最高人民法院知识产权法庭年度报告（2019）(17)

　　As the first specialized judicial institution established at the highest court level in the world to handle nationwide patent and other technology-related IP appeals, the IP Court is determined to forge ahead, act as a pioneer and explorer for reform, innovate systems and mechanisms, promote informatization, strengthen team capabilities, and take comprehensive and multiple measures to improve the quality and effectiveness of technology-related IP case trials.

　　1. Leverage institutional strengths and innovate the trial mechanism

　　The IP Court aims to protect innovations in an innovative manner and promotes reform with a reform mindset. Over the past year, it has achieved several breakthroughs and innovations in the litigation system for technology-related IP cases.

　　Implement a centralized and unified jurisdiction system and a “Leapfrog Appeal” system with Chinese characteristics. According to the Decision of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress on Several Issues concerning Judicial Procedures for Patent and Other Intellectual Property Cases, nationwide civil and administrative appeals involving technology-related intellectual property are tried under the unified jurisdiction of the IP Court. Whether the first-instance judgment of a technology-related IP case is made by an Intermediate People’s Court or a High People’s Court, all appeals are handled by the IP Court. In terms of the technology-related IP appeals against the first instance judgment made by an Intermediate People’s Court, a “Leapfrog Appeal” system with Chinese characteristics has been created. The appeals leapfrog a High People’s Court from an Intermediate People’s Court to the Supreme People’s Court. This not only helps to unify judicial standards and shorten the duration of dispute resolution, but also highlights the judicial policy and adjudication rules for technology-related IP cases at the highest judicial level in China.

　　Explore a collaborative trial mechanism for civil and administrative cases involving the same patent. China’s patent system adopts a dual system for civil infringement procedures and administrative invalidation procedures. Problems arising from the implementation of this system are: on the one hand, civil infringement procedures concerning patents are often affected and constrained by the administrative invalidation procedures, and the overlapping procedures results in longer time required for patent protection and relapsed results; on the other hand, patentees can use separate procedures to make different claim constructions by arguing for a limited scope of protection in administrative invalidation procedures to obtain affirmation and an expanded scope of protection in civil infringement proceedings to obtain an advantage in the determination of infringement, thus the patentee can “profit from both sides.” With the support of Beijing Intellectual Property Court and other local courts, the IP Court has taken full advantage of its centralized jurisdiction, and established a collaborative advancement mechanism for civil and administrative cases involving the same patent, to synergize the determination of the patent validity and the determination of infringement, thus resolving the problem of long period for patent litigation and the plaintiff’s inconsistent claim constructions for the same patent in different cases at the mechanism level. The specific approach is that the IP Court collects the information of the cases involving the same patent and forwards it to the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, to coordinate the trial process and to unify the judicial standard. For cases that have entered the second-instance stage, the IP Court actively utilizes the trial mechanism to solve the problems arising from the dual system under the current legal framework, on the basis of “front-end sorting.” For example, the patent invalidation administrative dispute and infringement dispute of Lejin Electronics (Tianjin) Electrical Appliance Co., Ltd. v. Xiamen Power Electronic Technology Co., Ltd. involved the same patent. The IP Court established the same collegial panel and appointed the same technical investigators to convene a pre-trial meeting, focused on the claim construction issues involved in both cases, and recorded them in the judgment document. By doing so, a bridge of communication between the administrative litigation and the civil litigation is built, which enabled coordination of judicial standards for the civil litigation concerning patent infringement and the administrative litigation concerning patent invalidation.