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.”
