On 24 april, the supreme law held a press conference on the supreme law, the joint publication by the supreme prosecutor of the interpretation of certain issues of the law applicable to criminal cases of violations of intellectual property rights (hereinafter referred to as the interpretation) and typical cases of criminal protection of intellectual property rights。
The vice-president of the supreme court of justice, mr. Tokai, explained that the people's courts and people's procuratorates at all levels of the country had full jurisdiction and prosecutorial functions. Between 2013 and 2024, 691 criminal cases of violation of intellectual property rights had been filed and 646 criminal cases of violation of intellectual property rights had been concluded at first instance。
Maps. Maps of insects
It was described that, at present, there is a certain degree of vulnerability to abuses in the area of intellectual property, that criminal behaviour is characterized by novelty, complexity and high technology, and that there is a growing need for innovative creators from all sectors of society to strengthen criminal protection of intellectual property rights. The criminal code amendment (xi) introduced in 2021 introduced significant changes to offences against intellectual property rights, increasing the types of offences, improving the criteria for incrimination and adding new offences. There is therefore an urgent need to develop a judicial interpretation that is consistent with central policy and legislative spirit and meets the need for criminal protection of intellectual property. The interpretation act, which is based on amendment (xi) to the penal code, is an entirely new and systematic interpretation of offences against intellectual property rights, incorporating and consolidating the provisions of the previous three relevant judicial interpretations, while repealing the first three in order to facilitate the operation of judicial practice, effectively regulate the conduct of criminal cases and ensure uniform standards of application of the law。
Tokai said that the interpretation had four basic features。
The first is to maintain strict protection and ensure that criminal penalties are commensurate. The standard of incrimination in the interpretation follows mainly the provisions of the original judicial interpretation, lowering the threshold of partial criminality, curbing the root causes of intellectual property offences and highlighting the concept of strict intellectual property protection. At the same time, the criminal policy is being implemented in a comprehensive manner, with heavy and light penalties, which are broader and more severe, ensuring consistent penalties。
The second is to adhere to the principles of legality and strict observance of criminal law. The criminal protection of intellectual property is governed by the principle of the “double statutory” in the law of rights and criminal law. The interpretation strictly follows the express provisions of the penal code, the law on the intellectual property sector and the intent of the legislation, in conjunction with judicial practice, to clarify by law the meaning of offences related to infringement of intellectual property and to clarify the boundaries between crime and non-crime, in particular between criminal offences and civil disputes。
The third is to uphold the unity of the rule of law and ensure consistency in judicial standards. The interpretation of the penal code's interpretation of legal terms such as “dissemination to the public through information networks” “replicating distribution” is consistent with the provisions of the copyright act, ensuring consistency between criminal legal norms and the provisions of the intellectual property sector act, coordination between civil and criminal cases, and ensuring the overall synergy of civil, administrative and criminal protection of intellectual property。
Fourthly, there is a need to remain issue-oriented and build consensus on the rule of law. The supreme law, the supreme court of justice and the supreme court of justice have conducted in-depth research, carried out a comprehensive and systematic review of the problems in practice, consulted the public and repeatedly examined and refined the text. The interpretation further clarifies the more controversial criteria in practice, such as the “number of markings”, “the amount of proceeds obtained in violation of the law”, to ensure the effective implementation of the relevant criminal law provisions。
Red star reporter, payback, beijing
