of more thanCNY 10 million, the aggregate amount of which was approximately CNY 8.18billion.

　　Continued to augment protection. The courtshave implemented the “Opinions on Improving the System of Property RightsProtection to Protect Property Rights According to Law” to provide more timelyand accessible judicial relief for intellectual property disputes, as well as tobalance the damages awarded with the market value of the intellectual propertyin question. Some exemplary efforts include:

　　Beijing: TheHaidian District People’s Court awarded damages of more than CNY 20 millionbased on discretionary valuation when Motion Scene (which operates UC browser)sued Sogou for using its Sogou Input Method to redirect the user to Sogou’ssearch website.

　　Inner MongoliaAutonomous Region High People’s Court: Increased the amountof damages from CNY 50,000 to CNY 1 million in the Guangdong Landai GroupBeijing Lanbao Beer Co., Ltd vs. Henan Honghuo Food Co., Ltd et al.trademark infringement case to sanction infringers more severely.

　　Zhejiang High People’sCourt: Ordered the respondent to pay CNY 8 million in damages for the Aupu ElectricalAppliances (Hangzhou) Co., Ltd and Aopu Home Furnishing Co., Ltd vs. Zhejiang FashionBuilding Materials Co., Ltd and Zhejiang New Energy Co., Ltd case involvingtrademark infringement and unfair competition. The court’s decision has protectedthe “AOPU” brand value.

　　Fujian Province: The courtsimposed punitive damages in the “JIU MU WANG (lit. ‘King of Nine Herds’)”trademark dispute and the “BOLIMO” trademark and unfair competition disputewhen the damages awarded were either doubled or trebled the amount forcompensatory damages.

　　Effects of judicial efforts were recognised. The courtshave done well in a series of complex and novel cases that attractedconsiderable public attention. The precedence would serve as classic cases thatare demonstrative and could guide future adjudication. Exemplary effortsinclude:

　　SPC IP Court: Issued decision forits first case immediately after the hearing, and the determination criteria forfunctional features were detailed in the written judgement. The hearing wasbroadcasted live and was widely reported by the media. Live streaming of thehearing—a case that took only 50 days to conclude from the date it was acceptedto service of judgement—attracted more than 18 million viewings. Opening up thecourtroom for public scrutiny has ensured fairness, transparency andefficiency.

　　Gansu High People’s Court: Concludeda new plant variety dispute involving a foreign party, thereby protecting thelawful rights of the plant breeder.

　　Shanghai Intellectual Property Court: Concluded aseries of cases, which include the utility patent dispute between NetacTechnology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd and Transcend China (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. Thedisputes, which involved cutting-edge technology used in mobile storage and ajurisdictional amount of more than CNY 24.7 million, has attracted widespreadattention and much recognition.

　　Hunan Province: Adjudicated trademarkinfringement and unfair competition cases involving a wide range of servicesectors such as food and beverage, creative photography and department-storesales. The decisions provided direction for the regulated and reasonable use oftrademark by players in the food & beverage, department store and creativeindustries, which in turn supported the healthy growth of the service sector.

　　Remarkable ADR outcomes. The courtshave continued to turn to non-litigious alternative dispute resolution as theprimary means to settle dispute, and on promoting the new era FengqiaoExperience—a way of community-level social governance whereby public effortwas harnessed to maintain social stability. By actively encouraging the broaduse of ADR, parties were encouraged to resolve disputes through non-litigiousmeans by working together to find mutually agreeable and beneficial ways tosettle intellectual property disputes efficiently. Exemplary efforts include:

　　The Supreme People’s Court : Successfully mediated the trademark infringement case of Henan DukangInvestment Group vs. Shaanxi Baishui Dukang Company, and permanentlyresolved all cases relating to the “DUKANG” (believed to be a minister underthe mythological Yellow Emperor and originator of winemaking) trademark issue. Thecourt’s efforts have contributed to improving the stability of the local marketand providing protecting local businesses. It established a nation-widewhole-of-system coordinating mechanism to explore a circuit adjudication modelcombining the workings of an IP court and a circuit court, and an adjudicationmechanism combining onsite examination (kanyan) and hearing, and hassince facilitated the unified settlement of 48 related cases nationwide. Italso enabled the efficient resolution of 80 patent infringement cases at thepre-trial stage. The court’s efforts have made litigation easier and enabledthe Fengqiao Experience to enrich the intellectual property sector.

　　Beijing: Continued to drivereform of the “ADR + expedited procedure” as part of the city’s effort tomodernise the capital city’s social governance system and governance approach.

　　Jilin Province: The courts focused onusing mediation to resolve disputes. Total mediation rate for intellectualproperty disputes was 75%.

　　Anhui High People’s Court: Succeededin mediating the dispute between China Broadcasting Satellite TV and ChinaTelecom Anhui Branch concerning the infringement of broadcasting right, with ajurisdictional amount exceeding CNY 100 million.

　　Shandong Province: The courts implementedthe “Regulations to Promote Use of Alternative Dispute Resolution for ShandongProvince” and worked at developing a platform to align litigation withmediation.

　　Hubei Province: The courts coordinatedresources and established mediation platforms comprising administrative organs,lessors of the site where infringement occurred, industry associations, attorney-mediationorganisations to facilitate mediated settlement of disputes.

　　Sichuan Province: The courts enteredinto a cooperation agreement with the China (Sichuan) Intellectual PropertyProtection Centre to develop a mechanism to provide coordinated protection ofintellectual property. Under the agreement, the centre was appointed to mediateintellectual property-related disputes.

　　Yunnan Province: The courts establisheda pre-trial mediation system for intellectual property cases to enable theprompt resolution of a certain proportion of intellectual property disputes.

　　Liaoning Province: The courts beefed upexisting ADR mechanism by using pre-trial mediation for copyright, trademarkand unfair competition cases if the facts are clear and minimally disputed. Themechanism has enabled the courts to align litigation with mediation.

　　Xinjiang Autonomous Region: The courtsfocused on using mediation to settle dispute, translating to a rather highpercentage of post-mediation withdrawal rate.

　　II. Intensified supporting measuresfor judicial reform and built a more robust intellectual property justicesystem

　　In 2019, the courts leveraged the “Opinions on Several Issues on Reformand Innovation Relating to Intellectual Property Adjudication” to develop moreinnovative theories and institutions and adopt more innovative practices. Asuite of relevant reforms was also instituted as part of the courts’ effort tocontinue building better systems and mechanisms for intellectual property.

　　(I) SPC IP Court off to a flyingstart

　　Creatingthe Intellectual Property Court (SPC IP Court) within the Supreme People’sCourt was an important move by the Party Central Committee, with Xi Jinping asthe core, based on the strategic vision of building an intellectual propertypowerhouse and a high-tech global superpower. It was an important milestonemarking a major breakthrough and innovative step in our intellectual propertyadjudication system.

　　2019 isthe SPC IP Court’s first year of operation. As an agency tasked to hear all appealcases of technology-related intellectual property disputes, the SPC IP Courthas overcome the early difficulties to drive comprehensive progress bylaunching copious reform initiatives that have scored preliminary successes.

　　First, it unified adjudication standards . Unificationof adjudication standards was the primary objective of creating the SPC IPCourt. The “Rules of Implementation of a Unified Adjudication Standard for the IntellectualProperty Court of the Supreme People's court”, among others, was developed toensure that the entire process, from preliminary analysis to mid-processcontrol, final review and approval and stringent management of important cases,were well- administered. Also, the “Minutes of the Conferences of Judges” werecompiled and “Guidelines on Case Operations” prepared and distributed to unifyadjudicative standards and methods for handling similar cases.

　　Second, it explored combining the hearing of administrative andcivil disputes. Disputes relating to civil infringement andadministrative validation involving the same patent was heard by the sameadjudication panel to ensure alignment of the civil and administrativeprocedures and consistency of adjudicative standards.

　　Third, it optimised the mechanism for adjudicatingtechnology-related intellectual property disputes. Living by itsmotto of people-centredness and being dedicated to delivering optimaladjudication management, the court leveraged its advantage as the centralcoordinating authority and the “1+76” hierarchical structure to resolve linkeddisputes within the country.

　　Fourth, it continued to develop the multiprong technicalfact-finding mechanism. By coordinating technical investigationresources in the country, including more than 360 technical investigators frommore than 30 technical fields, the SPC IP Court worked at alleviating theproblems faced by the courts, including inadequacies in technical investigationfor the less-developed regions and the lack of specific technical expertise in developedregions.

　　Fifth, it strengthened informatisation and adoption of smarttechnology. The court has built case and adjudication rules databases,and created smart platforms such as the "Big Data Intellectual PropertyAnalysis Platform". It also explored the creation of an "IP CourtCloud". These were endeavours to meet the demands of parties for onlinesubmission of evidence and online reading of case files, and would become the technologicalbedrock for adjudicating technology-related intellectual property disputes.

　　(II) Steady progress in development ofintellectual property courts

　　Toimplement the National People's Congress (NPC) Standing Committee’s reviewopinions on the progress of local intellectual property courts, the SupremePeople's court continued to provide more guidance for the Beijing, Shanghai andGuangzhou intellectual property courts, which have continued to make smooth progressand achieve remarkable outcomes.

　　Sincetheir establishment at the end of 2014, the intellectual property courts haveaccepted more than 100,000 cases and heard intellectual property cases of internationalimpact and which are important basis for crafting adjudication rules. They werealso instrumental for improving the quality and efficiency of hearings,ensuring consistency in decisions, and facilitating innovation-drivendevelopment. The courts have also leveraged their functional positioning toexplore bold and innovative initiatives to drive judicial reform thatengendered a new intellectual property adjudication landscape. The reforms alsoenabled specialisation, an important feature that has helped buttress judicialprotection for intellectual property.

　　(III) Continued optimisation ofmechanism governing trans-regional jurisdiction

　　Since2017, specialised judicial organs (IP divisions) were established within 21intermediate courts, such as the Nanjing Intermediate People’s Court, to facilitatecentralised jurisdiction over certain categories of trans-regional firstinstance intellectual property cases and enable specialised intellectualproperty judicial organs to be rationally distributed. The IP divisions havededicated themselves to exploring innovative initiatives and to improving thelevel of specialisation, an important effort that would drive the co-ordinateddevelopment of the Beijing-Tianjin-Heibei (Jing-Jin-Ji) region, and the developmentof the Yangtze River Economic Belt and the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao GreaterBay Area (Greater Bay Area). Exemplary work by several local IP divisionsinclude:

　　Nanjing:Conducted circuit trials, implemented specialised and centralised adjudication,and responded to the demands of high-tech industrial parks to protect theintellectual property of business innovations.

　　Hangzhou:Leveraged internet technology and established a trans-regional cooperationmechanism to facilitate access to online hearing and standardised applicationof the law.

　　Zhengzhou:Digitised processes such as introduction of online filing and acceptance ofcases, electronic service of documents and WeChat mediation to overcome timeand spatial constraints, as part of its effort to provide easy access and to increasethe level of informatisation.

　　Shenzhen:Capitalised on the city’s geographical advantage to strengthen judicialprotection of intellectual property by participating in the development of theGuangzhou-Shenzhen Science and Technology Innovation Corridor and the PearlRiver Delta National Demonstration Zone for Home-Grown Innovation.

　　Haikou: Tookthe initiative to protect intellectual property by establishing circuit-courtstations and contact points for judicial services within different parts of theprovince.

　　(IV) Continued rolling-out of moremeasures for the “three-in-one” intellectual property adjudication system

　　In 2019, the courts implemented the “Supreme People's ‘s Opinions onPromoting ‘Three-in-One’ Adjudication of Intellectual Property-Related Civil,Administrative and Criminal Cases” to further consolidate the results of the"three-in-one" reform.

　　SupremePeople's Court: Reviewed case files relating to intellectualproperty crime to distil first-hand information on criminal adjudication. Thiswill allow more in-depth examination of the norms of adjudicating intellectualproperty criminal offences, based on which, the relevant judicial interpretationscould be revised and improved.

　　JiangsuHigh People’s Court: Initiated a study relating to the sentencingof intellectual property crimes to provide reference for standardising the useof sanction discretion and in sentencing.

　　ZhejiangProvince: Since 1 November 2019, all the courts in Zhejiang Province haveimplemented the “three-in-one” adjudication procedure. 260 criminal offencesand 41 administrative disputes were heard during the year.

　　HainanHigh People’s Court: Initiated research studies on using designatedjurisdiction for intellectual property criminal offences, and clarified the jurisdictionmechanism for "three-in-one" adjudication for intellectual propertycases.

　　(V) Continued improvement oflitigation procedures

　　The People’sCourts worked on improving the rules of procedure based on the merits ofindividual intellectual property cases and on developing an optimaladjudication approach to overcome institutional obstacles.

　　First, giving reasonable guidance in evidenceproduction. The courts have developed innovative measures tostrengthen the burden of proof by enabling ex-officio investigation andcollection of evidence to effectively reduce the costs borne by right-holders.

　　Shanghai High People’s Court: Explored the use of an evidenceproduction order such that any behaviour that obstructed the production ofevidence would be punished under the law.

　　Hunan High People’s Court: Regulated policies and proceduresrelating to investigation orders for lawyers.

　　Hainan High People’s Court: Parties were encouraged to make fulluse of third-party means such as notarisation and electronic data platforms tocollect and preserve evidence.

　　Second, building a more robust fact-findingmechanism. The courts have elaborated the ways which differentpersonnel could participate in the investigation of technical facts, and have mobilisedmanpower and resources to develop a dynamic and coordinated system for fact-finding.

　　Supreme People's Court: Created a pool of experts comprisingtechnical investigators and technical advisory experts employed and appointedby the courts, and established a national mechanism for sharing oftechnical-investigation resources among the courts. It also launched the"Work Manual for Technical Investigators (2019)" to guide the courts intechnical fact-finding and regulate their technical fact-finding activities.

　　Beijing Intellectual Property Court: Established a"four-in-one" technical fact-finding mechanism, comprisingspecialised people's assessors, technical investigators, expert assessors andforensic institutes.

　　Jiangsu High People’s Court: Entered into a framework agreementwith the Jiangsu Province Collaborative Innovation Centre for BiomedicalFunctional Materials, where the parties would cooperate on intellectualproperty-related technical fact-finding. The cooperation enabled the court toengage technical experts to assist in intellectual property cases.

　　Production and Construction Corps Branch of the Higher People's Court ofXinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region: When preserving evidence,  professionals were engaged to survey thelocation and the planting area of infringing seeds, and to collect samples of infringingplants .

　　Hubei, Hunan, Sichuan and Shaanxi High People’s Courts: Formedexpert pools to tap professional expertise and improve the accuracy oftechnical fact-finding.

　　Third, optimisation of adjudication approach. Giventhe diverse judicial needs, the different levels of courts have sought tooptimise their adjudication approaches through a diversion mechanism that separatesthe complicated cases from simple ones, and that applies a unified standard whenapplying the law.

　　Beijing Intellectual Property Court: Implemented thespeedy trial mechanism, and introduced a pilot that judges would issue"abridged written judgments" for trademark review cases. Averagedisposal time was reduced by 30%.

　　Xi'an IP Division: Formed an adjudication team to conductspeedy trial, an approached that required only 20% of the manpower to hear 70%of the cases.

　　Chengdu IP Division: Explored the use of speedy trialmechanism for intellectual property disputes to better allocate adjudicationresources. The outcomes were encouraging.

　　Haikou IP Division: Implemented an integrated model ofoperations that combined case acceptance, adjudication and enforcement underone operational framework to improve adjudication quality and effectiveness.

　　Changchun IP Division: Introduced speedy and simplifiedtrials for copyright and trademark disputes. 84.8% of the cases were concludedwithin five months, and the adjudication cycle was substantially shortened.

　　III. Broadened judicial functions andcontinued improvement of research quality and effectiveness to guideadjudication

　　Always vigilant ofhot button issues, the People’s Courts have leveraged the Supreme People’sCourt’s Intellectual Property Judicial Protection Research Centre and itstheoretical research base to strengthen development of intellectual propertyprotection-related innovative theories and research of the relevant judicialpolicies. They have also actively participated in the revision of intellectualproperty-related laws and provided effective judicial supervision and guidance.

　　(I) More focus on providing legislativerecommendations

　　The courts haveactively participated in the revision of laws and regulations such as the CivilCode, Patent Law, Trademark Law, Anti-Unfair Competition Law, Copyright law,Regulations on the Implementation of the Trademark Law, and Regulations on theProtection of New Plant Varieties.

　　Other legislativeendeavours include participating in thefourth forum on Patent Law amendment, and CPPCC’s meeting on folkliterature and artistic works relating to the drafting of the amendments to theCopyright Law. The courts also initiated researches on a special procedure lawfor intellectual property litigation, established the general direction, basicframework and key content of the research.

　　(II) Intensified drafting of judicialinterpretation

　　The Supreme People's Court issue the “Provisions on the Participationof Technical Investigators in Intellectual Property Litigation” setting forththe procedure, responsibility, validity, liability relating to theparticipation of technical investigators in intellectual property litigation.It also researched on topics such allocation of the burden of proof,investigation and collection of evidence, exchange of evidence, and examinationand determination of electronic evidence. The court also organised variousseminars on the drafting of judicial interpretation for punitive damages forintellectual property infringement, application of the Trademark Law and LawAgainst Unfair Competition, trade secrets, and national defence patentdisputes.

　　(III) More in-depth study of judicialpolicies

　　The courts participated in the drafting of the “Opinions onStrengthening the Protection of Intellectual Property”, allowing specialisedintellectual property adjudication organs such the Guangzhou IntellectualProperty Court and the Shenzhen Intellectual Property Division to play biggerroles, and stepped up cooperation in GBA-related intellectual propertyprotection and professional training. For Guangzhou Knowledge City (GKC), thecourts also pressed ahead with the national comprehensive reform pilotprogramme to better utilise and protect intellectual property.

　　To better serve the free trade zones, special studies on theprotection of intellectual property were conducted, based on which, 38initiatives relating to the judicial protection of intellectual property forthe development of free trade zones and free trade ports were proposed.

　　(IV) Leveraged the role of caseguidance

　　As part of its annual activities, theSupreme People’s Court published the “Annual Report on Intellectual PropertyCases (2018)’” and the “Top Ten Intellectual Property Cases Decided by ChineseCourts and Fifty Typical Intellectual Property Cases”. The publicationsindicate Supreme People’s Court’s priority in distilling universally applicableadjudication standards to guide judges. The court also organised a “JudgementWeek” during which the decisions of benchmark cases were issued in an opencourtroom so as to use new genre, difficult and complex cases to shape rulesand regulations. The endeavours of other courts include:

　　Shenzhen IP Division: Reviewed its experience from the reformfor speedy hearing of design patent disputes and selected 19 typical cases foranalysis.

　　Inner MongoliaAutonomous Region High People’s Court: Held a briefing to update on intellectual property adjudicationand to launch the compilation of typical cases heard by the court to regulateand guide market players. The court hoped to influence market players tooperate in good faith and ensure that the economic order of the market respectsfair competition.

　　Henan HighPeople’s Court: Published typical casesrelating to trademark and brand protection .

　　Sichuan HighPeople’s Court: Published for the firsttime a white paper on the judicial protection of the intellectual property of non-stateenterprises (minying qiye) and typical cases. The paper expounded the problemswith intellectual property protection that non-state enterprises have faced,the underlying causes, and provided recommendations.

　　(V) Intensified judicial researches

　　Diverse research methods. The SupremePeople's Court collated big data relating to trademarks registered and usedduring the past five years, studied the measures regulating trademark squatting,and gave recommendations. It also convened discussions on image copyrightinfringement to examine the pronounced issues and addressed social concerns byproviding clear adjudication standards.

　　Liaoning Province: The courts conducted intellectual property-related studies on topicssuch as the Belt & Road Initiative and pilot free trade zones to find outwhat companies need in terms of judicial protection.

　　Zhejiang High People’s Court: Surveyed more than 20 companies within theprovince to effectively address the judicial protection needs ofinnovation-based businesses.

　　Heilongjiang Province: The courts conducted in-depth studies on non-state enterprises anddeveloped manuals to educate the public to better protect the intellectualproperty of private enterprises and drive the development of the privateeconomy.

　　Hunan Province: The courts took the initiative to meet the judicial needs ofenterprises and tech parks, and enhanced awareness among businesses ininnovation-based development.

　　Productive research studies. The Supreme People's Courtinitiated  surveys relating to revisionof the Patent law, patent linkage, and business model innovation. The surveysculminated in research outcomes such as the “Recommendations on Reforming and ImprovingLegislation for Patent Invalidation Procedure”, “Recommendations on Legislatingfor Patent Linkage”, and “A Study on the Judicial Protection of Business Model Innovations”.Other research efforts include:

　　Beijing High People’s Court: Reviewed the guidelines for adjudicating administrativedisputes relating to the granting and validation of trademarks to guidelitigation behaviour.

　　Zhejiang High People’s Court: Conducted studies on adjudication rules forintellectual property disputes involving e-commerce platforms to share judicialexperiences relating to e-commerce business.

　　Fujian High People’s Court: Provided opinions on how the courtscould improve judicial protection of intellectual property to better serve and fosterinnovation, entrepreneurship and creation.

　　Jiangsu High People’s Court: Proposed more rigorous judicialprotection of intellectual property to underpin the province’sinnovation-driven economic development.

　　IV. Increased transparency of thecourts to augment credibility of intellectual property adjudication

　　The courts are fully aware of the need for transparency, and have maderemarkable progress in developing a judicial mechanism that upholds justicethrough enhanced transparency and that champions credibility, openness,dynamism, transparency and accessibility.

　　(I) A more open court system

　　The courts have opened up further to allow public access to courthearings. This is in line with the directive that open courts should be therule and closed courts the exception. They have also found innovative ways forthe public to access court hearings and expanded the types of hearing permittedfor public observation. Some exemplary practices are:

　　Guangdong High People’s Court: Held a public hearing on the dispute between Shenzhen-basedJiedian Technology Co., Ltd and Laidian Technology Co., Ltd over theinfringement of utility models. About 100 people attended the hearing. Livestreaming over the internet was also accessed by nearly 10,000 viewers.

　　Sichuan High People’s Court: Heard a trademark infringement dispute and issued decision withinthe same hearing session. People’s Congress deputies and members of the People’sPolitical Consultative Conference  wereinvited to the observe hearing.

　　Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region High People’s Court: Launched "On-Campus Hearing" where approximately 300teachers and students attended the hearing for a dispute over copyrightinfringement.

　　(II) Greater use of cases for publiclegal education

　　The Supreme People’s Courtparticipated in a production by the China Central Television’s (CCTV) entitled“Judge Talk (Dafaguan Shuo)” in the third season of “China Rule of Law (FazhiZhongguo Shuo)”. It was involved in the planning, scriptwriting, productionand recording, and broadcasting of the programme. This was an important joint-publicityeffort by the Supreme People’s Court and CCTV-12 in celebration of the 70thanniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China. Vice President ofthe Supreme People’s Court Justice Tao Kaiyuan gave a talk in one episode. Accordingto statistics, nearly 50 million viewers watched the live telecast of theprogramme. There were also 1,357 online news articles relating to theprogramme, 78 news articles published in newspapers and magazines, 151microblog comments, 99 blog articles, 2,238 WeChat articles, and 294 apparticles. The public applauded the court for its outstanding work inintellectual property protection.

　　The “WIPOCollection of Leading Judgments on Intellectual Property Rights: People’sRepublic of China (2011–2018)” was launched at the Second Annual WIPOIntellectual Property Judges Forum. WIPO's legal counsel Frits Bontekoe spokeat the launch event. The forewords of the volume were written by WIPO DirectorGeneral Francis Gurry and Justice Tao Kaiyuan. This casebook of judgments givesthe global intellectual property community access to landmark judgments fromChina and allows China’s leading cases to play their demonstrative role and Chinesejudgements to create greater impact. Other key endeavours include:

　　The Supreme People’s Court:Organised a series of activities, including a Judgement Week and a “Judges Goon Campus” to make better use of cases to educate the public on the law, and instilgreater respect for knowledge and awareness of protecting intellectual property.When hearing important cases, the court also ensured that it invited NPCdeputies, CPPCC members, and SPC’s special supervisors and advisors as well as fellowsof the Chinese Academy of Sciences, lawyers and representatives of industryassociations to observe the proceedings and share their insights.

　　Beijing Xiong’an New AreaIntermediate People’s Court : Organised the “ProtectIntellectual Property Outreach Event” to educate businesses newly establishedin the area, such as Baidu, Tencent, JD and Huawei, on intellectual propertylaws and regulation.

　　Zhejiang High People’s Court : Established the “Zhejiang Balance (Zhejiang Tianping)” WeChat OfficialAccount, the “IP Converge (Zhi Zhi Hui)” website, and the “Zhejiang IPLaw Connect (Zhe Zhi Xi Fa)” column to lay the ground for regularoutreach activities. During the year, the court published 85 articles, and madeavailable live streaming of 26 hearings which boast of 900,000 visits.

　　Jiangsu High People’s Court : Organised a walkabout for the People’s Congress deputies and members of theCPPCC committee cum media event. The effort was effective and well-received.

　　(III) Joint outreach

　　The Supreme People’s Court organised the “IP JudicialProtection-Anhui Expedition”, for which selected NPC deputies, SPC’s specialsupervisors and Anhui Province’s leaders, together with the centralgovernment's media agencies, visited some Anhui courts and key hi-tech companies.During their visits, the delegation learnt about the state of intellectualprotection in Anhui Province, innovative outcomes, and focused on discoveringthe judicial needs of commercial entities to better serve the development of innovation-basedbusinesses. Other outreach activities include the “IP Courtroom Open Day” and“IP Protection Judgement Week” during which many major cases involving advancedtechnology such as medical equipment, internet data mining and opticaltechnology were heard. The court also launched the “Faxin-IP” online project tocreate a unified big data intellectual property service platform by integratingand upgrading the existing intellectual property case guidance platform and throughresearch and development. The platform aims to provide free retrieval andconsulting services for intellectual property judges nationwide. Otherendeavours include:

　　Hebei High People’s Court : Combined 26-April outreach activities with the publicity campaign to promotethe “Regulations on the Protection of Olympic Symbols” to publicise extensivelythe relevant laws and regulations. It was a successful event.

　　Shanxi High People’s Court : Visited the province’s Comprehensive Reform Pilot Zone to find out the needs ofbusinesses and set forth requirements on how the courts should provideinnovative services to better serve businesses and create an environment thatconduces to innovation.

　　Tibet Autonomous Region HighPeople’s Court : Organised legal outreach activities in theChinese and Tibetan languages based on local folk customs and religious beliefsin interesting formats.

　　Ningxia Autonomous Region HighPeople’s Court: Organised outreach activities andconsultations, including providing on-site legal advice.

　　V. Greater cooperation and exchangefor greater impact in the intellectual property judicial landscape

　　Given the increasingly open andinclusive world, intellectual property adjudication should be based on China'snational circumstances, a global mindset, and an international vision. Itshould also promote the sharing of China’s experience and wisdom.

　　(I) Serving the needs ofinternational relations for the larger good

　　The Supreme People’s Courts has intensified thestudy of intellectual property issues emerging from foreign trade and economicnegotiations, and strengthened its adjudication guidance and supervision of thelower courts according to law.

　　Judges fromthe Supreme People’s Courts participated in bilateral and multilateraldialogues and exchanges, including negotiations on the “Convention on theRecognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or CommercialMatters” adopted by the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH). SPChas made important contributions to the satisfactory resolution of intellectualproperty issues relating to the Convention.

　　(II) Increasing China’s impact in theworld

　　In June2019, the Supreme People’s Court and WIPO co-organised the Seminar onApplication of WIPO Mediations Service in Intellectual Property Litigation,during which participants from WIPO, Singapore, the Supreme People’s Courts andour local courts shared their insights on WIPO’s alternative dispute resolutionmechanism. Director of the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Centre Erik Wilberscommended China for being the organisation’s close partner. SPC alsoparticipated in the International Cooperation in Fighting against IntellectualProperty Right Infringement at the second China International Import Expo inShanghai, during which it shared the importance of using punitive damages todeter and prevent repeat and malicious infringing behaviour, as part of aneffort to engender a legal environment that fosters protection of intellectualproperty, that makes the infringer pay for its wrongdoing, and that sanctionsoffences.

　　JusticeLuo Dongchuan, Vice President of the Supreme People’s Court, held more than 20 constructivemeetings and discussions with representatives  from WIPO, AIPPI, AIPLA, ICJ, the SupremeCourt of Cuba and High Court of Justice in London. Francis Gurry,director-general of the WIPO, spoken favourably of the establishment of the SPCIP Court, and said that the court embodies China’s commitment to protectingintellectual property and its determination to provide fairer and moreefficient protection for intellectual property. Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf, Presidentof the International Court of Justice, commended that China’s achievements inthe legal sector was not only reflected in the country’s overall effort todevelop a robust legal system, its achievements in specific areas in field ofintellectual property also deserves admiration.

　　(III) Widened channels of foreigncooperation

　　In response to the global interest in how judicial protection ofintellectual property works in China, the People’s Courts have actively engagedin dialogues through different platforms to build understanding of China’ssituation and create greater impact at the international level.

　　To support WIPO’s collaborativeprogrammes, our judges participated in the Roundtable on WIPO-China Cooperationand Major Intellectual Property Developments in China. We havealso send representatives to participate in WIPO'sMaster Dialogue on IP Adjudication. A delegation of patent judges visited theEuropean Union. These were occasions at which our judges shared China’s latestdevelopment and historic achievements in intellectual property adjudication.Other international activities in the year include participating in the SecondAnnual WIPO Intellectual Property Judges Forum, 9th OECD/ Korea Policy Centre(KPC) Competition Law Seminar for Asia-Pacific Judges, AIPPI Annual WorldCongress, 2019 Annual Meeting of the International Trademark Association(INTA),and the European Communities TradeMark Association (ECTA) Annual Conference, and the Japan-China-Korea IPSymposium.

　　VI. Capacity-building for judges aspart of an incessant effort to improve adjudication capability

　　Political cultivation has always been the guiding light for the People’sCourts. By continuing to develop the judges’ political awareness and by takingbig strides to revolutionise the judiciary and putting together a team offull-time, professional and specialised judges, the courts have been working atbuilding a team of intellectual property judges that have a firm politicalstand, a holistic view and international perspective, and extensive legal expertiseand technical know-how. Organisational- and people-building are key to standingthe courts in good stead for intellectual property adjudication in the new era.

　　(I) Ideological and politicaleducation

　　Given that political cultivationis our priority, the courts have organised educational activities to remind everyoneof the motto: “Do not lose sight of our original aspirations; be mindful of ourmission (buwang chuxin, laoji shiming)”. Various institutions governingintraparty political activities were also harnessed to awaken judges to theneed to guard their original aspirations and to buttress their ability to fulfiltheir mission. Platforms such as the "New Knowledge Forum" and "Forumon Intellectual Property Court" were established to enable online andoffline education and management for party-development. The courts have also adopteda party-development approach for round-the-clock online and offline educationand management. The SPC IP Court’s party branch has also won the “100 Model ofExcellence” accolade presented by Banner (“qizhi”), a magazinepublished by the State Organs Work Committee of CPC Central Committee, for the secondParty-building Innovative Outcomes Award. It was the sole recipient of theaward within the court system.

　　(II) Developing a sense of honour andself-discipline

　　The courts have managed court and partyoperations based on rigorous standards, having implemented the “Eight-PointFrugality Code (‘ba-xiang gui-ding’)” and its rules of implementation.They have also stamped out "the four forms of decadence" (i.e.formalism, bureaucratism, hedonism and extravagance) or si feng, and havedeepened the development of party ethics and clean governance and their fightagainst corruption.

　　(III) Building judicial capabilities

　　By focusing on the overallrequirements of the "five excellences (wuge guoying)", i.e.excellence in belief, political stance, sense of responsibility, ability andbehaviour, the courts have strengthened people development at every turn. Theyhave focused efforts at building a quality team of effective, loyal, incorruptand responsible individuals to helm the courts of the new era and drive newdevelopments. The Supreme People's court has also increased its involvement incoordinating and guiding the lower courts, and encouraged the courts to planfor the training and creation of a pool of professional intellectual propertyjudges, and the establishment of different of personnel exchange mechanisms. Toelevate judicial capabilities, the courts have also adopted many differentapproaches, including special training, thematic seminars, on-the-job training, exchanges and secondment, andobservation of court proceedings. These efforts will help build an adjudicationteam that believes in perpetual learning, which will in turn enable the courtsto adapt to new circumstances and the demands of intellectual propertyadjudication, and judges to continue building their professional capabilities.

　　Conclusion

　　Today’s world is defined by unprecedented changes which quicken the paceof reform of the global governance system and the international order. As thenext wave of technological revolution and industrial reform arrives withastonishing force, protection of intellectual property is confronted with newissues, new tasks and new challenges. As the People’s Courts discharge theirduties and responsibilities, they will discern new trends and circumstances,and will leverage their judicial powers to protect intellectual property. They willalso strive to provide effective judicial service and safeguards to achieve sustainedand robust economic development and social stability, build a comprehensive xiaokangsociety, and bring the 13th five-year plan to a successful completion.