首页 >>
知产法官:外国权利人的知识产权是这样得到保障的

作者:     文章出处:      本网发布时间:2019-4-10 7:28:00


知产法官:外国权利人的知识产权是这样得到保障的

原创: China Focus? ChinaFocus聚焦中国? 前天

https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/d0GTNBk7SpqyPIBuzu3WnA

在过去的十年中,中国变得越来越具有创新性,并已表现出实施高效的知识产权制度的决心。事实上,随着中国企业走向海外及对高科技创新不断加大投入力度,它们越来越多地要求政府提供有效的知识产权保护。

Over the past decade, China has become increasingly innovative and has demonstrated serious resolve to enforce an effective IPR (Intellectual Property Right) regime. Indeed, as Chinese firms focus on global expansion abroad and high-tech innovation at home, they have increasingly demanded effective intellectual property protection from the government.

?

中国已采取了必要的措施来保护知识产权,确保知识产权案件的公正审理。例如,2014年,中国在北京,上海和广州设立了知识产权法院。2017年,南京、成都、宁波、武汉等地设立知识产权法庭。截至2018年底,北京知识产权法院共受理各类知识产权案件接近5万4千件,建院后收案量以年均约27%的速度递增,2018年的收案已突破1.8万件。

China has taken essential measures to protect intellectual property rights and ensure the impartial hearing of IPR cases. For example, in 2014 China established IPR courts in Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou. In 2017, IPR tribunals were established in Nanjing, Chengdu, Ningbo, Wuhan, etc. By the end of 2018, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court had accepted nearly 54,000 IP cases of various types. Since the court was established, the number of cases received has increased at an average rate of 27 percent per year. The number of cases received by the Beijing Intellectual Property Court in 2018 exceeded 18,000.

不仅中国公司受到保护,外国公司也受到保护。2018年7月,法国达索系统股份有限公司认为上海同捷科技股份有限公司存在大量非法使用CATIA系列软件的行为,上海知识产权法院经审理后作出一审判决,判令同捷公司停止著作权侵权行为,赔偿达索公司经济损失及合理费用共计1505万元。

Not only are Chinese companies protected, but foreign companies are as well. In July 2018, French company Dassault Systèmes Co., Ltd. alleged that TJ Innova Engineering & Technology Co. Ltd. was in possession of a large amount of illegally used CATIA series software. The Shanghai Intellectual Property Court issued a first-instance judgment following trial and ordered TJ Innova to cease its copyright infringement and compensate Dassault's for economic losses and reasonable expenses, which totaled 15.05 million yuan.

中国知识产权发展现状如何?知识产权案件的审判为何如此高效?外国人会遭到区别对待吗?

What is the current situation of IP development in China? Why are the trials in IPR cases in China so efficient? Are foreign parties treated any differently?

China Focus采访了北京知识产权法院审判委员会委员,审判第二庭庭长张晓津法官。让我们进一步了解知识产权案件审判和中国知识产权保护的发展。

China Focus interviewed Judge Zhang Xiaojin, a Member of the Judicial Committee of Beijing Intellectual Property Court (BIPC) and the Chief Judge of the Trial Division No. 2 of BIPC to get a better understanding of IPR trials and how China protects IPR.

?


访谈对象:张晓津,北京知识产权法院审判委员会委员,审判第二庭庭长、法官

Interviewee: Judge Zhang Xiaojin, a Member of the Judicial Committee of Beijing Intellectual Property Court (BIPC) and the Chief Judge of the Trial Division No. 2 of BIPC

?

知识产权法院主要负责哪些案件?

What Cases Does the Intellectual Court Focus On?

?

China Focus:世界上第一个知识产权法院是德国联邦专利法院,于1962年在慕尼黑成立,而中国大陆第一个知识产权法院,即北京知识产权法院,成立于2014年11月6日,目前为止仍处在初创时期。我国知识产权法院是否借鉴了其他国家的经验?具体都借鉴了哪些方面?

China Focus: The first IPR court in the world, the German Federal Patent Court, was established in 1962 in Munich, while the first IPR court in China's Mainland, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, was established on November 6, 2014, so it's still in its infancy. What foreign experiences has China referenced during the establishment and development of China's IPR courts?

?

张晓津:在中国大陆设立知识产权法院之前,德国联邦专利法院、日本知识产权高等法院、韩国专利法院、俄罗斯知识产权法院和中国台湾智慧财产法院已经成立。因此我们在设立知识产权法院时应当是吸收借鉴了他们的经验。

Zhang Xiaojin: Before IPR courts were established in China's Mainland, the German Federal Patent Court, the Japanese Intellectual Property High Court, the South Korean Patent Court, the Russian Intellectual Property Court, and China Taiwan's Intellectual Property Court were already established. Therefore, IPR courts in China's Mainland should have learned from all these courts during the course of its establishment and development.

中国大陆从日本、韩国这些国家和中国台湾汲取经验,建立了技术调查官制度。北京知识产权法院主要负责审理专利和技术秘密等技术类知识产权案件,在此期间技术调查官会发挥非常重要的作用。 此外,北京知识产权法院专属管辖大量的商标、专利授权确权行政案件。

Having learned from the experiences of others, China's Mainland has set up a technical investigator system, which has been adopted by Japan, South Korea and China Taiwan. The Beijing Intellectual Property Court focuses on trials of technical IPR cases such as patent and commercial secrets, during which the technical investigator will play a very important role. In addition, the BIPC has exclusive jurisdiction over a large number of administrative cases regarding trademark granting and invalidation.

?

高效还是草率?

Efficient or Brash?

?

China Focus: 根据普华永道(PWC)的研究,北京知识产权法院审结案件的平均时长为125天,而在欧洲和美国,分别平均为18个月和2.4年。有些人质疑中国知识产权案件未进行彻底审查就进行了裁判。您能否介绍一下中国知识产权案件的审判效率为何如此之高?

China Focus: According to research conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC), the average period in which the BIPC ends a case is 125 days, while in Europe and the United States the period lasts for an average of between 18 and 28 months respectively. There are some who question whether IPR cases tried in China are done in haste and not conducted thoroughly. Could you explain more about the trial efficiency of IPR cases in China? Why are they so efficient?

张晓津:在中国,对于审理时限有明确的规定。根据民事诉讼法和行政诉讼法的相关规定,对审限有严格的要求。以民事案件为例,普通的民事诉讼案件的一审审限通常为期六个月,民事案件的上诉审限通常为三个月。当然,如果有特殊情况,可以延长审限。

Zhang Xiaojin: We have a clear rule regarding the duration of trials in China. According to related regulations stemming from the Civil Procedure Law and Administrative Procedure Law, there are stringent requirements placed on the duration of trials. Let's take a civil case as an example. The trial stage of a civil case of ordinary proceedings usually lasts six months, the appeal stage of that civil case usually lasts for three months. Certainly, the duration can be extended if there are special circumstances.

目前,知识产权案件数量激增,但我们的法官人数不足。因此,实际的平均审理时长不会那么短。根据中国某第三方组织的分析报告,北京知识产权法院2017年案件的平均审理时长为269天。报告还显示,这一平均值包括专利案件等技术类一审民事案件的平均审理时间,该类案件的平均审理时长约为500天,而商标和著作权案件等非技术类案件审理的平均审理时长约为200天。

The number of cases is surging at present, yet the number of judges is insufficient; therefore, the actual duration of a trial cannot be that short. A report released by a Chinese third-party organization analysing Beijing court trials stated that the average duration for a concluded trial in 2017 was 269 days. Their report also revealed that this included the average duration of first instance trials for technical civil cases such as patent cases, which were themselves around 500 days, while the average duration of non-technical case trials such as trademark and copyright cases was around 200 days.

?

中国似乎比欧洲和美国的法院更快速地审理案件,因此有些人可能会担心审判的质量。事实上,我们是在确保审判质量的前提下提高了审判效率。我们正在努力通过在确保质量的基础上提高效率来回应社会各方和公众的期望。正如那句法谚所说,迟来的正义非正义,法官的目标就是及时有效地保护知识产权人的权利。在我看来,普通法国家的诉讼程序与中国的诉讼程序有所不同。普通法系在开庭审理之前会有一个很长时段的证据开示过程。因此,不能仅仅依据案件审理时长来判断审判质量。

It seems that China tries cases faster than the courts in Europe and America, hence why some people may worry about the quality of our trials. In fact, we have improved the efficiency on the premise of ensuring the trial's quality. We are trying to respond to the expectations of all parties in society and the public by improving our efficiency on the basis of ensuring quality. As the old saying goes, justice delayed is justice denied. It is the goal of judges to protect the rights of IPR holders timely and effectively. As far as I am concerned, there are certain differences between the litigation systems of Common law and our own law. There is a long period of time allocated for disclosing evidence (discovery) before the hearing in a Common law system. Therefore, we cannot judge a trial simply according to its duration.

?

外国人会遭到区别对待吗?

Will Foreign Parties Be Treated Any Differently?

?

China Focus:知识产权案件每年都在迅速增加。中国知识产权的现状反映了什么问题?

China Focus: IPR cases increase rapidly every year. What does the current status quo of IPR in China reflect?

张晓津:知识产权案件数量激增,涉外案件量也迅速增加。这有两个主要原因:首先,随着中国的技术、经济和文化发展,出现了保护知识产权的内生需要。其次,全社会对知识产权保护的意识有所提高。

Zhang Xiaojin: The number of IPR cases and foreign-related IPR cases have been surging rapidly. There are two main reasons for this: First, demands for protecting IPR have emerged as China's technology, economy, and culture has developed to its current level. Second, society's awareness of the need for legal protection of intellectual property rights has been increased.

China Focus: 有关涉外案件审判与其他案件的审理有何区别?

China Focus: What is the difference between the trial of foreign-related cases and that of other cases?

张晓津:在北京知识产权法院审理的案件中,涉外的案件数量相当多,占比约为30%至40%。在审判原则或法律适用方面,涉外案件审判与其他案件审判没有根本区别,不同之处在于审理程序。如果被告或第三方是外国人或外国公司,我们需要通过涉外送达程序进行送达,这通常需要很长时间。因此,涉外案件的审理比其他案件的审理时间要长。

Zhang Xiaojin: There are quite a large number and proportion of foreign-related cases heard in the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, as high as about 30 to 40 percent. In terms of the trial principle or application of the law, there is no fundamental difference between the trial of these cases. Their difference lies in trial procedure. If the defendant or the third party are foreigners or foreign companies, then we need to go through the foreign-related delivery procedure, which usually requires more time. Therefore, the trial duration of cases concerning foreign interests is comparatively longer than that of other cases.

根据中国相关法律规定,诉讼当事人享有平等的权利和义务,也就是说,无论是国内还是国外的当事人,当地还是外地的当事人,都应受到平等保护。从实际情况来看,在外国当事人以权利人身份起诉他人侵权的涉外民事案件中,外国当事人的获胜率较高。法院依法根据当事人提供的证据进行判决,并在构成侵权的情况下支持权利人的诉讼请求。可以说,涉外案件和其他案件之间没有根本区别,人民法院始终坚持根据当事人提交的证据保护知识产权权利人的权利。

?

▲ 2018年10月19日,北京知识产权法院王金山院长与合议庭其他两位法官开庭审理一起涉外案件。

Judge Wang Jinshan, President of BIPC, sits with two other judges on the bench as the court hears a foreign related case on Oct. 19, 2018.

According to the relevant regulations of Chinese law, litigants should be treated and protected equally, whether the parties are at home or abroad, local or from other places in China. But objectively speaking, in the civil cases concerning foreign factors where foreign parties are suing for torts as obligees, the foreign parties have a higher winning rate. The court judges according to the evidence provided by the parties and supports the claim of the obligee, if the infringement was constituted. In that case, there is no fundamental difference between foreign-related cases and other cases, for the court would protect the IPR of all obliges, according to the evidence provided by the parties.

例如,在“BESS LAUDER”商标无效行政诉讼案件中,北京知识产权法院根据相关证据确定(加拿大)雅诗兰黛有限公司的“ESTEE LAUDER”是驰名商标,并适用中国商标法第13条的规定,认定他人抢注的“BESS LAUDER”商标应被宣告无效。有效制止了商标恶意注册,保护了国外知名品牌的合法权益。

?

For example, in the case of an administrative dispute over the invalidity of the trademark "BESS LAUDER", the Beijing Intellectual Property Court determined on the basis of relevant evidence that "ESTEE LAUDER" of (Canada) Estee Lauder Limited was a well-known trademark and applied the provision of Article 13, as found in the Trademark Law of China, thus declaring that "BESS LAUDER" was invalid. It effectively prevented the malicious registration of a trademark and protected the legitimate rights and interests of a famous foreign brand.

?

另一个例子是侵犯Cosmetic Beautifier产品外观设计专利权的案件。北京知识产权法院在分析了电子商务平台的销售数据基础上,进行了合理的销售利润估值,全额支持了专利权人(日本)松下电器工业有限公司对被控侵权产品提出的损害赔偿主张。

Another example lies in a case regarding the infringement of patent rights of the design of Cosmetic Beautifier products. The Beijing Intellectual Property Court fully supported the request for compensation of economic losses claimed by the patentee (Japan) Panasonic Electrical Appliance Industry Co., Ltd. after analyzing the sales data of e-commerce platforms and reached a reasonable valuation of the sales profits of the product accused of infringement.

在Adobe软件著作权纠纷一案中,美国Adobe公司作为权利人指控被告侵犯了其计算机软件的著作权,北京知识产权法院在美国Adobe公司提供的初步证据的基础上,对Adobe计算机软件的最终用户依法采取证据保全措施,并确定了侵权软件的具体数量。这项裁决增强了外国权利人对中国知识产权司法保护的信心。

?

In the Adobe software copyright dispute case, Adobe Inc., as the right holder, accused the defendant of violating the copyright of its computer software. The Beijing Intellectual Property Court, on the basis of preliminary evidence provided by Adobe Systems Incorporated, implemented evidence preservation measures in accordance with the law for the end-users of Adobe's computer software and identified the specific number of infringing units of software. This ruling has enhanced the confidence of foreign rights holders in judicial protection and of their intellectual property rights in China.


采访者 / China Focus记者郑楠、蔡海若

访谈时间 / 2018年8月2日

访谈地点 / 北京知识产权法院

Interviewer / China Focus reporters Zheng Nan and Cai Hairuo

Date / August 2, 2018

Place / Beijing Intellectual Property Court

图片来源 / 北京知识产权法院

Photo / Beijing Intellectual Property Court


    保护知识产权,转载请务经授权并刊出本网站名


广告服务|诚征英才|保护隐私权|免责条款|法律顾问|意见反馈
京公网安备 11011502002773号
©智慧财产网 版权所有 备案/许可证号:京ICP备11029095号 联系电话 86-10-58697823
Copyright © 2011 Caizhibao.com All Rights Reserved.