The report on the work of the supreme people's court of 12 march in beijing (journalist gao jie li ban) of xinhua mentioned that “the completion of 288,000 intellectual property cases in the first instance is 41. 8 per cent higher than the same year and service innovation drives development”. These figures reflect our position and determination to strengthen judicial protection of intellectual property rights, but how can the cost of intellectual property rights protection be reduced and the cost of abuse be raised? The new media centre of xinhua has jointly invited judges of the supreme people's court and legal professionals for a discussion on 12 days。
Knowing that the founders and ceos are asking questions — how to resolve the conflict between the low cost of infringement of iprs and the high cost of defending rights? When the question was sent, ju ju juli, a judge of the supreme people's court, responded, and as of 16 december, his response had been approved by 5,800。
According to julie, the tort costs of iprs arise mainly from the cost of obtaining intellectual property information, the cost of producing operations, and the cost of violating laws. The low tort costs of iprs are largely determined by the specificity of iprs. Intellectual property violations are characterized by secrecy, uncertainty and the complexity of causality, and it is more difficult to detect and identify violations. In contrast to rights to tangible property, such as infringement of property rights, rights-holders are required to maintain their intellectual property at relatively higher costs of investigative evidence, legal services, etc。
How, then, can the cost of protecting intellectual property rights be reduced? According to juli, the costs of detecting, identifying and deterring violations need to be reduced, while increasing the costs of intellectual property violations. The people's courts have stepped up their efforts to investigate ex officio evidence-gathering, to improve the system of preservation of evidence, to actively explore the establishment of rules of evidence that are consistent with the characteristics of intellectual property cases, to take full advantage of the role of social organizations and intermediaries in assessing the value of intellectual property, to establish a reliable evidentiary basis for the determination of damages, to endeavour to match damages with the market value of intellectual property, to increase penalties for malicious violations, to apply punitive damages in accordance with the law, to actively use the instruments in force and in its judicial interpretation to provide orders, proof of obstruction, etc., and to take measures such as higher levels of compensation, taking into account the claims and evidence provided by the patentee, in cases where violations have been committed without justification for refusing to comply with an order or where there has been a deliberate impediment to proof。
In response, the president of the people's court of the haidian district of beijing, mr. Jian dejia, shared his case of violation of trademark rights in 2010 in which he obtained detailed data on the sale of tort goods by obtaining electronic sales records stored by third parties. In the case of the defendant's refusal to submit evidence such as the cost of the sale, yang dedja stated that a more accurate and reasonable calculation of the amount of its illicit profits had resulted in an award of compensation of nearly $2 million, well above the statutory ceiling of $500,000 at the time, which adequately protected the plaintiff's legal interests. In recent years, people's courts throughout the country have ordered millions of dollars of intellectual property compensation to be paid by the perpetrators, and tens of millions of dollars of compensation have appeared from time to time, both as a result of the joint efforts of rights-holders, lawyers and judges to defend their rights in accordance with the law and as an example of the increasing protection of intellectual property rights and the low cost of redressing the problem。
As of 16 december, 167 respondents had discussed the topic. In order to better serve innovative nation-building under the law, the supreme people's court established the intellectual property tribunal and the people's court further strengthened its intellectual property protection. Rational discussions, on the other hand, help to create a legal climate in which rights are not violated, and we look forward to a historic shift in the strict protection of intellectual property rights。
