The seminar on the judicial protection of intellectual property was held in beijing on 22 april and was held as a venue。
On 22 april, at a seminar on the judicial protection of intellectual property rights, the president of the beijing intellectual property court said that in 2015 the court had effectively achieved similar convictions in more than 60 cases by following a precedent. In this process, there has also been a delicate change in the relationship between judges and lawyers, in the hope that lawyers will actively set precedents, that there will be greater respect for counsel's statements in court proceedings, that there will be greater emphasis on adequate reasoning in decisions, and that there has been a marked improvement in the overall context and level of proceedings。
At the fourth plenary session of the eighteenth session, it was proposed to “strengthen and regulate judicial interpretation and case guidance and harmonize standards for the application of the law”. The supreme court has also argued that case guidance needs to be further strengthened in the spirit of reform and innovation to provide more guidance for trial practice。
On april 24, 2015, shortly after the founding of the beijing seymour court, the supreme law guidance and research centre on intellectual property cases (beijing) was established at the college to explore the establishment of a chinese-specific guidance system on intellectual property cases。
According to cebu, judicial cases are merely a complement to statutory law and not a substitute for it. While the intellectual property case guidance system requires that “precedents be followed”, it is not a replica of case law, which is not equivalent to “precedents” in case law, but rather uses the essence of the case law “following precedents”, ensuring that the law is applied accurately and uniformly, resulting in judicial accumulation and complementary legislation。
It is believed that the system of guidance on intellectual property cases is not only conducive to remedying legislative deficiencies, harmonizing standards of adjudication, achieving similarity in cases, promoting the speedy resolution of disputes through non-litigious methods such as conciliation, arbitration and other forms of arbitration, saving judicial resources, but also effectively limiting the discretion of judges, effectively resisting outside interference and safeguarding judicial integrity。
The system of guidance on intellectual property cases is also pushing for reform of the operational mechanisms of the jurisdiction of the courts to advance the substance of the hearings. In response, the court made a request for “suits, trials, unanimous decisions” and initially developed a code of uniform jurisdictions to conduct research with a wide cross section of the legal profession。
“according, tried, judged unanimously” contains three elements, namely, “everyone shall be tried in a court of law”, “everyone shall be tried in a court of law”, and “no one shall be tried”. It was explained that any dispute between the parties must be heard in order to guarantee the right of the parties to be heard in full, that the decision must respond to the dispute before the court on a case-by-case basis and give specific reasons, and that a judge may not include any dispute without a hearing。
