簡(jiǎn)評(píng)兩辦《關(guān)于加強(qiáng)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)審判領(lǐng)域改革創(chuàng)新若干問(wèn)題的意見(jiàn)》

#文章僅代表作者觀點(diǎn)，未經(jīng)作者許可，禁止轉(zhuǎn)載，文章不代表IPRdaily立場(chǎng)#

來(lái)源：IPRdaily中文網(wǎng)（IPRdaily.cn）

作者：馮超【1】北京天達(dá)共和律師事務(wù)所

原標(biāo)題：簡(jiǎn)評(píng)兩辦《關(guān)于加強(qiáng)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)審判領(lǐng)域改革創(chuàng)新若干問(wèn)題的意見(jiàn)》

2018年2月6日，中共中央辦公廳和國(guó)務(wù)院辦公廳聯(lián)合出臺(tái)了《關(guān)于加強(qiáng)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)審判領(lǐng)域改革創(chuàng)新若干問(wèn)題的意見(jiàn)》（以下稱“《意見(jiàn)》”），2月27日，《意見(jiàn)》全文公布。2月28日，最高人民法院副院長(zhǎng)陶凱元在國(guó)務(wù)院新聞發(fā)布會(huì)上介紹了《意見(jiàn)》出臺(tái)的有關(guān)情況，并接受了記者采訪。筆者對(duì)上述意見(jiàn)內(nèi)容進(jìn)行如下介紹和簡(jiǎn)評(píng)。

《意見(jiàn)》共包含“總體要求”、“完善知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)訴訟制度”、“加強(qiáng)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)法院體系建設(shè)”、“加強(qiáng)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)審判隊(duì)伍建設(shè)”和“加強(qiáng)組織領(lǐng)導(dǎo)”四個(gè)部分。

一、總體要求

《意見(jiàn)》認(rèn)為，創(chuàng)造和創(chuàng)新是構(gòu)建知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)強(qiáng)國(guó)、科技強(qiáng)國(guó)這一國(guó)家戰(zhàn)略的重要基礎(chǔ)，知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)保護(hù)是鼓勵(lì)創(chuàng)造和創(chuàng)新的根本手段和重要保障。

筆者簡(jiǎn)評(píng)：

本次《意見(jiàn)》是我國(guó)最高黨政領(lǐng)導(dǎo)機(jī)關(guān)聯(lián)合出臺(tái)的第一份強(qiáng)調(diào)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)保護(hù)是驅(qū)動(dòng)創(chuàng)新發(fā)展的主要手段的綱領(lǐng)性文件。

二、完善知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)訴訟制度

1. 建立符合知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)案件特點(diǎn)的訴訟證據(jù)規(guī)則

《意見(jiàn)》要求完善證據(jù)保全制度，充分發(fā)揮專家輔助人的重要作用。更為重要的是，《意見(jiàn)》提出適當(dāng)加大人民法院依職權(quán)調(diào)查取證力度，充分發(fā)揮公證機(jī)關(guān)在知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)案件中固定證據(jù)的作用，探索建立證據(jù)披露規(guī)則，合理分配舉證責(zé)任，適當(dāng)減輕權(quán)利人舉證負(fù)擔(dān)，著力破解知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)權(quán)利人“舉證難”問(wèn)題。

筆者簡(jiǎn)評(píng)：

在以往的知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)審判中，人民法院對(duì)于依職權(quán)調(diào)取證據(jù)一般比較謹(jǐn)慎。本次《意見(jiàn)》提出適當(dāng)加大人民法院依職權(quán)主動(dòng)調(diào)查取證的力度，這將成為權(quán)利人在缺乏證據(jù)開(kāi)釋制度而導(dǎo)致取證困難的情況下的一種有效的取證手段。

既往部分中國(guó)法院曾經(jīng)在被告拒絕提供與其侵權(quán)行為獲利有關(guān)的證據(jù)的情況下，通過(guò)采納第三方披露的關(guān)于被告非法獲利的證據(jù)而做出有利于權(quán)利人的判決?！兑庖?jiàn)》還提出探討證據(jù)披露制度，明確按照《民事訴訟法》的有關(guān)規(guī)定，合理分配舉證責(zé)任。

2. 健全知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)侵權(quán)損害賠償制度

《意見(jiàn)》要求從根本上破解知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)侵權(quán)訴訟“賠償?shù)汀钡膯?wèn)題，充分發(fā)揮社會(huì)組織、中介機(jī)構(gòu)在知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)價(jià)值評(píng)估中的作用，著力構(gòu)建以補(bǔ)償為主、懲罰為輔的侵權(quán)損害司法認(rèn)定機(jī)制。

《意見(jiàn)》強(qiáng)調(diào)，對(duì)于具有重復(fù)侵權(quán)、惡意侵權(quán)以及其他嚴(yán)重侵權(quán)情節(jié)的，可依法判決懲罰性賠償，提高賠償數(shù)額，以有效遏制和威懾侵犯知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)行為。

筆者簡(jiǎn)評(píng)：

侵權(quán)損害賠償?shù)挠?jì)算依然是一個(gè)難題。既往判決當(dāng)中，權(quán)利人往往難以提出有效的證據(jù)證明實(shí)際損失或者侵權(quán)人獲利的數(shù)據(jù)，導(dǎo)致難以獲得應(yīng)有的賠償金額。知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)價(jià)值評(píng)估機(jī)構(gòu)的積極參與將有助于改善現(xiàn)有狀況，提高損害賠償金額。

《商標(biāo)法》以及《專利法》修正案中均引入了懲罰性賠償?shù)闹贫?，這一修改將有助于提高損害賠償數(shù)額，有效遏制惡意侵權(quán)行為。

3. 推進(jìn)符合知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)訴訟規(guī)律的裁判方式改革

《意見(jiàn)》強(qiáng)調(diào)進(jìn)一步發(fā)揮知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)司法保護(hù)的主導(dǎo)作用，依法加強(qiáng)對(duì)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)行政行為的司法審查，促進(jìn)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)行政執(zhí)法標(biāo)準(zhǔn)與司法裁判標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的統(tǒng)一?！兑庖?jiàn)》要求完善知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)案例指導(dǎo)制度，改進(jìn)裁判方式，推進(jìn)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)案件繁簡(jiǎn)分流。

筆者簡(jiǎn)評(píng)：

從五年前對(duì)于《專利法》修訂的討論開(kāi)始，知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)的司法保護(hù)制度就被經(jīng)常和行政保護(hù)制度相提并論，而本次《意見(jiàn)》強(qiáng)調(diào)了司法保護(hù)在知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)保護(hù)中的重要性。

此外，陶副院長(zhǎng)也在《意見(jiàn)》發(fā)布的新聞發(fā)布會(huì)上強(qiáng)調(diào)，知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)司法保護(hù)依然將會(huì)是知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)侵權(quán)的基本和首要的救濟(jì)途徑。此外，為了滿足權(quán)利人的需要，人民法院將進(jìn)一步提高司法保護(hù)的質(zhì)量和效率。陶副院長(zhǎng)還介紹說(shuō)，北京知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)法院受理案件的30%為涉外案件。她表示通過(guò)建立一支精通法律、熟悉技術(shù)并具有國(guó)際視野的審判隊(duì)伍，有信心將中國(guó)法院打造成當(dāng)事人信賴的國(guó)際知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)爭(zhēng)端解決“優(yōu)選地”。

4. 統(tǒng)一知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)案件裁判標(biāo)準(zhǔn)

《意見(jiàn)》多次強(qiáng)調(diào)最高人民法院關(guān)于進(jìn)一步統(tǒng)一裁判標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的要求。其中，陶凱元副院長(zhǎng)提到了三項(xiàng)主要的具體措施，分別是最高人民法院直接審理案件，頒布出臺(tái)司法解釋和司法意見(jiàn)以及發(fā)布指導(dǎo)案例。

關(guān)于案例指導(dǎo)制度，陶凱元副院長(zhǎng)明確指出：

（1）在最高人民法院迄今為止發(fā)布的92件指導(dǎo)性案例中，有20件是知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)案件；

（2）北京知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)法院開(kāi)始在判決書(shū)引用指導(dǎo)性案例進(jìn)行法律分析和說(shuō)理；

（3）由最高人民法院發(fā)布的指導(dǎo)性案例雖然沒(méi)有法定拘束力，但下級(jí)法院在審判類似案例時(shí)“應(yīng)當(dāng)參照”；

（4）具有指導(dǎo)意義的案件不僅包括最高人民法院正式發(fā)布的指導(dǎo)案例，也包括每年知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)日（4月26日）發(fā)布的十大知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)案件和50大典型案例；

（5）最高人民法院在北京設(shè)立了指導(dǎo)案例研究基地以促進(jìn)完善案例指導(dǎo)工作。

三、加強(qiáng)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)法院體系建設(shè)

1. 建立健全知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)審判制度

《意見(jiàn)》要求，研究建立國(guó)家層面知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)案件上訴審理機(jī)制，實(shí)現(xiàn)有關(guān)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)案件審理專門(mén)化、管轄集中化、程序集約化和人員專業(yè)化，從根本上解決知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)裁判尺度不統(tǒng)一、訴訟程序復(fù)雜等制約科技創(chuàng)新的體制性難題。

筆者簡(jiǎn)評(píng)：

在北京、上海以及廣州設(shè)立知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)法院的舉措極大地促進(jìn)了知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)案件審理隊(duì)伍的專業(yè)化和管轄的集中化。而知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)上訴法院的建立意味著將專門(mén)的知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)法院進(jìn)一步推廣到其他省份，最終覆蓋全國(guó)并建立國(guó)家層面的知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)上訴法院制度。

2. 探索跨地區(qū)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)案件異地審理機(jī)制

《意見(jiàn)》要求，充分整合京津冀三地法院審判優(yōu)勢(shì)資源，探索北京知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)法院集中管轄京津冀地區(qū)技術(shù)類知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)案件。

筆者簡(jiǎn)評(píng)：

北京知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)法院在知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)審判工作中發(fā)揮的重要作用得到了廣泛地認(rèn)可，尤其是和天津、河北地區(qū)的同類型法院相比優(yōu)勢(shì)突出。京津冀三地知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)案件由北京知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)法院集中管轄的提議將有助于提升天津和河北地區(qū)的知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)案件審判水平。

四、加強(qiáng)組織協(xié)調(diào)工作

《意見(jiàn)》提出，積極推進(jìn)人民法院組織法、專利法、著作權(quán)法、有關(guān)訴訟法等相關(guān)法律的修訂工作，研究制定符合知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)審判規(guī)律的特別程序法，加強(qiáng)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)案件專門(mén)審判組織、訴訟管轄、證據(jù)規(guī)則、審理程序和裁判方式的法律化、制度化。

General Office of Communist Party of China and State Council issued Opinion regarding Reform and Innovation for Trial of Intellectual Property Cases

On February 6, 2018, General Office of Chinese Communist Party and State Council jointly issued the official document namely “Opinion regarding Improvement of Reform and Innovation for Intellectual Property related Trials” (the “Opinion”). Vice President of Supreme People’s Court (“SPC”), Judge Tao, made interpretation to the IP Opinion during the press conference and was interviewed following the issuance on February 27.

The IP Opinion consisting of four parts includes the General Requirement, Perfection of IP Trial System, Enhancement of IP Court System, and Improvement of Arrangement and Coordination, which were specified as follows.

I. General Requirement

The Opinion positioned the IP protection issue as the basic measure for encouragement and guarantee to innovation and creation that builds the foundation to the National Strategy to establish a Nation that is strong in IP as well as science and technology.

Comments by Charles Feng

The Opinion was the first strategic document issued by CPC and State Council, the top administrative body of China, which declared the IP protection as the major approach to protect innovation and development.

II. Perfection of IP Trial System

1. Establishment of Evidentiary Rule that suits the characteristics of trial for IP cases

The Opinion illustrated the importance of perfection of evidence preservation system; fulfill the function of expert assessor. More importantly, the Opinion emphasized the importance of ex officio evidence collection by court without application of related parties, the utilization of notary public for the purpose of evidence collection and recognition, the importance of establishment of rules for discovery, reasonable distribution of burden of proof and appropriate alleviation of burden of proof for right owners, in order to overcome the difficulties for evidence production.

Comments by Charles Feng:

In the past, the Chinese courts have been generally cautious in conducting evidence preservation for right owners. The newly stressed ex officio evidence collection will likely be a useful approach for IP owners in possible judicial actions where the evidence collection was difficult due to the absence of discovery procedure.

The document also mentioned the establishment of rules for discovery, reasonable distribution of burden of proof, specifically under Article 75 of Civil Procedure Law of PRC, and a few Chinese courts which have decided in favor of right owners by adopting the evidence on illegal revenue unofficially disclosed by third parties where the defendant refused to produce evidence to prove the actual profits made by infringing activities.

2. Improvement to the Calculation System for Damages

The Opinion stressed the importance of fulfillment of function of intermediary organizations in evaluation of intellectual properties, in order to establish judicial recognition mechanism for the compensation to right owner as major objective as well as punishment to infringers as auxiliary objective and fundamentally fix the problem of “l(fā)ow damages”.

The Opinion also stressed the necessity of punitive damages against repeated infringements, willful infringements as well as other serious infringements, to effectively deter IP infringements.

Comments by Charles Feng:

The calculation of damages remains a difficult issue. Due to absence of discovery procedure, IP owners always fail to produce effective evidence to prove the actual amount of damages and, consequently, fail to acquire the ideal compensation that they deserve. The active involvements of evaluation organs will likely help to improve the current situation resulting in higher amount for damages.

The punitive damages have been introduced to the 2013 Trademark law, as well as drafted Amendment of Patent Law. Such amendment will facilitate the ruling of higher amount of damages and deterrence against willful infringements.

3. Promotion of Reform of IP Trial System

The document emphasized the fulfillment of the function of judicial protection as the major remedies to IP infringements; enhancement of the judicial supervision against IP related administrative actions and advancement of unification of standards of administrative enforcement and judicial trial. The Opinion also emphasized the perfection of Case Guidance System as well as the division of simple and complicated cases.

Comments by Charles:

The Opinion emphasized the importance of judicial protection for IP which has been frequently compared with administrative protection system, particularly during the discussion of amendment to Patent Law since five years ago.

Judge Tao emphasized during the press conference that judicial protection will remain to be the fundamental and principal remedies for IP infringements. In addition, Chinese courts will further promote the efficiency and completion for judicial protection to satisfy the needs of right holders.

Judge Tao also introduced that 30% of cases tried by Beijing IP Court were foreign related cases and vowed to make Chinese courts the preferred priority venue for lawsuits initiated by multinational IP owners by establishing an IP judicial team that is proficient in law, technology and one with an international vision.

4. Unification of Standard

The Opinion repeatedly empathized the desire of Supreme People’s Court to further improve the unification of standard of judgments. Among others, Judge Tao mentioned three major approaches including trial of cases, Judicial Interpretation and Judicial Opinion as well as Guidance Cases.

With regard to Guidance Cases System, Judge Tao pointed out the following:

(1) Supreme Court has published 92 Guiding Cases, which include merely 20 IP cases.

(2) Beijing IP Court has started to quote the Guiding Cases in its Judgments to illustrate the legal issues and analysis

(3) The Guiding Cases published by Supreme Court although not binding should be referred by other courts.

(4) Guiding cases include not only the official Guiding Cases（指導(dǎo)案例） of the Supreme Court but also the Top 10 IP cases and 50 Model Cases published annually for IP Day (4/26).

(5) Supreme Court has established Guiding Case Research Base（指導(dǎo)案例研究基地）in Beijing.

III. Perfection of IP Court System

1. Establish the complete IP Trial System

The Opinion confirms to conduct research regarding the establishment of IP appellate court system, in order to realize the professionalization of personnel and concentrated jurisdiction and to fundamentally solve the problems of disunities standard of trial of IP cases, complication of trial procedure and other obstacles.

Comments by Charles Feng:

The establishment of IP Court in Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou have substantially contributed to the professionalization of personnel and concentrated jurisdiction.

The establishment of IP appellate court in the discussion refers to further expansion of the IP professional court system in other provinces aiming to cover the entire country and finalize the nation-wide appellate court system.

2. Exploration of establishment of Concentrated Jurisdiction for cases in Different provinces

Fully systemize the resources of Beijing, Tianjin and Hebei province, in order to explore the concentrated jurisdiction in Beijing for technical IP cases in Beijing, Tianjin and Hebei Province.

Comments by Charles Feng:

The competence of IP court in Beijing has been widely recognized particularly has advantage against its peers in Tianjin and Hebei. The consideration of concentrated jurisdiction for Beijing, Tianjin and Hebei will likely help to improve the level of trial in the other two provinces.

IV. Improvement of Arrangement and Coordination of IP Trial

The Opinion promised to actively promote the amendment of People’s Court Organization Law, Patent Law, Copyright Law and other procedural laws, as well as to research special procedural law for IP trial, in order to systemize the organization of courts, jurisdiction, evidentiary rule, procedure and method of trial.

注：【1】畢業(yè)于美國(guó)杜克大學(xué)和中國(guó)外交學(xué)院，獲得法學(xué)碩士學(xué)位；最高人民法院案例指導(dǎo)中心咨詢專家；ALB中國(guó)15佳知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)律師之一(2015年)。LegalBand杰出知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)訴訟律師（2016年、2017年）；馮律師代理的案件還曾入選最高人民法院2013年50大知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)典型案例。

來(lái)源：IPRdaily中文網(wǎng)（IPRdaily.cn）

作者：馮超北京天達(dá)共和律師事務(wù)所

編輯：IPRdaily趙珍校對(duì)：IPRdaily縱橫君

推薦閱讀

2017全球區(qū)塊鏈企業(yè)專利排行榜（前100名）

2017年企業(yè)發(fā)明授權(quán)專利排行榜（前100名）

2017全國(guó)申請(qǐng)人確權(quán)商標(biāo)持有量排名（前100名）

“投稿”請(qǐng)投郵箱“iprdaily@163.com”

簡(jiǎn)評(píng)兩辦《關(guān)于加強(qiáng)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)審判領(lǐng)域改革創(chuàng)新若干問(wèn)題的意見(jiàn)》

「關(guān)于IPRdaily」

IPRdaily成立于2014年，是全球影響力的知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)媒體+產(chǎn)業(yè)服務(wù)平臺(tái)，致力于連接全球知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)人，用戶匯聚了中國(guó)、美國(guó)、德國(guó)、俄羅斯、以色列、澳大利亞、新加坡、日本、韓國(guó)等15個(gè)國(guó)家和地區(qū)的高科技公司、成長(zhǎng)型科技企業(yè)IP高管、研發(fā)人員、法務(wù)、政府機(jī)構(gòu)、律所、事務(wù)所、科研院校等全球近50多萬(wàn)產(chǎn)業(yè)用戶（國(guó)內(nèi)25萬(wàn)+海外30萬(wàn)）；同時(shí)擁有近百萬(wàn)條高質(zhì)量的技術(shù)資源+專利資源，通過(guò)媒體構(gòu)建全球知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)資產(chǎn)信息第一入口。2016年獲啟賦資本領(lǐng)投和天使匯跟投的Pre-A輪融資。

（英文官網(wǎng)：iprdaily.com 中文官網(wǎng)：iprdaily.cn）

簡(jiǎn)評(píng)兩辦《關(guān)于加強(qiáng)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)審判領(lǐng)域改革創(chuàng)新若干問(wèn)題的意見(jiàn)》

本文來(lái)自IPRdaily.cn 中文網(wǎng)并經(jīng)IPRdaily.cn中文網(wǎng)編輯。轉(zhuǎn)載此文章須經(jīng)權(quán)利人同意，并附上出處與作者信息。文章不代表IPRdaily.cn立場(chǎng)，如若轉(zhuǎn)載，請(qǐng)注明出處：“http://m.globalwellnesspartner.com/”