Page 100 - 2016_WhitePaper_web
P. 100
6 White Paper on the Business Environment in China
7. Anhui Huayuan Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. v. State internet platform liabilities, cognizance of the related market
Administration for Industry and Commerce, Trademark of internet monopoly, cognizance of copyrights on website
Office, etc. content arrangements, etc. The above reforms have shown a
significant leap in the progress of Intellectual Property protec-
Significance: tion in China. On November 12nd 2015, the State Council
This case was the first case in the whole country that was issued a special opinion on protecting Intellectual Property
directly tried by the entire judicial committee of the court, in internet infringement, which has further manifested the
and tried publicly. The trial committee members consisting determination to protect Intellectual Property, so as to help
of seven judges including its president Su Chi, vice presidents create a legal and orderly environment for introducing for-
Song Yushui and Chen Jinchuan, a judge’s assistant, and two eign investment and enhancing the development of Chinese
clerks. The reason the entire trial committee of the Beijing IP companies.
Court handled this is based on its internal regulations. The
Beijing Intellectual Property Court adopted a reform of the
Judicial Committee System as required by the Central and
Superior Court with regard to judicial reform and clarified
that the Judicial Committee shall mainly handle the following
two kinds of cases: firstly, serious and complicated cases that
are involved with national foreign affairs, safety, and social sta-
bility; secondly, the application of hard, grave, and complicat-
ed cases. The Judicial Committee should only decide certain
legal issues in these cases, while other issues of fact and law
remain to be decided by the collegial panel.
The issue here is the authority of the court to declare the
legality of a government agency’s regulation. Pursuant to the
Supreme People’s Court Explanation of Several Problems of the
Administrative Procedure Law, Article 21, the court now has
this authority. This was the first case to so hold.
Conclusion:
2014 and 2015 are two years in which judicial reform of
Intellectual Property has made great progress, with regard to
the following three matters: the first and most striking, is the
reform of judicial system and the establishment in Beijing,
Shanghai and Guangzhou of Intellectual Property Courts,
which sets a precedent for Chinese specialized courts. At the
same time, new reforms have been undertaken within the
Intellectual Property Courts, such as direct trial by the judi-
cial committee in very significant cases for parts of said cas-
es, selection of judges by committee in Guangzhou, having
all judges in the Court as trial judges of equal stature, etc.
Secondly, the enactment and implementation of a series of
new regulations and laws, including the “Measures for Pat-
ent Administrative Law Enforcement (2015 Amendment)”,
“Recognition and Protection Measures on the Well-known
Trademarks”, etc. A number of the Supreme People’s Court
judicial interpretations have also filled legislation gaps regard-
ing law enforcement, including the regulations on processing
methods of infringing products by the administrative law en-
forcement officials, and detailed procedures of recognition of
well-know trademarks. Thirdly, the influence on the applica-
tion of regulations through cases, for example, cognizance of
100
7. Anhui Huayuan Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. v. State internet platform liabilities, cognizance of the related market
Administration for Industry and Commerce, Trademark of internet monopoly, cognizance of copyrights on website
Office, etc. content arrangements, etc. The above reforms have shown a
significant leap in the progress of Intellectual Property protec-
Significance: tion in China. On November 12nd 2015, the State Council
This case was the first case in the whole country that was issued a special opinion on protecting Intellectual Property
directly tried by the entire judicial committee of the court, in internet infringement, which has further manifested the
and tried publicly. The trial committee members consisting determination to protect Intellectual Property, so as to help
of seven judges including its president Su Chi, vice presidents create a legal and orderly environment for introducing for-
Song Yushui and Chen Jinchuan, a judge’s assistant, and two eign investment and enhancing the development of Chinese
clerks. The reason the entire trial committee of the Beijing IP companies.
Court handled this is based on its internal regulations. The
Beijing Intellectual Property Court adopted a reform of the
Judicial Committee System as required by the Central and
Superior Court with regard to judicial reform and clarified
that the Judicial Committee shall mainly handle the following
two kinds of cases: firstly, serious and complicated cases that
are involved with national foreign affairs, safety, and social sta-
bility; secondly, the application of hard, grave, and complicat-
ed cases. The Judicial Committee should only decide certain
legal issues in these cases, while other issues of fact and law
remain to be decided by the collegial panel.
The issue here is the authority of the court to declare the
legality of a government agency’s regulation. Pursuant to the
Supreme People’s Court Explanation of Several Problems of the
Administrative Procedure Law, Article 21, the court now has
this authority. This was the first case to so hold.
Conclusion:
2014 and 2015 are two years in which judicial reform of
Intellectual Property has made great progress, with regard to
the following three matters: the first and most striking, is the
reform of judicial system and the establishment in Beijing,
Shanghai and Guangzhou of Intellectual Property Courts,
which sets a precedent for Chinese specialized courts. At the
same time, new reforms have been undertaken within the
Intellectual Property Courts, such as direct trial by the judi-
cial committee in very significant cases for parts of said cas-
es, selection of judges by committee in Guangzhou, having
all judges in the Court as trial judges of equal stature, etc.
Secondly, the enactment and implementation of a series of
new regulations and laws, including the “Measures for Pat-
ent Administrative Law Enforcement (2015 Amendment)”,
“Recognition and Protection Measures on the Well-known
Trademarks”, etc. A number of the Supreme People’s Court
judicial interpretations have also filled legislation gaps regard-
ing law enforcement, including the regulations on processing
methods of infringing products by the administrative law en-
forcement officials, and detailed procedures of recognition of
well-know trademarks. Thirdly, the influence on the applica-
tion of regulations through cases, for example, cognizance of
100
