2017 Promoting the “Three in One” Trial of Criminal, Civil and Administrative Cases Involving IPRs in China
With regard to the same intellectual property case, it is possible for the defendant to be found guilty of the crime of infringing in the criminal trial, and then be found not to have committed infringement in the subsequent civil trial, a situation that has occurred in China. Traditionally criminal, civil and administrative IPR cases have been heard by the Criminal, Civil and Administrative Divisions of the courts, respectively. The issue is that different divisions or judge may apply different criteria to the same case.
The “three in one” trial cases involving intellectual property rights means the unified trial of criminal, civil and administrative cases by the intellectual property right tribunals. Promoting the “three in one” work helps to unify judicial standards, avoid judicial conflicts, optimize allocation of trial resources, achieve comprehensive remedy and enhance the judicial protection system of intellectual property rights.
“The “Three-in-one” trial should not only sum of criminal, civil and administrative adjudication operations within a trial court. The adjudication model in which criminal, civil and administrative cases were tried by three separate divisions that can readily result in divergent findings, or even contradictory findings, over the same facts.
Therefore, the objectives of promoting the “three in one” work are to build a working mechanism and trial system model in conformity with the criminal, civil and administrative judicial characteristics and pattern of intellectual property rights and continue to improve the general effectiveness of the protection of intellectual property rights.
In 1996, Pudong New Area Shanghai people’s court were the first to establish the “three in one” trial of criminal, civil and administrative cases involving intellectual property rights means the unified trial of criminal, civil and administrative cases involving intellectual property rights by the intellectual property right tribunals and in the process becoming promotional, replicated experience of the major reforms in China’s judicial court.
On 7 July 7 2016, Tao Kaiyuan who is the Vice-president of the Supreme People’s Court of The People’s Republic of China declared that the “three in one” trial of criminal, civil and administrative cases involving intellectual property rights must be fully promoted and operated in Courts Nationwide including of Higher People’s Court, Intermediate People’s Court and Basic People’s Court. And the Higher People’s Court were asked to propose specific implementation plans and coordinating institutions by the end of 2016.
On 1 January 2017, the intellectual property trial department of Tianjin municipal higher people’s court, Tianjin Municipal No.1 and No.2 Intermediate People’s Court has officially changed its name to the intellectual property right tribunals.
As far as we knew, there are 14 higher people’s court setup the intellectual property right tribunals, including Beijing, Shanghai, Tianjin, Chongqing, Heilongjiang, Hebei, Guangdong, Fujian, Jiangsu, Sichuan, Hainan, Zhejiang, Henan, Anhui. There are 30 Intermediate People’s Court setup the intellectual property right tribunals, including Beijing No.1 and No.2 Intermediate People’s Court, Tianjin No.1 and No.2 Intermediate People’s Court, Shanghai No.1 and No.2 Intermediate People’s Court, Harbin, Shijiazhuang, Qinhuangdao, Baoding, Xingtai, Jinan, Yantai, Qingdao, Chengdu, Anyang, Hefei, Chuzhou, Jingdezhen, Taiyuan, Wuhan, Fuzhou, Xiamen, Guangzhou, Shenzhen, Foshan, Shantou, Haikou. Furthermore, Haidian, Chaoyang, Pudong, Huangpu setup the intellectual property right tribunals of Basic People’s Court.
Perfect intellectual property trial “three in one” mechanism, through civil mediation, reconciliation, and full consideration of the situation of the IPR owner in the criminal trial, promote the criminal reconciliation, enable the IPR owner to obtain effective economic compensation. The IPR owner can bring the civil action for damages after the criminal or administrative case judgment. Through criminal or administrative cases in fact finding, the burden of proof upon the IPR owner are reduced or relieved. Therefore the IPR owner can bring the civil action for damages after the criminal or administrative case judgment and can investigate the infringer’s civil liability in time.