2010年，江蘇法院緊緊圍繞科學發展主題和加快轉變經濟發展方式主線，全面加強審判工作，深入推進社會矛盾化解、社會管理創新、公正廉潔執法三項重點工作，積極實施國家和省知識產權戰略綱要，知識產權司法保護工作取得了新的進展，為創新型國家和創新型省份建設提供了堅強有力的司法保障。

　　一、依法服務經濟社會發展大局，深入貫徹實施國家和省知識產權戰略

　　全省法院始終堅持能動司法，積極應對后金融危機時期的各方面變化，依法調處知識產權糾紛，促進加快經濟發展方式轉變，維護市場競爭秩序，為經濟社會發展提供有力司法保障和良好法律服務。

　　一是及時制定規范性意見，服務經濟發展方式轉變。省法院先后出臺《關于為我省加快轉變經濟發展方式提供司法保障的意見》、《關于為促進我省中小民營企業健康發展提供司法保障的意見》等規范性文件，其中專門就服務創新型經濟建設、增強企業市場核心競爭力及風險防范能力等知識產權問題提出指導意見。各地法院結合本地實際，充分發揮司法保障與引導作用，先后出臺了激勵企業自主創新，促進產業轉型升級的具體司法舉措，形成了一批地方性調研報告和規范性文件。如南京中院圍繞青奧會承辦工作，出臺《關于2014年第二屆夏季青年奧運會知識產權司法保護工作的意見》。

　　二是重點扶持核心技術和新興產業，促進地方特色產業發展。一方面，各地法院結合國家、省發展戰略和產業政策，重點加大對經濟增長有重大突破性帶動作用、具有自主知識產權的關鍵核心技術的保護力度，促進戰略性新興產業成為可持續發展的主導力量，促進自主品牌的形成和發展，促進新商業模式的發展和文化創意產業的繁榮。省法院與連云港中院等法院密切配合，深入了解醫藥產業當前存在的知識產權問題，及時提供對策建議，積極扶持國內大型醫藥企業健康發展。無錫中院組成物聯網知識產權保護調研課題組，走訪無錫國家物聯網創新示范區多家企業、科研機構和相關政府部門，對物聯網產業知識產權保護情況進行全面分析，形成物聯網產業知識產權保護司法建議。

　　另一方面，各地法院圍繞當地經濟發展戰略和特色產業，確定服務大局的具體工作目標，有效延伸司法審判職能。南通法院積極推動“南通家紡市場”由單一的版權保護模式向版權、商標權、外觀設計專利權相結合的綜合立體保護模式發展，“南通家紡市場” 版權保護經驗受到聯合國世界知識產權組織的高度評價，人民日報、中央電視臺、中央人民廣播電臺等9家中央媒體對此進行了專門采訪和調研；揚州法院在該市設立知識產權巡回法庭，打造審批服務、延伸服務、交流服務三個平臺。連云港法院深入東海縣水晶市場，就知識產權保護情況進行專項調研，編寫了《東海水晶市場知識產權知識百問百答》宣傳手冊。無錫法院加強紫砂工藝知識產權保護，出臺《關于加強紫砂行業知識產權保護的司法建議》，在法院協助推動下，宜興地區擁有紫砂方面的專利已超過2000件。

　　三是深入聯系企業，積極開展法律培訓和風險提示工作。各地法院密切關注各類產業中可能存在的知識產權風險，深入醫藥、新材料、電信、物聯網、網吧、白酒等產業聚集地和矛盾糾紛多發領域進行調研，一方面通過走訪企業、集中開展座談、舉辦義務法律講座、法官定點聯系企業等多種形式，深入了解企業知識產權司法保護需求，有針對性地開展知識產權法律服務和培訓工作。另一方面完善企業知識產權信息發布制度，并及時向黨委、政府相關部門和相關企業發出司法建議，為黨委、政府決策提供參考，幫助企業完善內部治理機制，防范經營風險。

　　二、依法公正高效審理案件，充分發揮司法保護知識產權的主導作用

　　（一）充分發揮有效遏制侵權行為和定分止爭功能，激勵自主創新，依法妥善審理知識產權民事案件

　　2010年，全省法院共審理知識產權民事案件4466件（一審案件4201件、二審案件265件）。其中，新收案件4079件（一審案件3852件、二審案件227件），一審新收案件數同比增長53.6%；新收一審著作權糾紛案件1753件，占新收案件總數的49.7%；商標權糾紛案件938件，占37.1%；專利權糾紛案件431件，占12.2%；知識產權合同類案件119件，占3.4%；不正當競爭案件72件，占2.0%；其他類型知識產權案件211件。2010年，全省知識產權民事案件呈現以下特點：1、著作權、商標權糾紛案件增幅明顯。新收一審著作權、商標權糾紛案件數量同比分別增長78.3%和67.2%。2、關聯案件比例較大。共新收一審關聯案件共計419起2688件，占一審收案總數的69.8%，關聯案件主要集中于電影作品網絡傳播權、音樂及圖片作品著作權、商標權等與社會經濟文化生活關系較為密切的領域。關聯案件中，著作權糾紛1519件，占全部關聯案件的56.5%；商標權糾紛779件，占29.0%；專利權糾紛357件，占13.3%。3、涉外知識產權案件數持續增加。共新收一審涉外知識產權案件127件，同比增加33件，所涉國家包括美國、德國、法國、芬蘭、荷蘭、加拿大、英國、瑞士等，涉外關聯案件也相應有所增長。4、新類型案件不斷產生。南京中院審結了全國首例侵犯集成電路布圖設計糾紛，無錫中院受理了全省首起反壟斷糾紛。

　　全省法院牢固樹立以執法辦案為第一要務的理念，加大知識產權侵權懲處力度，降低維權成本，提高侵權代價，遏制侵權行為，有效促進自主創新，維護公平有序的市場競爭環境。全年共審結一、二審知識產權民事案件3964件（一審案件3748件、二審案件216件），結案數同比增長45.8%。其中，判決715件，判決率16.7％，同比下降9.5個百分點。審結了一批社會關注度高，社會影響面廣的重大案件，如上海天絡行文化傳播有限公司與常州市公園樂購生活購物有限公司之間涉及《喜洋洋與灰太狼》作品的文化衍生產業著作權糾紛案、美國安氏企業公司與無錫市海克鎢制品有限公司之間涉及產品標識在獲得商標注冊之前的著作權糾紛案等。省法院審結的里下河地區農科所訴天補農資公司侵犯植物新品種權糾紛案、新海宜電信發展股份有限公司訴南京普天通信股份有限公司侵犯專利權糾紛案被2010年《最高人民法院公報》刊用。

　　全省法院在案件審理中，一是不斷探索總結疑難復雜案件審判經驗。編寫《侵犯專利權糾紛案件審理指南》、《侵犯商業秘密案件審理指南》等類案審理意見，有效統一了審理思路，提高了審判水平。二是積極參與最高法院相關司法解釋起草的研討工作。形成《江蘇法院網絡著作權糾紛案件調研報告》等一批調研成果，為相關司法解釋出臺作出積極貢獻。三是進一步完善關聯案件協調機制。繼續加強關聯案件的及時上報工作，堅持各中院庭長例會制度，根據各地經濟發展水平，探索建立既相對統一又存在合理區別的關聯案件裁判標準。全年對近400起關聯案件進行溝通協調，有效統一執法尺度。四是加強統籌指導，涉訴矛盾糾紛化解工作成效顯著。進一步健全具有知識產權特色的訴調對接機制，充分發揮行業協會在調解中的積極作用。2010年，以調解方式結案747件，經調解撤訴案件2422件，調解、撤訴案件兩項合計3169件，調撤率為79.9％，同比上升9.1個百分點，且絕大部分調解撤訴案件得以自覺履行，有效實現了案結事了，切實維護了社會和諧穩定。

　　（二）充分發揮刑事審判懲治和預防犯罪功能，依法從嚴打擊各類知識產權違法犯罪行為

　　2010年，全省法院共新收“三審合一”試點刑事案件69件，同比增長了2.6倍；審結64件，同比增長了2.6倍。全省法院進一步加大知識產權刑事司法保護力度，充分發揮知識產權司法保護資源整合的優勢，依法從嚴打擊各類知識產權犯罪活動。一是積極實施國務院打擊侵犯知識產權和制售假冒偽劣商品專項行動，及時制定專項行動方案，全面開展專項行動。各地法院與當地公安、檢察等部門緊密協作，開展大要案督辦，對知識產權刑事案件快審快結，依法從嚴打擊各類知識產權犯罪活動，審結了南京“5·26”銷售盜版和淫穢光盤案等一批具有較大影響的典型案件，王佳豪侵犯著作權案入選為全國法院專項行動典型案例。二是堅持大案要案督辦制度，繼續加強與行政執法部門之間的工作協調，不斷增強刑事司法保護的綜合效能。三是堅持寬嚴相濟的刑事政策，推進量刑規范化改革，切實保護被害人的合法權益。靈活運用各種刑事制裁措施，充分發揮刑罰懲治和預防知識產權犯罪的功能。

　　（三）充分發揮監督和支持知識產權行政執法的職能，依法履行對知識產權行政行為的司法審查職責

　　2010年，全省法院共新收“三審合一”試點行政案件8件，審結8件，其中常熟市聚滿倉食品有限公司不服行政處罰糾紛案入選為2010年全省知識產權司法保護十大案例。全省法院依法履行對行政行為的司法審查職責，切實發揮監督和支持知識產權依法行政的審判職能。一是依法促進行政執法規范化建設。依法審理各類知識產權行政案件，積極支持行政機關依法行政，糾正各類違法行政行為，依法促進行政執法規范化。二是積極參與知識產權社會管理創新。對于案件審理中發現的各類問題及時向相關行政機關發送司法建議；與工商、版權、專利等知識產權行政管理部門聯合召開座談會；積極參與相關行政管理部門組織的業務培訓，協助行政機關完善各項制度措施，提高知識產權管理水平。三是構建支持和監督行政機關依法行政的長效機制。繼續強化源頭預防和化解知識產權行政爭議的有效機制，推動涉訴行政爭議綜合調處機制試點工作取得新進展，進一步搭建和完善了與行政執法機關溝通協作的長期平臺。

　　三、深化司法改革，完善知識產權審判體系建設

　　一是深入推進知識產權“三審合一”改革試點工作。各地法院審理知識產權刑事、行政案件能力不斷提升，對相關問題的認識進一步深化，為下一步推進試點工作打下了堅實基礎。國務院打擊侵犯知識產權和制售假冒偽劣商品專項行動開展以來，各地法院積極參加專項行動，并以此為契機，有效推動“三審合一”改革試點工作取得新進展，促進知識產權刑事案件審判水平的進一步提高。

　　省法院及時對“三審合一”改革試點工作開展情況進行全面梳理總結，收集整理改革試點工作中存在的各類問題，就不同司法程序之間的銜接、技術鑒定、證據認定、量刑標準等疑難復雜問題，加強與省公安廳、省檢察院等單位的溝通協調，采取聯合召開座談會、上門走訪等多種形式，充分征求各方面意見，推動各方面就相關問題達成共識，推進試點工作深入開展。

　　二是構建全省法院知識產權審判“技術專家庫”，切實解決技術事實認定難問題。在省法院指導下，2010年各地法院普遍建立了技術專家庫。在此基礎上，省法院出臺《知識產權審判技術專家的管理辦法（試行）》，建立全省技術專家庫，將全省法院157名知識產權審判技術專家納入專家庫統一管理使用，專家庫成員包括化工、物理、機械、計算機、電子通信、生物、醫藥、農業等各領域專家學者和技術人員，同時明確技術專家的選任、回避、職責、參加案件審理方式、專家咨詢意見的采信標準和程序、法律培訓等各方面問題。目前，部分技術專家已開始正式參與知識產權案件審理工作，省法院及各地法院也多次組織技術專家旁聽觀摩公開庭審、參加各類知識產權法律業務培訓。從審理情況看，技術專家直接參與案件審理，對于及時準確地厘清技術問題，提高審判質效起到很好的幫助作用，改革工作取得了階段性成果。

　　三是進一步合理配置知識產權審判資源。在堅持適度集中管轄的同時，根據全省經濟社會發展需要，合理配置司法資源，適時增加管轄法院。2010年，經報請最高人民法院批準，增加指定昆山市人民法院管轄實用新型、外觀設計專利糾紛案件，張家港市人民法院管轄部分知識產權糾紛案件。目前全省已有7個中院具有專利案件管轄權，1個基層法院具有審理部分專利案件管轄權，17個基層法院具有部分知識產權民事案件管轄權，知識產權法官約160余人，總量位居全國前列。2010年，全省基層法院新收知識產權案件數1178件，審結1138件，分別占全省法院一審新收和審結案件總數的30.6%和30.4%，在全省知識產權審判工作中所起的作用日益顯著。

　　四、深入推進司法公開，積極營造和諧健康的司法環境

　　一是精心籌劃江蘇知識產權專業化審判十五周年系列活動。2010年上半年，省法院成功舉辦了江蘇知識產權專業化審判十五周年紀念大會暨知識產權保護與利益平衡研討會，出版《創新與發展-江蘇法院知識產權審判十五年成果集》、《輝煌的歷程 美好的未來紀念畫冊》，向社會公眾集中展示十五年來江蘇法院在知識產權審判、調研、改革、隊伍建設、基層建設等方面的發展歷程與良好業績，表彰了一批知識產權審判工作先進集體和先進個人。省政府領導、最高法院知識產權庭領導、國內知名專家學者、部分兄弟法院代表、全省法院審判條線代表等參加了本次活動，并就當前形勢下知識產權司法保護政策、知識產權訴訟中不侵權抗辯、知識產權權利沖突、不正當競爭及知識產權合同法律問題研究等四個專題進行了廣泛、深入的探討交流，《法制日報》、《人民法院報》、《新華日報》等主流媒體進行了專門報道，進一步提升了江蘇法院知識產權審判工作在全國的影響力。

　　二是發布知識產權司法保護藍皮書，積極開展“世界知識產權日”宣傳周活動。公開發布《2009年江蘇法院知識產權司法保護狀況》（江蘇法院知識產權司法保護藍皮書），介紹2009年全省法院知識產權司法保護工作狀況、全省知識產權司法保護十大典型案件、江蘇省企業知識產權保護狀況分析以及司法保護大事記等。其中，上海三聯（集團）有限公司、上海三聯（集團）有限公司吳良材眼鏡公司訴蘇州市吳良材眼鏡有限責任公司等侵犯注冊商標專用權及不正當競爭糾案、成都共軟網絡科技有限公司與孫顯忠、洪磊等侵犯著作權犯罪案（即“番茄花園”軟件盜版案）2篇案例入選為最高人民法院2009年中國法院知識產權司法保護10大案件，另有3篇案例入選最高人民法院2009年中國法院知識產權司法保護50件典型案例，總量位居全國法院前列。全省法院積極開展“世界知識產權日”法制宣傳活動。通過邀請人大代表和政協委員等代表性人士旁聽案件審判并征求意見、公開宣判一批具有較大社會影響的知識產權案件等方式，不斷加強對知識產權司法保護工作的宣傳。

　　三是進一步落實審判公開和裁判文書公開。始終堅持增強審判工作透明度，落實審判公開制度。繼續堅持知識產權一、二審案件全部開庭審理，積極為當事人提供訴訟引導、風險告知、法律咨詢、司法救助等各項法律服務。2010年，全省法院繼續堅持上網公布審結生效的所有知識產權裁判文書，全年共上網知識產權裁判文書560篇，截至目前共上網裁判文書 4461篇，數量位居全國前列。

　　2011年是“十二五”規劃的開局之年，也是加快轉變經濟發展方式和調整經濟結構的關鍵之年，知識產權審判工作機遇與挑戰并存。全省法院將積極實施創新驅動核心戰略，以執法辦案為中心，堅持能動司法，深入推進三項重點工作，積極拓展服務大局新領域，充分發揮知識產權在促進經濟發展方式轉變方面的獨特作用，全面提高審判工作水平，為知識產權事業的不斷發展作出新的貢獻。

Intellectual Property Rights Protection in Jiangsu Courts in 2010

Special Remarks:
This paper is published in both Chinese and English. The Chinese version shall prevail in case of any ambiguity.

In 2010, by adhering to the scientific development and accelerating the transformation of economic development, courts at all levels in Jiangsu Province have strengthened the trial, deeply promoted the Three Important Tasks including social disputes resolution, social management innovation and impartial law application, and actively implemented the Outline of the National Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Strategy. Remarkable progress has been made in IPR protection, which provided strong judicial safeguards for constructing an “Innovation-Based Nation” and an “Innovation-Based Province”.

I. Legally serving the social and economic development, and actively implementing the National and Provincial Intellectual Property Strategy

All courts in entire province have stuck to the principle of active judiciary, energetically dealt with various changes in post-financial-crisis era, resolved IPR disputes by mediation according to the law, promoted to accelerate the transformation of economic development, maintained the order of market competition, and provided strong judicial safeguards and perfect legal service.

1. Formulating normative regulations and serving the transformation of economic development

The High People’s Court of Jiangsu Province worked out a series of regulatory documents including the Guidelines on Providing Judicial Safeguards for Accelerating the Transformation of the Economic Development in Jiangsu, the Guidelines on Providing Judicial Safeguards for Promoting the Healthy Growth of Medium and Small Sized Private Enterprises, etc, which provide guidelines for severing innovative economic developing and strengthening core competitiveness against risks of enterprises. In accordance with their own legal practice, local courts fully played the role of judicial safeguard and guidance, took specific judicial measures to encourage enterprises to self-innovate and boost industrial upgrading and transformation, and worked out a series of research reports and normative documents. For example, Nanjing Intermediate People’s Court laid down the Guidelines of Judicial Protection of Intellectual Property Rights for the 2nd Summer Youth Olympic Game in 2014.

2. Supporting the core technology and emerging industry, and promoting the development of local industries with their own characteristic

According to the State and provincial development strategy and industrial policies, all courts focused on intensifying the protection of core technologies with proprietary IPR and significant breakthroughs in boosting economic increase, made emerging strategic industries turn into the main force of sustainable development, facilitated the creation and development of the brands, and promoted the development of new business model and the prosperity of cultural and creative industry. Cooperating with other courts like Lianyungang Intermediate People’s Court, the High People’s Court of Jiangsu Province made research into problems on IPR in pharmaceutical industry, and then timely gave suggestive solutions and support to local large-scaled enterprises for their healthy development. Wuxi Intermediate People’s Court established a research group for the purpose of studying IPR protection of the Internet of Thing. The group has visited a host of enterprises, scientific research institutions and relative government branches in Wuxi. Then it comprehensively analyzed the IPR protection situations of Internet of Things, and put forward legal suggestions on judicial IPR protection for the formation of Internet of Things industry.

In addition, on the basis of local economic development strategy and characteristic industries, all courts worked out specific objectives to contribute to the overall social and economic development, and effectively extended the coverage of judicial function. The courts in Nantong City actively promoted the development of Nantong Home Textiles Market to change its single protective model of copyright into the integrative three-dimensional model including copyright, trademark right and industrial design right protection. The copyright protection experience of Nantong Home Textile Market received high praise from the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO); what’s more, 9 Chinese central news agencies including People’s Daily, China Central Television and China National Radio focused on the case by various means like special interviews and research. Yangzhou Intermediate People’s Court  set up a circuit IPR court, thus established the three-service-platform including trial, extensional function of trial and communication. Lianyungang Intermediate People’s Court carried out research on IPR protection of the crystal market in Donghai County, and compiled a booklet named 100 Q& As on IPR Knowledge of Donghai Crystal Market. The courts in Wuxi have strengthened the IPR protection of the Zisha teapot manufacturing technique, and provided Judicial Advices on IPR protection of Zisha Industry. Up till now, there have been over 2000 patents about Zisha in Yixing County.

3. Closely contacting with enterprises to carry out training on law issues and the early risk warning

All courts have paid close attention to potential IPR risks in different industries, and made thorough research in the fields of pharmaceutical, new material, telecommunication, internet bars, liquor where conflicts are more likely to happen. By visiting enterprises, holding symposiums, and offering voluntary lectures on law issues, the courts have well understood enterprises’ demands for IPR protection. According to the research, the courts carried out relevant service and trainings on law issues. In addition, the courts perfected the information release system, timely provided judicial suggestion to relevant committees of the Communist Party, government agencies and enterprises, which would be the valuable decision-making reference for CPC committees and government; at the same time, these information  greatly facilitated the companies to perfect their internal management system and prevent risks during operation.

II. Trying IPR Cases Efficiently and fairly according to Law, and playing the leading role in IPR Protection

1. Fulfilling the functions of preventing IPR infringement and resolving relevant disputes, encouraging self innovation by dealing with civil cases according to law

In 2010, courts at all levels in Jiangsu Province tried 4, 466 IPR civil cases including 4, 201 first instance cases and 265 second instance cases. The newly accepted cases were 4, 079 ( 3, 852 first instance cases and 227 second instance cases), with a year-on-year 53.6% increase compared with 2009; there were 1,753 copyright cases, accounting for 49.7% of the total; 938 trademark cases, 37.1%; 431 patent cases, 12.2%; 119 technology contract cases, 3.4%; 72 anti-unfair competition cases, 2.0%; and 211 on other IPR cases.

In 2010, the IPR cases showed the following characters: ⑴The number of copyright and trademark right cases increased remarkably. Among the newly accepted cases, copyright and trademark cases saw a year-on-year increase of 78.3% and 67.2% respectively. ⑵There were a high percentage of relevant cases with the same plaintiffs or defendants. In total, 2688 first instance cases of this nature were accepted by all courts which accounted for 69.8% among all cases. Most of them were related to online transmission right of cinematographic works, copyright of music and picture works, trademark rights and others closely linked to social economic and cultural life. Of all the relevant cases, there were 1519 on copyright, accounting for 56.5%; 779 on trademark, 29.0%; 357 on patent, 13.3%. ⑶The IPR cases with foreign elements kept increasing. Of all newly accepted cases of the first instance, there were 127 cases related to foreign IPR with an increase of 33 from 2009. These cases were related to several countries like USA, Germany, France, Finland, Canada, Britain, Switzerland etc. The relevant cases related to foreign IPR increased correspondingly. ⑷The new types of IPR civil cases were emerging constantly. Nanjing Intermediate People’s Court tried the first case of infringement of layout-design of integrated circuits in China. Wuxi Intermediate People’s Court accepted the first antimonopoly case in Jiangsu Province.

All courts in Jiangsu Province have firmly established the principle that law application should be the top priority. In order to effectively promote proprietary innovation and maintain the fair and orderly competition, courts at all levels tightened punishment for IPR infringement, reduced cost of safeguarding rights, and increased the price for infringement. As a result, infringement acts were effectively prevented. In the entire year, all courts had finished 3, 964 IPR civil cases including 3, 748 first instance cases and 216 second instance cases, a year-on-year 45.8% increase. There were 715 cases finished by issuing formal judgments, whose rate reached 16.7%, a year-on-year 9.5% reduction. The courts finished a few of widely influential and highly concerned cases such as, in extension sector of cultural industry, the copyright case related to the film named Pleasant Goat and Big Big Wolf betwwen Shanghai Skynet Asia Cultural Communication Co., Ltd. vs. Changzhou Gongyuan Tesco Life Shopping Co., Ltd.; and the copyright case related to the use of product trademark in unregistered period between American An’s Corporation vs. Wuxi HiCoo Tungsten Caibide Co., Ltd. Additionally, two cases finished by the High People’s Court of Jiangsu Province were published in 2010 Gazette of the Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China, including the case LX-river Area Institute of Agricultural Sciences vs. Tianbu Agricultural Materials Company for infringement of new plant variety right and Suzhou New Sea Union Telecom Technology Co., Ltd. corporation vs. Nanjing Putian Telecommunications Co., Ltd. for infringement of patent right.

During the trial, all courts in Jiangsu also took the following positive measures. Firstly, they kept exploring and summarizing the experience of trying difficult and complicated cases. The Judicial Guidebook of handling Patent Infringement Cases and The Judicial Guidebook of Trade Secret Infringement Case were compiled to provide standard opinions of judgment for judges. Secondly, they actively participated in the judicial interpretations of the Supreme Court. They had a series of research papers including the Report of Research on Network Copyright and contributed to the formulation of the relevant judicial interpretation. Thirdly, the courts further perfected the coordination system of relevant cases. The courts continued to strengthen information reporting system of relevant cases to higher courts, held regular chief judges’ meetings from all intermediate courts in Jiangsu Province, and, according economic development in different areas, tried to form some unified judgment standards with reasonable differences. In 2010, the higher courts coordinated with other courts after well communication on 400 relevant cases and effectively unified the judicial standards. Fourthly, the higher courts intensified the instruction to the lower courts. By this way, great achievements were made in resolving conflicts. The courts perfected the mechanism of combining trial with mediation with distinct IPR characteristic, and further explored the positive functions of industrial associations during mediation. In 2010, there were 747 cases settled by mediation, 2, 422 cases withdrawn because of conciliation, i.e. 79.9% cases were ended through mediation, a year-on-year 9.1% increase. What’s more, most cases of this type were enforced by both parties voluntarily. As a result, the courts effectively finished all the cases without any new disputes, and practically maintained social harmony and stability.
2. Fulfilling the function of punishing and deterring crimes, cracking down IPR infringements according to law

As an experimental move, IPR civil cases, criminal cases, and administrative cases are being tried in one tribunal. 69 IPR criminal cases with civil, criminal and administrative elements were accepted in 2010, a year-on-year 260% increase. Among them, 64 cases were settled, a year-on-year 260% increase. Courts in Jiangsu Province further strengthened IPR protection by criminal means, took advantage of tuning up different resources, and punished all kinds of IPR crimes strictly.

Firstly, according the direction from the State Council, the courts timely made special plans and waged special campaigns to fight against IPR infringement and producing and selling fake and inferior commodities. They closely cooperated with local police and prosecution departments, supervised the settlement of major and main cases, rapidly tried and concluded IPR criminal cases, strictly punished various criminal activities related IPR infringement, and finally several typical and influential cases were settled like 5.26 Selling Pornographic and Pirated Compact Discs Case in Nanjing. The case that Wangjiahao infringed the copyright was adopted as one of the typical cases in the special campaign launched by State Council. Secondly, the courts kept a close eye on the settlement of major and main cases, continued to deepen cooperation with administrative law-enforcement agencies, and constantly enhanced integrated efficiency of criminal judicial protection. Thirdly, the courts persisted in the principle of temper justice with mercy during criminal charge, promoted the reform of normalizing sentencing discretion, practically protected victims’ legitimate interests, flexibly exercised all kinds of criminal penalty measures, and fully performed the criminal penalty function of preventing and punishing crimes.

3. Fulfilling the function of supervising and supporting the law application by administrative agencies to protect IPR, and conducting judicial review on their action according to law

In 2010, there were 8 administrative cases accepted and concluded by courts in the new experimental trial system; among them, the case that Changshu Jumancang Food Co., Ltd. refused to accept administrative punishment was adopted as one of the 10 typical IPR protection cases in Jiangsu in 2010. All courts faithfully performed the function of judicial review on administrative action to supervise and support government agencies to assume their duties by law.

Firstly, the courts promoted the normalization of administrative law-enforcement action. The courts tried various administrative cases related IPR according to law, actively supported administrative branches to execute their power legally, corrected varieties of administrative acts against the law, and advanced the normalization of administrative law-enforcement. Secondly, the courts actively participated in social management innovation related to IPR. They promptly provided judicial advice to related administrative authorities as soon as they found problems during law enforcement, held meetings jointly with the IPR administrative authorities including the Industry and Commerce Bureau, the Copyright Office and the Patent Office, actively participated in business training organized by related administrative authorities, helped them perfect varieties of measures and systems, and increased their IPR management capacity. Thirdly, the courts set up a long-term mechanism to support and supervise administrative authorities execute their administrative power by law. In addition, they continued to reinforce effective system of avoiding and eliminating administrative disputes concerned IPR from beginning. In order to establish a well communication platform with administrative authorities, experimental work had been done to promote the establishment of a comprehensive conciliating system to settle the administrative disputes related to IPR. In this aspect, new progress were achieved.

Ⅲ. Deepening judicial reform and improving judicial system of IPR trial

1. Deeply promoting the judicial reform and the experimental model of combining IPR civil, administrative and criminal trials in one tribunal (“three-in-one”).

All courts constantly enhanced their ability to try IPR criminal and administrative cases, gained insight to the related problems, and built a firm base to promote the experiment in next period. After carrying out the special action, initiated by State Council, of fighting against the IPR-infringements and producing and selling the fake and inferior commodities, all courts actively joined in the special action and regarded it as an opportunity to effectively promote “three-in-one” reform, and further enhanced the IPR criminal trial capability.

The High People’s Court of Jiangsu province timely and fully summarized the status of carrying out “three-in-one” reform, collected and classified all kinds of problems from the reform, then strengthened the communication, discussion and coordination with Jiangsu Public Security Bureau and People’s Procuratorate on some complicated issues such as connection among different judicial procedures, technology authentication, evidence judgment, penalty standard, asked for advice by hosting symposium together and door-to-door visit, promoted all parties to come to an agreement on certain issues, and deeply developed the reform.

2. Constructing the "Technical Expert Library" of Jiangsu province for IPR trial and effectively solving the difficulties of technical-facts identification.

With the guidance of the High People’s Court of Jiangsu Province, “Technical Expert Library” was set up by all courts in Jiangsu Province in 2010. On this basis, Jiangsu Provincial High People’s Court formulated the Administrative Measures of IPR Technical Experts Library (Interim) and established the provincial Technical Expert Library including 157 IPR technical experts which are brought into unified management and use in the whole province. Technical Expert Library comprised experts and technicians in chemical, physical, mechanical, computer, electronic communication, biological medicine, agriculture and other fields. Meanwhile, the regulation provided experts selection, avoidance and their responsibilities, ways of  participating in trial, standards and procedures to adapt their advice, and training experts on law. Currently, some technical experts have begun to formally participate in the trial of IPR cases. Jiangsu High People’s Court and all local courts have organized technical experts to attend and observe public hearings and receive various IPR professional training on law. From the trial practice, technical experts directly involving in cases judgment have played a very good helping role in clarifying the technical problems timely and accurately, and then improved the trial efficiency. As a result, gradual achievement of the reform has been seen.

3. Further rational allocating IPR trial resources

While the principle of moderate concentration of jurisdiction was stuck to, according to the needs of the province’s economic and social development, judicial resources were rationally allocated and the number of district courts for dealing with IPR cases was properly increased. In 2010, after approval by the Supreme People’s Court, Kunshan People’s Court obtained the jurisdiction of handling the utility model and industrial design patent disputes. In the same year, Zhangjiagang People’s Court also obtained the jurisdiction of handling some IPR disputes. At present, there are 7 intermediate courts having the jurisdiction of trying patent cases, 1 district court possessing the jurisdiction of trying some patent cases and 17 district courts possessing jurisdiction of some civil IPR cases. Meanwhile, there are about 160 IPR judges in all courts of Jiangsu Province, the number of which is in the forefront of China. In 2010, all the district courts of Jiangsu province nearly accepted 1178 IPR cases and finished 1138 IPR cases accounting for 30.6% and 30.4% respectively among all newly accepted and finished cases of the first instance in all courts. Obviously, the district courts are playing the prominent role in IPR trial of Jiangsu province.

Ⅳ. Deeply promoting the judicial transparency and actively establishing the harmonious and healthy judicial environment.

1. Carefully planning and conducting the serial activities of 15th anniversary of Jiangsu specialized IPR trial.

In the first half year of 2010, the High People’s Court of Jiangsu Province successfully held the 15th Anniversary of Jiangsu Specialized IPR Trial and the seminar on IPR Protection and IPR Interests Balance. Additionally, the book “Innovation and Development –IPR Trial Achievements of Jiangsu Courts in the Past 15 Years”, and the commemorative album named “Glorious History and Better Future” were published and showed the development and outstanding achievements on Jiangsu IPR trials, research, reform, team building and basic construction of the district courts in the past 15 years. Also, a number of excellent collectives and individuals being engaged in IPR trial were commended. Leaders of the Jiangsu provincial government and the Third Civil tribunal of the Supreme People’s Court, famous experts and scholars, representatives from other high courts and some of IPR judges in Jiangsu courts attended the seminar. Four topics including IPR judicial protection, non-infringement identification, IPR rights conflict, and unfair competition and legal issues of IPR contract were discussed extensively and deeply. Some mainstream media agencies including “Legal Daily”, “People’s Court News”, and “China Daily” reported this seminar specially, which further enhanced the influence of Jiangsu IPR trial in China.

2. Publishing the Blue Book of the Judicial IPR Protection in Jiangsu, and actively carrying out publicity activities in a week around the “World Intellectual Property Day”.

"The Status of Judicial IPR Protection in Jiangsu Courts in 2009" (the Blue Book of the Judicial IPR Protection in Jiangsu) was Published, and introduced the status of judicial IPR protection in Jiangsu courts, the top 10 typical cases of judicial IPR protection, the analysis of IPR protection of enterprises in Jiangsu, and other memorabilia in 2009. Two cases including Shanghai Sanlian (Group) Co., Ltd. and Wuliangcai Glasses Co., Ltd. of Shanghai Sanlian (Group) Co., Ltd. vs. Suzhou Wuliangcai Glasses Co., Ltd. for the infringement of registered trademark and unfair competition, and Chengdu General Soft Network Technology Co., Ltd. vs. Sun Xianzhong and Hong Lei for the copyright criminal (“Tomato Garden” software piracy case) were selected as two of the top 10 cases of judicial IPR protection in 2009 by the Supreme People’s Court of China. Moreover, another three cases were selected as three of the typical 50 cases of judicial IPR protection in 2009 by the Supreme People’s Court of China. The total number of selected cases from Jiangsu courts was in the forefront among all courts in China. Additionally, Jiangsu courts actively carried out the publicity activities on law during the week around the "World Intellectual Property Day". They kept on strengthening the publicity of judicial IPR protection by inviting representative members of NPC and CPPCC to attend hearing and asking for advice, and publicly trying a number of IPR cases with significant social influence.

3. Further implementing the principle of publicly trying and disclosing judgments.

In 2010, the courts of Jiangsu province adhered to intensifying the transparency of judicial activities and implemented the institution of publicly trying. They insisted that all the IPR cases should be tried through hearing, and actively provided the parties with lawsuit guidance, the risk of litigation notification, law consultation, judicial salvage and other legal services. Meanwhile, in 2010, Jiangsu courts insisted on disclosing all effective IPR judgments on the Internet, and a total of 560 IPR judgments were uploaded during this year. Up to the present, a total of 4461 IPR judgments have been disclosed, the number of which was in the forefront among all the courts in China.

The year of 2011 is the first year of the "Twelfth Five Year Plan", also is the key year for accelerating the economic development transformation and adjusting the economy structure. Hence, there will be concurrence of opportunities and challenges to the IPR trial. Jiangsu courts will actively implement the innovation strategy, regard enforcing law and handling cases as the fundamental tasks, stick to the idea of Active judicature, further promote the Three Important Tasks, actively develop new areas of serving the overall situation, exert the unique role of judicial IPR protection in promoting economic development transformation, comprehensively improve trial ability, and make new contributions to the development of intellectual property rights.