The US Department of Commerce has an opening for the IP Attaché in Guangzhou. Application for the position closes September 29, 2017. Requirements include knowledge of intellectual property, a law degree, US bar admission and US citizenship. The announcement does not indicate that knowledge of Mandarin or Cantonese languages is required, although it does require experience of working with foreign IP laws. Please see the announcement for further information.
Category Archives: Guangzhou
Guangzhou IP Attaché Position Opens
USPTO has announced a vacancy for the Guangzhou IP attaché position. The vacancy announcement is here. Requirements include knowledge of intellectual property, a law degree, US bar admission and US citizenship. The announcement does not indicate that knowledge of Mandarin or Cantonese languages is required, although it does require experience of working with foreign IP laws. Please see the announcement for further information.
IPR Outcomes in the 26th JCCT
Here are the IP outcomes of the 26th Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade, concluded early in November 2015 in Guangzhou. The IP-related outcomes appear primarily in three different places in the JCCT outcome document, under “Competition”, “Intellectual Property Rights” and “Cooperative Dialogues and Exchanges.”
I have repeated below the outcome language in full, without the annotation that appears in the US Department of Commerce release on the subject, followed by my own “references” on the outcome to compare the text with recent developments in these areas.
The Chinese government version of the outcomes follows the US outcomes.
COMPETITION
China’s anti-monopoly enforcement agencies are to conduct enforcement according to the Anti-monopoly Law and are to be free from intervention by other agencies.
China clarifies that commercial secrets obtained in the process of Anti-monopoly Law enforcement are protected as required under the Anti-monopoly Law and shall not be disclosed to other agencies or third parties, except with a waiver of confidentiality by the submitting party or under circumstances as defined by law.
Taking into account the pro-competitive effects of intellectual property, China attaches great importance to maintaining coherence in the rules related to IPR in the context of the Anti-monopoly Law. China clarifies that any State Council Anti-monopoly Law Commission guidelines will apply to the three anti-monopoly law enforcement agencies.
The Chinese side clarifies that in the process of formulating guidance related to intellectual property rights in the context of anti-monopoly law, it will solicit comments from relevant parties, including the public, in accordance with law and policy.
References: SAIC’s IP Abuse rules, NDRC’s draft IP Abuse rules. Importantly, this outcome specifically recognizes the pro-competitive nature of promoting IP. As I said in my comments on the NDRC’s IP abuse guideline questionnaire, “Rather than seek to minimize IP rights through euphemisms such as “balance” perhaps a better approach would be how to optimize the patent system to foster long term innovation and competition and insure that the competition system supports and does not retard such development.”
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
Standards and Intellectual Property
The United States and China affirm the beneficial role of standards in promoting innovation, efficiency, and public health and safety, and the need to strike an appropriate balance of interests of multiple stakeholders.
The United States and China commit that licensing commitments for patents in voluntary standards are made voluntarily and without government involvement in negotiations over such commitments, except as otherwise provided by legally binding measures.
The United States confirms that Chinese firms participate in the setting of voluntary consensus standards in the United States on a non-discriminatory basis, consistent with the rules and procedures of the relevant standards organizations. China welcomes U.S.-invested firms in China to participate in the development of national recommendatory and social organization standards in China on a non-discriminatory basis.
With a view to enhance mutual understanding and trust, the United States and China agree to hold dialogues over issues under this topic.
Here are some other blogs on this important topic.
Trade Secrets
The United States and China are committed to providing a strong trade secrets protection regime that promotes innovation and encourages fair competition. China clarifies it is in the process of amending the Anti-Unfair Competition Law; intends to issue model or guiding court cases; and intends to clarify rules on preliminary injunctions, evidence preservation orders and damages. The United States confirms that draft legislation proposed to establish a federal civil cause of action for trade secrets misappropriation has been introduced in relevant committees. Both sides confirm that IP-related investigations, including on trade secrets, are conducted in a prudent and cautious manner. The United States and China agree to jointly share experiences and practices in the areas of protecting trade secrets from disclosure during investigations and in court proceedings, and identify practices that companies may undertake to protect trade secrets from misappropriation in accordance with respective laws.
References: Note that the reference in the trade secret provision to a degree mirrors that of the Competition outcome, regarding protecting confidential information in administrative proceedings. Proposed revisions to the AUCL were previously discussed here.
Geographical Indications (GIs)
The United States and China will continue our dialogue on GIs. Both sides reaffirmed the importance of the 2014 JCCT commitment on GIs and confirmed that this commitment applies to all GIs, including those protected pursuant to international agreements. China will publish in draft form for public comment, and expects to do so by the end of 2016, procedures that provide the opportunity for a third party to cancel already-granted GIs.
Reference: This commitment builds on the 2014 GI commitment in the JCCT. An important case involving enforcement of a trademark based GI for scotch whisky is discussed here.
Sports Broadcasts
The United States and China agree to protect original recordings of the images, or sound and images, of live events, including sports broadcasts, against acts of unauthorized exploitation, including the unauthorized retransmission of such broadcasts over computer networks, in accordance with their respective laws and regulations. The United States and China agree to discuss copyright protection for sports broadcasts and further cooperate on this issue in the JCCT IPR Working Group and other appropriate bilateral fora.
References: Copyright protection for sports broadcasting has been discussed elsewhere in this blog, and is of increasing important to China as it prepares to host the Winter Olympics and wants to develop its sports leagues. In addition US courts have granted copyright protection to Chinese sports broadcasts in a recent case. Tencent has also signed an important licensing deal with the NBA to make content available online.
Enhanced Enforcement Against Media Boxes and Unauthorized Content Providers
Noting the challenges posed by new technologies to the protection of copyright, China and the United States will continue discussions and share respective experiences and practices on combating the unauthorized online distribution of audiovisual content made possible by media boxes. China clarifies it is to enhance enforcement against such media boxes and the providers of unauthorized content in accordance with its laws and regulations.
Reference: A recent US media box case involving Chinese content is discussed here.
Online Enforcement
In order to address the civil, administrative and criminal enforcement challenges caused by the rapid development of e-commerce, as part of the JCCT IPR Working Group, China and the United States will enhance engagement and exchanges between U.S. and Chinese government IPR policy and enforcement officials, IP right holders, business representatives and online sales-platform operators, among other relevant stakeholders. This engagement will cover current and anticipated challenges in protecting and enforcing IPR online by sharing respective practices, discussing possible improvements in each country’s systems, facilitating information exchange and training between our two countries, and increasing cooperation on cross-border enforcement. The goal of this effort is to enhance existing legal and cooperative regimes among businesses, rights holders and governments in civil, administrative and criminal online IPR enforcement. Appropriate criminal matters will be referred, if necessary, to law enforcement agencies through the Joint Liaison Group (JLG) IP Criminal Enforcement Working Group or domestic law enforcement officials.
References: there have been numerous Chinese domestic efforts to deal with on-line infringement, including copyright-related campaigns, and an important role for Chinese Customs.
COOPERATIVE DIALOGUES AND EXCHANGES
Searchable Database for Intellectual Property (IP) Cases
The United States welcomes that the Supreme People’s Court has established a database for searching intellectual property-related court decisions. In order to increase the understanding of each other’s legal systems, the United States and China agree to dialogue and to share experiences on their respective databases containing IP cases.
References: Whether or not China is developing “case law with Chinese characteristics,” understanding how Chinese courts handle cases can help guide sound business decisions.
Bad Faith Trademark Filings
Given the importance of addressing bad faith trademark filings, both sides agree to continue to prioritize the issue of bad faith trademark filings, and to strengthen communication and exchange on this issue through existing channels.
References: This is a continuation of earlier efforts.
Copyright Legislation
The United States and China are to continue exchanges on the development of their respective copyright laws. China clarifies that its Copyright Law is in the process of amendment and useful principles and interpretative guidance from the Supreme People Court’s 2012 Judicial Interpretation on Internet Intermediary Liability will be considered in the law, if appropriate and feasible.
The final judicial interpretation is available here. Here is a blog on the 2014 State Council draft of the Copyright Law revision, and a blog on a 2012 NCA draft.
Exchange on Intellectual Property Rights Legislation
Recognizing the success and experience of recent exchanges on IP legislation through the JCCT IPR Working Group, programs under the Cooperation Framework Agreement and other fora, as well as the desire of the United States and China to further understand recent developments in this area, the United States and China agree to exchange views on their legislative developments in IP and innovation including on pending reforms in copyright law, patent law, trade secret law (anti-unfair competition law), science and technology achievement law, etc., with relevant legislative bodies.
References: This is a broad commitment, with much legislative activity planned in China in areas such as trade secrets, copyright, patents and related regulations.
Protection of New Plant Varieties
The United States and China agree to hold exchanges on the protection of new plant varieties through bilateral meetings and other means to be determined.
References: China and Switzerland agreed to extend plant variety protections in the Swiss-China FTA.
Here are the outcomes involving IP fromon the Chinese side, from the MofCOM website(http://www.mofcom.gov.cn/article/i/jyjl/l/201512/20151201200026.shtml). I have translated the title of the outcome only.
“特别301”报告 SPECIAL 301 REPORT
美方重申其承诺，将在“特别301报告”中客观、公正、善意地评价包括中国在内的外国政府，在知识产权保护和执法方面付出的努力。美方欢迎旨在加强中国知识产权保护的改革和行动，并承诺在2016年“特别301报告”中将强调中国政府在知识产权保护和执法方面采取的积极行动。
恶名市场 NOTORIOUS MARKETS
美方重申其承诺，如果适当，将在“恶名市场”名单中客观、公正、善意地评估和认可外国实体，包括中国实体，在知识产权保护和执法方面付出的努力和取得的成绩。美方计划在2016年通过将利益相关方的异议期延长一倍，继续增加程序的透明度。美方将继续与中方就此事项进行讨论。
知识产权有效和平衡保护 EFFECTIVE AND BALANCED IP PROTECTION
考虑到《与贸易有关的知识产权协定》的原则和目标，美方和中方将继续就诸如有助于保护创新者免于恶意诉讼的相关政策进行交流和沟通，为创新行为提供积极环境。
知识产权合作 IP COOPERATION
中美双方确认知识产权保护在中美双边经贸关系中的关键作用。双方承认合作的益处，并认可合作构成了双方知识产权交流的基础，承诺进一步加强重要领域的深入合作，包括：
进一步加强中美商贸联委会知识产权工作组作为牵头协调知识产权问题双边论坛的作用。
继续高度重视中美知识产权合作框架协议的工作，包括2016年司法交流和将在中国举办的一项培训项目；在完成并对现有承诺项目进行审查后，在预算允许的前提下，考虑在框架协议下增加其他项目。
支持中国商务部在2016年第一季度举办的技术许可联合研讨会。
其他项目将根据个案原则进行组织。双方认识到中美双方，特别是美方，与一系列从事知识产权培训和技术交流的机构和私人组织合作，实施了广泛的项目策划工作。
加强在打击网络盗版方面的合作 STRENGTHENED COOPERATION IN DEALING WITH ONLINE PIRACY
为应对在美国涉嫌网络盗版刑事侵权案件影响中国权利人的情况，中美执法联合联络小组下设的知识产权刑事执法合作工作组在美国驻华使馆的联系人将负责接收中方行政部门转交的此类信息。
通过中美双边合作加强知识产权在企业中的利用和保护 USING BILATERAL COOPERATION TO STRENGTHEN IP UTILIZATION AND PROTECTION IN ENTERPRISES
认识到双边贸易与投资持续增长的情况，中美双方同意加强合作与交流，就各自国家知识产权保护和利用有关的经验数据进行研究，并在此领域采取具体行动或举办项目，以协助中美关于鼓励创新的决策，并帮助中美创新者、创造者和企业家更好地理解如何在各自国家创造、保护和利用知识产权。
深化和加强中美知识产权刑事执法合作 DEEPENING CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT COOPERATION IN IP
在中美执法联合联络小组下设的知识产权刑事执法合作工作组机制项下，中美将继续就跨国知识产权调查开展合作。双方将确定共同合作的重点案件，就此类案件保持定期沟通和信息分享，并探索在共同感兴趣的领域开展技术交流的机会。
…
中美共同打击网络销售假药 JOINT SINO-US COMBATTING OF ONLINE COUNTERFEIT MEDICINE SALES
中美两国政府都非常重视打击网络销售假药以保障公共的用药安全和健康。两国食品药品监管机构之间已就打击网络销售假药开展合作，并承诺未来继续开展合作。这种合作包括分享信息、分享提高公众对网络销售药品认知的最佳实践以及加强在现有国际组织活动中的沟通与协调。
Updated: December 2 and 3, 2015
A Deeper Dive Into the Jurisdiction and Role of Specialized IP Courts
As we previously reported the NPC’s Standing Committee established three Specialized IP Courts in Beijing, Shanghai, and Guangzhou. The Supreme People’s Court and the cities’ High Courts are now in the process of implementing the NPC’s decision.
On November 3, 2014, the Supreme Court issued a decision and held a news conference outlining the jurisdiction of the Specialized IP Courts of Shanghai, Beijing, and Guangzhou. The court detailed the Specialized IP Courts’ jurisdiction over cases of first instance, over different types of IP cases, and over IP right authorization and verification.
The Specialized IP Courts have jurisdiction over three types of cases:
1. Civil and administrative cases involving patents, new plant varieties, layout designs of integrated circuits, technical secrets, computer software and other technology cases; 2. Administrative cases involving copyright, trademark, and unfair competition against the administrative action of the State Council department or above the county level departments; and 3. Civil cases involving the affirmation of well known trademarks.
The Specialized IP Courts will review civil and administrative IP cases challenging the judgment of lower courts. Additionally, the Higher People’s Courts, where the Specialized IP Courts are located, will review appeals against the judgment of the Specialized IP Courts. Probably the two most important impacts of the jurisdiction of the courts in terms of its impact upon foreigners aspect of the jurisdiction are the jurisdiction of the Beijing Specialized IP Court over appeals over patent and trademark office final decisions and jurisdiction over well-known marks
Foreigner-related cases constitute a large percentage of these appeals from the patent and trademark office while the infringement cases brought by foreigners are about 2% of the docket. According to various press reports, the overall share of administrative cases brought by foreigners in Beijing hovers near 50%. Interestingly, in January of 2014, Beijing had already divided its intermediate IP court into two divisions one of which would hear patent appeals and the other would hear trademark appeals. This experiment, which likely was intended to anticipate one national IP court like the Federal Circuit in the United States, has necessarily become short-lived. Nonetheless, in its jurisdiction over patent and trademark appeals, the Beijing Specialized IP Court does retain jurisdiction that is in many ways similar to the Federal Circuit’s “administrative” jurisdiction over the USPTO.
I do not have precise current data on foreign-related well known mark cases. However, well known mark status has been of concern to foreign brand owners for some time. Former China Trademark Office Director-General An Qinghu 安青虎published an extensive analysis in English in 2005 on recognition of well-known marks in China, including the various circumstances by which foreign well known marks have been recognized, which as I recall from prior personal review of that article, was intended in part to address the concern of foreigners over how well-known marks were being protected in China As DG An noted at that time “Among the 153 well-known trademarks affirmed by SAIC or Trademark Review and Adjudication Board, 132 are registered by Chinese registrants …, 21 by foreign registrants …” (fn. 7), and “SAIC had affirmed some well-known trademarks in objection decisions in the 1990s, most of which were registered by foreign registrants.” (final endnote). I do not have current data on well known mark ownership by foreigners.
The Beijing, Shanghai, and Guangzhou Specialized IP Courts have different focuses and differing impact upon foreigners. As noted, the Beijing court is distinguished by its largely administrative docket. The Shanghai and Guangzhou courts will deal with hear comparatively more civil IP cases and will hear relatively fewer administrative cases, mostly involving administrative enforcement decisions. Guangdong has the largest IP docket in China although not the largest foreign-related docket. Guangdong’s handling of intra-provincial IP disputes could become a model for a national appellate IP court. Interestingly, an important and rapidly rising part of the overall IP docket in Guangdong involves online infringement owing to the large Internet business community in Guangdong. However online copyright is not part of the Guangdong Specialized IP Court’s jurisdiction, despite many of those cases involving different regions of China and their rapid rise and complexity. For example, from 2010-2013, the online infringement docket in the Pearl River Delta of Guangdong increased from 4058 to 9449, increasing from 21% to 38% of the overall IP docket.
The Supreme People’s Court also issued guidance regarding the selection of judges for the Specialized Court. The judges can be selected either from those judges engaged in IP or related trials, or the judges can be selected if they have the same qualifications and conditions and are engaged in law practice, legal research or are law teaching professionals.
- A judge should also have the following qualifications: more than 6 years of relevant trial work experience; a bachelors or higher degree in law; a strong capacity for leading trials and drafting judgments; and Senior judge qualifications.
- The standards for other legal professionals as judges of the Specialized IP Court are referenced in further comments.
The candidates for the president of the Specialized Court are appointed by the city’s People’s Congress Standing Committee. The new President of the Beijing IP Court, Su Chi 宿迟, and his deputies, Chen Jinchuan 陈锦川 and Song Yushui 宋鱼水 appear to have such credentials. Indeed, as if to underscore my analysis on the importance of Beijing to foreigners, the press reports also underscore their experience in adjudicating foreign-related disputes.
Beijing’s Specialized IP Court will also include “Technology Experts,” (技术调查官) who will help resolve technology issues that come up in the cases. The High Court pointed to Taiwanese and Japanese courts that make use of such officials, noting that in those courts the Technology Experts are senior officials. However, the SPC has also cautioned that the courts should not rely on such experts exclusively.
Here are three charts that demonstrate the jurisdiction of the Specialized IP Court in Beijing, Shanghai, and Guangzhou. See also the Chinese version.
Written by Mark Cohen with the support of Marc Epstein and Yao Yao from Fordham Law School.
Update on Specialized IP Courts
There are a number of developments in China’s efforts to roll out China’s three new specialized IP courts by the end of the year. Information is being shared at conferences, via weibo (microblog) postings, emails and other media – along with lots of friendly speculation. Here’s our current summation:
Background: On August 31, 2014, the NPC’s Standing Committee enacted a decision to establishing specialized IP courts in Beijing, Shanghai and Guanghou. These courts are intended to be a three year experiment in adjudicating technologically complex cases. I have previously blogged about this issue on two separate occasions, while other commentators such as He Jing have also offered their analysis.
The roll out of the courts have now entered into a less theoretical stage of implementation. In addition, other developments, such as the recently concluded Fourth Plenum also influences our understanding of what is going on in this important area, and the potential impact of this experiment on other legal reforms.
At a conference on October 25 that I attended at Tongji University (photo above), IPR Tribunal Deputy Chief Judge Jin Kesheng 金克胜 updated a large crowd of academics, officials, lawyers and students on how the court was going to develop. . Judge Jin had a long experience as a legal academic, and has often commented on the relationship between IP and other legal developments.
He noted that the SPC is actively drafting a judicial interpretation on the jurisdiction of the courts. He stated that the three specialized IP courts will adjudicate both first and second instance cases. They will also adjudicate both civil and administrative matters. Current “three in one” adjudication experiments (combining civil, criminal and administrative jurisdiction) will be largely unaffected. He referred to the Foruth Plenum several times, and pointed out that the pilot in cross-region jurisdiction in specialized IPR court is a pilot for the future court’s reform in cross-region jurisdiction on other subject matters.
In terms of subject matter jurisdiction, he specifically mentioned that antimonopoly law cases and well-known trademark cases will also be under the jurisdiction of the specialized IPR courts.
Regarding court administration, Judge Jin noted that judges in the specialized IP courts will be higher paid, which is attracting interest from other judges. He also expected that the courts would have an impact on the professionalism and expertise of the judiciary in IP cases, which is already relatively high.
In the past the courts have used experts, such as examiners from SIPO to assist in technologically complex matters. In the future, technology experts (技术调查官) will serve as the assistant to the judge. In fact these technology experts are set to be included in the Beijing Specialized IP Court launch, which will take place in the first half of November. Jin cautioned, however, that judges should avoid replying on the technology experts exclusively.
Jin acknowledged the disappointment many observers had that the NPC had not authorized establishment of a national appellate IP court, such as the CAFC, but had instead decided to establish a pilot project involving intermediate level courts. The views of several prominent academics were conveyed at a meeting of the Legal Affairs Committee of the NPC on August 7. Some academics urged a specialized IP court like the CAFC to break the problem of territoriality in IP adjudication while others urged that this court should set the standard for a national appellate court. Judge Jin nonetheless believed that the specialized IP courts are a milestone in China’s IP and legal reforms.
What will be the impact of this self-described experiment? In terms of size of their docket, Guangdong has by far the largest docket. Beijing is second and Shanghai is last. Guangdong is about twice the size of Beijing, and Beijing is a bit more than twice the size of Shanghai. Beijing, however, has the oversized docket of foreign-related cases and administrative cases. Guangdong has the biggest size and population and its experiment in setting up a provincial level intermediate court could be an important precedent for IP and non-IP related jurisdictional experiments. The loss of jurisdiction of Shenzhen and other important cities in Guangdong over patent, trade secret and AML matters is likely a significant concern to tech companies there.
Beijing’s continuing role in administrative litigation means that Beijing would be a natural venue for a national appellate IP court, such as the CAFC. Shanghai, with the smallest docket and a relatively modest foreign related docket compared to Beijing may appear to have the least “experimental value.” However, Shanghai brings several important developments to the table. First it is the home to a large and active foreign business community and an active R&D community, especially in the life sciences. Second, it is home to the important foreign trade zone pilot project, with its own IP tribunal. Third and not least, Shanghai is the home to the Chinese Courts International Exchanges Base for Judicial Protection of Intellectual Property Rights (中国法院知识产权司法保护国际交流（上海）基地) which was opened on September 25, and promises to support a wide range of IPR judicial exchanges and educational efforts. Since foreigners file more cases in Beijing, the Shanghai IP court will need to work hard to attract IP litigation from Beijing, particularly since the Beijing IP court is likely to continue to have a large foreign-related docket with its jurisdiction over the patent and trademark offices.
The Beijing court has already been sighted by one microblogger, and a picture is available on line: http://www.weibo.com/136766637#_rnd1414651625018. There have also been numerous postings, emails and rumors about assignments of judges – which I will decline to repeat here. In any event, it is only a matter of weeks before those appointments are officially disclosed.
Prof. Don Clarke in his recent blog on the recently concluded Fourth Plenum noted that there is a proposal to establish courts “that will cross jurisdictional boundaries, again to try cases that are in some sense cross-jurisdictional. Such a proposal would require legislative and possibly constitutional amendments.” The IP courts are part of that initial experiment. Judge Jin referred to other specialized IP courts and cross boundary proposals, such as in labor and childrens courts. In another related development, Judge Jin also noted that the specialized IP courts will have higher paid, more professional judges – a development consistent with the Fourth Plenum. –
In sum, these new courts are are a part of the continuing effort to “cross the rule of law river by feeling the IP stones.”
Specialized IP Courts Established in Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou; Song Xiaoming New Chief IP Judge
According to Xinhua, on August 31, the NPC passed legislation establishing specialized IP courts (http://news.xinhuanet.com/politics/2014-08/31/c_1112298943.htm) (“Decision of the NPC Standing Committee on Establishing Specialized IP Courts in Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou”)
As indicated, the courts are to be established in Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou. Some basic aspects:
1. The types and numbers of cases are to be decided by the SPC
2. The court will hear technically complex first instance civil matters and administrative appeals (patents, technical trade secrets, plant varieties, semiconductor layout designs, etc.).
3. The Beijing IP court will hear first instance appeals of validity / invalidity decisions of State Council IP agencies (patent office, trademark office, etc.).
4. The courts will have cross-territorial jurisdiction for the types of cases determined by the SPC noted in the first paragraph above within three years.
5. The court will also hear appeals from first instance trademark and copyright cases that originate at the basic level court in its municipality.
6. Appeals of first instance decisions of the specialized IP courts will go to the high court of the province or city where that court is located.
7. The specialized IP courts will be supervised by the SPC, the local high court and, “according to law”, the procuratorate. Note that no specific procuratorate – national or local is indicated.
8. The President ( 院长) of the local IP court will be decided and appointed by the local people’s congress.
9. The Vice President of the court, chiefs of tribunals and adjudicating judges will be decided by the President and subject to appointment by the local people’s congress.
10. The SPC will report on the implementation of the IP courts to the National Peoples Congress three years from now.
11. The specialized IP courts are established as of August 31, 2014.
There are clearly some additional details and kinks to be ironed out. For example certain copyright cases can be as technologically complex as patent cases; there is no legal definition of “technical” trade secret as opposed to trade secrets involving business information; having the heads of these specialized courts be appointed by local people’s congresses may also continue to result in significant local protectionism; cross border jurisdiction for first instance cases for the courts could also result in cross border jurisdiction of the local high court, which could also increase local protectionism. As I have noted several times before, I am unclear if anti-monopoly cases qualify as “技术秘密等专业技术性较强的” (technologically complex, technically specialized) cases.
It also appears likely to me that these courts would also be first instance courts for trademark and copyright cases which involve foreigners. Such cases are typically now filed in the intermediate court or higher. The NPC decision notes only that the specialized courts however have jurisdiction over appeals from the basic level courts which heard trademark and copyright cases. As foreigners do not file cases in the basic courts, the specialized IP courts may be their courts of first instance. 知识产权法院所在市的基层人民法院第一审著作权、商标等知识产权民事和行政判决、裁定的上诉案件，由知识产权法院审理. One question that arises is whether these courts would then also have cross border jurisdiction – which could then make them an effective tool in dealing with cross border counterfeiting and piracy involving foreigners and others.
The decision does further commit Beijing city to hearing administrative and civil IP cases in one specialized court, which is likely a good development for foreigners who bring many administrative cases. If the Beijing IP court were granted jurisdiction over all cases where there is a validity challenge to a patent or trademark anywhere in China, it could also result in a significant efficiency in the Chinese system.
These first instance specialized courts for technically complex cases will still be subject to review by at least one, possibly two appellate courts. In this respect, the reform may be less like the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which established one national patent appellate court. Rather, it appears to mostly be a reform of first instance adjudication, which might include consideration of venue, jurisdiction, consolidation of cases and further training of judges.
In a contemporaneous development, according to the People’s Daily (http://rmfyb.chinacourt.org/paper/html/2014-09/01/content_87088.htm?div=-1), Kong Xiangjun孔祥俊 is no longer head of the No. 3 (IP) Division of the SPC. He has been replaced by Song Xiaoming 宋晓明, formerly chief judge of the No. 2 Civil Division. Kong had reportedly been scheduled for promotion and was working in SIchuan for the past several months. It is unclear to me where Kong is next headed.
SPECIALIZED IP COURTS ABOUT TO LAUNCH IN THREE CITIES – AND ARE THEY GOOD FOR FOREIGNERS?
Recent Chinese efforts at developing specialized IP courts and in promoting greater judicial independence suggest that the system may significantly improve in the years ahead. According to press reports, some of these efforts may take final form at the 10th meeting of the 27th Session of the Chairman’s Council of the 12 Session of NPC Standing Committee which will be held on August 25 through 30. At that meeting, the NPC Standing Committee will review the bill submitted by the Supreme People’s Court which is the Draft Resolution of SPC to Establish IPR Courts in Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou.
Why specialized IP courts? On August 12, 2014, Deputy Chief Judge Jin Kesheng (金克胜), of the third civil (IPR) division of the Supreme People’s Court, said: “In recently years, the speed of increasing IP court was grow slow smoothly, however, there are more and more the new style cases and complicated cases involving foreign parties so that these cases were difficult to judge and the attention from the public to these cases were enhanced. The number of case filed at the Supreme Court was increasing, especially in patent cases with more complicated technology and huge market value and interest. Additionally, the administrative cases are growing rapidly, the proportion of cases involving the fields of medicine, electronic, telecommunication patents are increasing. The proportion of cases in competition cases involving network technology and new business models is large, business secrets and counterfeiting cases continue to increase, and the Supreme People’s Court is hearing antimonopoly cases for the first time… Therefore, this year the Central Committee of the Party and some related departments did some investigations with regard to establishing a specialized IP courts…”
China has had specialized IP tribunals (ting 庭), beginning with an initial experiment in 1993 in Beijing. Currently there are about 3,000 judges in sit these tribunals. In addition, there are 560 tribunals throughout the country, including basic, level, intermediate, high court and supreme people’s court tribunals or divisions. In recent years, China has been experimenting with more basic courts (e.g. Yi Wu People’s Court and Kun Shan People’s Court) hearing IP cases including patent cases. Historically, these tribunals had sometimes been called “No. 3 Civil Tribunals” (e.g. No.3 Civil Tribunal of Shanghai Higher People’s Court, No.3 Civil Tribunal of Pudong District People’s Court), “No. 5 Civil Tribunals” (No.5 Civil Tribunal of Shanghai No.1 Intermediate People’s Court, No.5 Civil Tribunal of Shanghai No.2 Intermediate People’s Court) or IP Tribunals (IP Tribunal of Zhuhai People’s Court). Increasingly these tribunals may combine civil IP jurisdiction with administrative review and criminal jurisdiction (“three in one tribunals”).
As civil enforcement is the lion’s share of judicial IP litigation, the civil experience of these judges has in a sense helped also to develop the capacity of China’s judiciary to handle criminal and administrative litigation. In addition, by combining civil, criminal and administrative jurisdiction there is a greater likelihood of consistent handling of matters that may cross jurisdictional boundaries such as use of administrative evidence in civil cases, providing civil compensation in criminal matters, referring administrative or civil matters to criminal litigation, or handling patent and trademark validity matters in conjunction with an ongoing civil case. Today all of these matters may be handled in one tribunal.
What prior work has been done in this area by the Chinese government? While specialized IPR courts have been talked about for some time, institutional improvements in the IPR tribunals were set forth as a national goal in the Outline of the National IP Strategy (2008) which was coordinated by SIPO. The NIPS stated “Studies need to be carried out on establishing special tribunals to handle civil, administrative or criminal cases involving intellectual property”. The SPC took an important step in this direction in July 2009, when it directed the civil IP tribunals in the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate Court to handle validity matters on appeal from China’s patent and trademark offices. (最高人民法院关于专利、商标等授权确权类知识产权行政案件审理分类的规定).
The impetus to develop specialized IP courts in China took an even greater leap forward back on November 12, 2013, at the Third Plenum Session of Eleventh Communist Party Central Committee (the “Third Plenum”). The Third Plenum set as a goal to “explore the establishment of intellectual property court(s).” Since that time, Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Nanjing, Chengdu, Zhengzhou had started to apply for establishing the IP court with the Supreme Court. On March 10, 2014, Zhou Qiang(周强), the President of the SPC discussed the work schedule of 2014 and said that the Supreme Court would promote to establish the specialized IP court. On July 9, 2014, the Supreme Court at its press conference outlining judicial reforms for the Supreme Court (2014-2018) discussed establishing Specialized IP courts at places where IP cases are concentrated. Professor Tao Xinliang (陶鑫良) had proposed establishing the IP Intermediate Court at some places where IP cases concentrated to judge the civil IP cases and administrative IP cases of the first instance and the civil IP cases, administrative IP cases of the second instance and some criminal IP cases. (Prof. Tao Xinliang 陶鑫良<Some thoughts on Establishment of Specialized IP Court建立知识产权法院的若干思考> Madame Tao Kaiyuan (陶凯元) , a Vice President of the Supreme Court, and a former Director General of the Guangdong IP Bureau (where she likely worked with Vice Premier Wang Yang（汪洋）) has also said that the SPC should continue to promote three-in-one IP tribunals.
Why might China be adding a new emphasis on a specialized IP court in additional to combined tribunals? A specialized IP court may promote and improve the civil judicial enforcement system by providing more resources, promote the independence of the judiciary, and provide for more training of judges, particularly on technical patent matters. The judges of a specialized IP court might be even more professional and autonomous. They might be better able to handle the administrative cases, criminal cases and civil cases at the same time. Like other specialized courts (e.g maritime, military, railway court), civil/criminal and administrative jurisdiction would also combined, reflecting the subject matter expertise of the judges in that court and likely reducing subject matter and venue conflicts for IP litigation.
The SPC has not yet published the detailed program for implementation of specialized IP courts. In addition, we have heard little about important areas of the IP tribunals’ jurisdiction which are not as directly related to IP, such as antimonopoly law, unfair competition and licensing, and whether these areas will also remain within the specialized court jurisdiction. We assume they will be, and would actually hope that other IP-related areas could be specifically included (such as consumer protection, substandard products, and geographical indications). However, we have seen nothing to date discussing these areas.
Will a specialized IPR court be good for foreigners? Most foreign rights holders have continuing concern with local protectionism and political influence in IP adjudication. Beijing, which appears to be a focus for development of a specialized IP court is the jurisdiction that appears to hear the most foreign cases. As we have previously blogged, foreign parties are involved in approximately 47% of their administrative appeal docket (which is primarily based in Beijing); or about 1349 cases, nearly equal to the number of infringement cases in 2013 of 1429. Hopefully, giving the Beijing courts more independence and confirming their “three in one” approach will provide greater judicial autonomy for the Beijing courts.
One concern is whether specialized IP courts will indeed function in a more independent manner than IP tribunals. The US experience with our specialized national patent court, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, has generally been that the CAFC has some impact on correcting local biases at the trial court level, including possible anti-foreign jury bias. This is borne out by data which shows that in general, reversal rates in favor of foreigners is higher at the CAFC than reversal rates in favor of domestic entities.
U.S.: Patent Infringement Civil Litigation Appellate Win Rates
|
Overall |
Foreign Companies |
|
|
Patent Owner Win Rate |
25% |
27% |
|
Accused Infringer Win Rate |
75% |
78% |
Source：Paul M. Janicke & LiLan Ren, Who Wins Patent Infringement Cases?, 34 AIPLA Q.J. 1 (2006).
However, according to data from the CIELA database (www.ciela.cn), second instance patent appeals in China generally show an inclination to support the Chinese domestic party against the foreigner.
China : Invention Patent Litigation Data
|
All Plaintiff |
Foreign |
Domestic |
|
|
1st instance win rate |
73% |
78% |
72% |
|
2nd instance win rate |
52% |
40% |
52% |
|
Overturn rate |
19% |
30% |
17% |
|
Mean compensation |
RMB 439,614 |
RMB 230,827 |
RMB 525,939 |
|
Medium compensation |
RMB 100,000 |
RMB 125,000 |
RMB 100,000 |
|
Duration |
8.2m |
11.8m |
6.9m |
（Courtesy of Tim Smith of Rouse & Co. ）
Why might appellate IP courts or tribunals behave differently in each country? First, the CAFC is a national court, not a regional or local court. In this sense, it may be more accountable to national law and reputation than local courts. The CAFC under former Chief Judge Rader had in fact been a leading global proponent of national specialized IP courts. Second, the CAFC has a different jurisdictional role. It does not retry cases, rather it hears appeals. In addition, it hears both patent validity and infringement matters in one court. Moreover, its decisions on matters of law are binding on lower courts. As such, it has more authority in deciding legal matters, and in instructing lower courts on proper adjudication. For example, the CAFC had taken an active role in addressing venue issues at the E.D Texas on patent litigation issues. A third reason is found in China’s political situation. In general, Chinese courts are much less independent than US courts. Local Chinese courts, particularly in remote areas, may also tend to be even less accountable to national law and policy. Second instance Chinese courts may be more susceptible to receiving national policy directives and may therefore be more susceptible to national political influence in adjudicating disputes. Moreover, local statutes enacted by local people congress are at a higher political hierarchy than national administrative rules (部门规章). The local political congresses that enact these statutes also appoint judges. When a second instance case is heard, for example, in a provincial high court, there may in fact be a problem of more direct political influence through political actors in the provincial capital.
The limited data available to date suggests to me that while specialized IP courts have promise, their potential impact will also be affected by national judicial reform efforts and may continue to be constrained by existing limitations in the political independence of the Chinese judicial structure. As Susan Finder has noted in her blog, there are several efforts under way to address some of these systemic issues in the Chinese judicial system, which may also bear promise for Chinese IP adjudication. In sum, specialized IP courts may not be the panacea that foreigners might otherwise seek in minimizing anti-foreign bias in local adjudication in China, but I do believe they offer some hope for a better and stronger judiciary.
By Mark Cohen, with Ms. Yao Yao of Fordham Law School (LLM Candidate, 2015).
