Beijing city, haidian district, 18th street, the seat of the beijing intellectual property court. Starting on 6 november last year, this slightly remote location has continued to attract the eyes of the judiciary and the public at large。
This is because, as the country's first specialized court on intellectual property, the beijing court of intellectual property not only has the mandate to raise the level of judicial protection of intellectual property and to promote innovative-driven development strategies, but it is also a court established under a new model of reform of the central judicial system, which acts as a “test field” for the reform of the judicial system, the bridgeheads。
The president of the beijing court of intellectual property stated that, in addition to the centrally mandated reforms, such as the staffing of judges and the system of administration of judges, the court had carried out its own reforms and research in many areas, including the mechanisms for the functioning of the judiciary, the system of people's jurors, the public administration of justice and the monitoring mechanism for trials。
Judicial powers operate “de-administratively”
“let the judges decide and hold them accountable”, an inherent requirement for the professionalization of trials. However, there has been a long-standing pattern of case-by-case reporting, “no trial, no trial”, and the way in which this administrativeized jurisdiction operates has been highly flawed。
In his presentation, the beijing syndicate court had abolished the practice of reporting cases on a case-by-case basis and the president of the court had stopped hearing and deciding on cases. Except in cases provided for by law and in cases of major complexity, which are to be brought before the president of the court, the decision will be based on a majority opinion of the full court. If the presiding judge is of a minority opinion or the full chamber is unable to form a majority, the full chamber may choose to consult other judges or professionals, while the final decision remains to be decided by the full chamber。
In response to the numerous technical problems of the intellectual property jurisdiction, the beijing court has set up a trial advisory committee composed of experts, among others, and four research teams, based on its judges and judges ' assistants, have been set up to support trials, including patents, trademark competition and monopolies, copyright and synthesis, in order to eliminate unnecessary administrative interference and to develop a trial model for referring professional issues to professionals。
How can the elimination of the reporting system avoid gaps in the uniform justice system
The approach of the beijing supervisory court was to explore the establishment of a system of guidance on intellectual property casework that would enhance the reasoning of adjudicative instruments and achieve consistency and consistency in the scale of adjudication through access to, reference to and reference to first-instance cases. At the same time, the establishment of a mechanism of supervision, supervision and mutual control between the presiding judge, the bench exercising jurisdiction and the court, and the president exercising jurisdiction over the administration and supervision of trials, to safeguard the integrity and integrity of the court。
The case registration system solves the problem of filing cases
“did we see a significant increase in the number of cases before our house following the introduction of the registration system in the national courts?” in the lobby of the beijing intellectual property court, journalists asked president do changhui of the chamber。
“we have not changed much in our intake here, because before the registration system was fully implemented, the relevant reforms and explorations were undertaken in our house.” du changhui replied。
Originally, since the very beginning of the establishment of the house, the beijing chamber of chief justices has been exploring the standardization of the filing of cases, the strengthening of guarantees of the right of parties to sue, and the establishment of disciplinary mechanisms for dishonest litigation, in order to prevent people from raising the threshold for filing cases and creating a “problem”。
With regard to the standardization of cases, mr. Du changhui explained that the chamber had strengthened its guidance to the parties prior to filing a case and had harmonized the criteria for formal review. On the basis of lessons learned, the chamber has developed a series of normative documents regulating the process of filing cases and harmonizing the criteria for setting up cases, such as guidelines for standardizing civil cases, lists of materials for filing administrative cases, and suggested forms of documentation, which are planned to be formally implemented following consultations。
“in the case of the administration of intellectual property before our house, the foreign representation of the plaintiffs is high, and it is often difficult for the parties to complete their case within the statutory filing period.” du changhui said. In response, the chamber established a pre-registration system. The foreign party concerned may first entrust the domestic agent with the filing of a case other than the original notarized certificate for pre-registration. The court may file a case after review, provided that the notarized subject matter is submitted to the court within three months. In addition, the one-time notification system for filing cases, the creation of online bookings, etc. Allow parties to complete the filing process as soon as possible。
In the context of major reforms such as the registration of cases, the guarantees of the right of parties to sue have been further strengthened and developed. However, in recent judicial practice, such acts as forgery of signatures, malicious delay in proceedings and obstruction of witnesses ' testimony cannot be ignored. In this regard, the beijing court established a mechanism for prevention and punishment, and the chamber has initiated a study to introduce a disciplinary mechanism for dishonest proceedings into the judicial process in order to guarantee the authority and efficiency of the judicial process。
Integrated flat-down management
The programme for the establishment of intellectual property courts, which was considered and adopted at the central reorganization conference, explicitly calls for “a separate intellectual property court, with its built-in institutions, to be condensed and flatly administered in accordance with the principles of streamlining. There is only one integrated administration (integrated office) in addition to the trial chambers.”
In accordance with the relevant provisions, the intellectual property court has an authorized strength of 100, 15 of whom are magistrates. This means that more than 70 key functions will be performed by one department and 15 administrative staff from almost 20 other courts. “the workload of each administration of justice is about 8 to 10 times that of a person without reform of the integrated section of the courts.” liu jia, assistant director of the office of the chief of the integrated intellectual property court of beijing, said。
How can integrated flat-down management be achieved when there are fewer people involved
“the first is to strengthen the self-building of the administration of justice and the integrated management services, with a view to optimizing ideas, qualities and functions.” liu jia described the integrated office's proposal to strengthen a sense of responsibility, collaboration, efficiency and service awareness and to change the way it works, while strictly selecting good people. They also summarised the three main lines of management for workforce management, operations management, administration, six functional sections such as civil service audits, organizational personnel, more than 50 job functions, job creation, management systems, and initial flat-down functional management systems。
In practical terms, the integrated management office has introduced “diversification of services, application of management technology”, emphasizing pre-eminence, advance planning and proactive home service. They formed a national team of judicial volunteers from the first community courts, and information, archives, print and logistical services through the purchase of services from society. In terms of management applications, the establishment of official microblogging, the construction of digital case halls, trial courts and the integrated management of office automation。
“there are also problems in the current work.” liu jia said. For example, flat-down reforms at the administrative level have shown a slight lack of consistency in external job functions and a mismatch between related policies. The complete separation of the administration of justice from judges and trial support staff on the basis of their legal professional status could also have an impact on the formation and functioning of the force. These issues need to be gradually addressed in the reform process。
Follow-up: through field visits, visits to cases and presentations by judges and academics, journalists have learned that the beijing intellectual property court is exploring all aspects of the reform of the judicial system. For example, the establishment of judges ' assistants, the working model of the judges ' team, the renovation of the methods of trial, the president's sitting week, the reform of the administrative jurisprudence, etc. At the same time, there are many issues that need further clarification and resolution. Examples include the role orientation and career development of judges ' assistants, the plight of a small number of cases, the protection of judges ' professional treatment and how intellectual property protection can be enhanced. These require continued strengthening of grass-roots exploration and top-level design to jointly advance the cause of the reform of our judicial system。
Scan the 2-d code to join the joint lane patent exchange and communicate directly with our patent mentor。
