Intellectual property protection (885791) is an important building block for stimulating innovation and preserving fair competition. In this year's national congress, the representative of the national people's congress and chairman of the intelligence board, chim gwang, made recommendations on how to solve the problem of intellectual property abuse governance by filling legal gaps in the protection of new types of intellectual property (885791) and optimizing institutional design。
According to bishop, while the current system of intellectual property protection (885791) is being improved and the effectiveness of patents for inventions continues to grow and the effectiveness of protection is evident, businesses generally reflect that the issue of rights protection remains prominent and serves as a “block point” for limiting the release of innovation. Particularly in the emerging areas of ai, intellectual change, high-end manufacturing and priority industries, businesses face multiple dilemmas such as high thresholds for filing cases, difficulties in obtaining evidence of violations, low compensation amounts, and long advocacy cycles (883436), which are far below the cost of protecting rights。
In this regard, it is proposed that the definition of rights in new and emerging areas be clarified, that new business practices such as intellectual change, big data, artificial intelligence (885728) and high-end manufacturing be addressed, that the attribution, protection and identification criteria of intellectual property rights be refined, and that the legal gaps in the protection of new types of intellectual property rights (885791) be filled and that business interests be allowed to defend their rights. At the same time, it optimizes the design of the system, promotes “replacement of the burden of proof” and measures to facilitate preservation of evidence, identifies specific methods and criteria for accounting for tort losses, reduces the burden of taking evidence, and solves the dilemma of “evidence and compensation”。
He also suggested that the rigidity of the regime should be strengthened, that the punitive compensation system for intellectual property rights should be further improved, that the level of compensation for malicious and repeated violations should be significantly increased, that the perpetrators should pay a heavy price and that the deterrent effect of the law should be fully realized. At the same time, the process of intellectual property protection (885791) has been refined to provide clear and efficient legal guidance to enterprises in their defence of their rights by clarifying the criteria for filing cases, processing deadlines and segregation of duties in each sector。
As a long-standing focus of the court's work, bishop has participated on numerous occasions in the court's open days, specialized research, etc. He stated that there was a need to strengthen judicial synergy in law enforcement, increase efficiency in the defence of rights, break down barriers to law enforcement and justice and build a coordinated and efficient system of intellectual property protection (885791)。
As a first step, it is necessary to improve the mechanisms for coordinated protection, establish integrated protection centres for intellectual property rights, introduce summary procedures, expedited procedures, speed-up mechanisms, speed up the processing of cases with clear facts and simple cases, and solve the “cycle (883436)” problem; improve the model of judicial protection, further improve the professionalization of intellectual property rights, expand the scope of application of the system of technical investigators, involve professionals in cases, and enhance the professionalism and impartiality of cases; and, lastly, strengthen the focus areas, regularize the implementation of specialized actions to protect intellectual property rights in priority areas such as intellectual change, high-end manufacturing (885791), and severely combat such abuses, exposing typical cases and creating a strong deterrent。
In addition, with regard to the accessibility of corporate advocacy, it is recommended that a comprehensive system of safeguards be put in place, that the costs of corporate advocacy be reduced, that the focus be on the issue of corporate “vulnerability” and that the accompanying safeguards be improved and that the full range of support for corporate advocacy be provided。
