What is a patent dispute case?

/flsz/sz_view.asp？ No = 1293

Law Library >> Abstracts of Law Books >> Read the full text of the legal abstracts. Inquire about the legal summary:

Level Jurisdiction of Patent Dispute Cases —— Interpretation of Judicial Interpretation of Intellectual Property Rights

Huang Songyou, read 1933 times.

View the introduction of this book or buy this book.

Second, the level jurisdiction of patent dispute cases.

-Patent dispute cases of first instance shall be under the jurisdiction of the intermediate people's courts where the people's governments of provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities directly under the Central Government are located and the intermediate people's courts designated by the Supreme People's Court.

[Basic information]

Plaintiff Zhao.

The plaintiff king.

Defendant: Luoyang Electric Power Section of Zhengzhou Railway Bureau.

Defendant Luoyang Railway TEDA Industry and Trade Co., Ltd. ..

1July, 9951July, the plaintiffs Zhao and Wang applied for the patent of railway combination signal lamp, which was authorized by the announcement of the state patent office on February, 2007, with the patent number of 952 16097.8. 1In August, 1998, Luoyang Telecommunication Section of Zhengzhou Railway Bureau claimed the patent of 952 16097.8. On June 5438+February, 2002, the Higher People's Court of Henan Province finally ruled that the patent right belonged to Zhao Hewang. Zhao and Wang, the plaintiffs, believe that Luoyang Railway Industry and Trade Co., Ltd., invested and established by Luoyang Electric Power Section of Zhengzhou Railway Bureau, has been producing the patented product since August 1998 and put it into use in major railway bureaus. In July 2005, he appealed to Zhengzhou Intermediate People's Court. When our court heard the case of plaintiff Zhao and Wang v. defendant Luoyang Electric Section of Zhengzhou Railway Bureau and defendant Luoyang Railway Industry and Trade Co., Ltd., the defendant Luoyang Railway Industry and Trade Co., Ltd. raised a jurisdictional objection to our court, arguing that the lawsuit brought by patent infringement was under the jurisdiction of the court where the infringement occurred or where the defendant lived. We are a manufacturer of patented products, and our registered place is in Luoyang. Therefore, this case should be under the jurisdiction of Luoyang Intermediate People's Court, and it is requested to transfer this case to Luoyang Intermediate People's Court for trial.

[referee points]

After examination, Zhengzhou Intermediate People's Court held that the plaintiff Zhao and Wang filed a patent infringement lawsuit. According to Article 2 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Applicable Legal Issues in the Trial of Patent Disputes, cases of first instance of patent disputes shall be under the jurisdiction of the intermediate courts where the people's governments of provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities directly under the Central Government are located and the intermediate courts designated by the Supreme People's Court. Plaintiffs Zhao and Wang brought a lawsuit to Zhengzhou People's Court according to law, and Zhengzhou Intermediate People's Court was under jurisdiction according to law. The reason for the objection to jurisdiction put forward by the defendant Luoyang Railway TEDA Industry and Trade Co., Ltd. cannot be established, and our court does not support it. In accordance with the provisions of Articles 19 and 38 of the Civil Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), it was ruled that the defendant Luoyang Railway TEDA Industry and Trade Co., Ltd. rejected the objection to the jurisdiction of this case.

[Understanding and Application of Article 2 of Patent Law Interpretation]

The focus of the dispute in this case is whether the Intermediate People's Court of Zhengzhou City, Henan Province has the right to accept the patent infringement dispute cases where the infringing place and the defendant's domicile are in Luoyang City, Henan Province. It involves the understanding and application of Article 2 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Applicable Laws in the Trial of Patent Disputes (Law Interpretation [200 1] No.21) (hereinafter referred to as the Interpretation of the Patent Law). Article 2 of the Supreme People's Court's Interpretation of the Patent Law stipulates: "Patent dispute cases of first instance shall be under the jurisdiction of the intermediate people's courts where the people's governments of provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities directly under the Central Government are located and the intermediate people's courts designated by the Supreme People's Court." This is about the level jurisdiction of patent dispute cases.

(a) the general provisions of China law on the jurisdiction of civil cases.

The concept and division standard of 1. level jurisdiction

Hierarchical jurisdiction refers to the division of labor and authority of the higher and lower courts in accepting civil cases of first instance according to certain standards. From abroad, there are two kinds of jurisdiction over first-instance cases in the civil litigation system: one is that all first-instance cases are accepted by grass-roots courts, while higher-level courts do not accept first-instance cases in principle, such as federal courts in France, Russia and the United States. This type does not actually have the problem of level jurisdiction. The other is to hand over the first-instance cases to the grass-roots courts and the higher-level courts, and determine the respective division of labor and authority of the two courts through hierarchical jurisdiction. For example, Germany, Japan and Hungary belong to the second type. This type only divides the jurisdiction of first-instance cases between the two courts, so the problem of hierarchical jurisdiction is relatively simple. There are four levels of courts in China, and each level accepts cases of first instance, so it is necessary to divide the jurisdiction of the four levels of courts to accept cases of first instance. Comparatively speaking, China's hierarchical jurisdiction is wider and more complicated than other countries.

Due to the different court settings and trial levels in different countries, the determination of hierarchical jurisdiction standards is not exactly the same, but in most countries, the price of litigation object is the main criterion for determining hierarchical jurisdiction. For example, the courts that accept civil cases of first instance in Germany are primary courts and regional courts. The primary courts have jurisdiction over cases with the subject matter less than DM 65,438+00,000, housing lease, divorce, guardianship and other cases. Civil cases that are not under the jurisdiction of primary courts are under the jurisdiction of regional courts. China's civil procedure law does not determine the jurisdiction level based on the prevailing litigation price, but divides the jurisdiction level according to China's actual situation and traditional practices, combined with the nature, simplicity and complexity of the case and the scope of influence.

2. General provisions on jurisdiction of civil cases in China.

Article 18 of China's Civil Procedure Law stipulates: "The basic people's courts shall have jurisdiction over civil cases of first instance, except as otherwise provided by this Law." Because the Civil Procedure Law stipulates that there are few cases under the jurisdiction of other courts at all levels, this provision actually puts most civil cases under the jurisdiction of grass-roots courts. There is a good reason that most civil cases are under the jurisdiction of grass-roots courts. Grass-roots courts are the most basic courts in China's court system. They are numerous and widely distributed in all grass-roots administrative regions. The domicile of the parties, the location of the disputed property and the place where the dispute occurred are generally within the jurisdiction of specific grass-roots courts. The grass-roots courts have jurisdiction over civil cases of first instance, which not only facilitates the parties to participate in litigation, but also facilitates the courts to hear cases. According to the provisions of Article 19 of the Civil Procedure Law, civil cases of first instance under the jurisdiction of the intermediate court are divided into three categories: major foreign-related cases, cases with great influence in the local area and cases under the jurisdiction of the intermediate court determined by the Supreme People's Court.

(two) to designate the jurisdiction of patent dispute cases.

Because patent cases are highly technical, compared with ordinary civil cases, they show complexity and particularity. It is an international common practice to concentrate patent cases in some courts. For example, in the United States, patent infringement cases can only be accepted by federal district courts, not by state courts. Similarly, in Germany, patent infringement cases can only be accepted by local courts, which stipulates that local courts cannot hear such cases.

In China, according to the Civil Procedure Law and the Supreme People's Court's provisions on judicial interpretation of this law, patent dispute cases are under the jurisdiction of the intermediate people's court determined by the Supreme People's Court. As early as1February, 1985 16, the Supreme People's Court stipulated in the Notice on Several Issues Concerning Patent Trial that patent cases that refused to accept the decisions of the the State Council Patent Administration Department and the Patent Reexamination Board should be tried by the Beijing Intermediate People's Court (now the Beijing No.1 Intermediate People's Court), and other patent dispute cases should be tried by intermediate people's courts such as provincial governments and special economic zones. More than ten years' trial practice has proved that designating the court of first instance of patent cases as an intermediate court with trial power and centralizing patent judicial institutions conforms to the actual situation of patent trial with strong technology and great difficulty, conforms to international common practice, ensures the quality of unified law enforcement and case handling to a certain extent, and is also conducive to summing up and accumulating trial experience, relatively fixing the trial team and maintaining the unity of intellectual property law enforcement standards. At the same time, it is convenient for the Supreme People's Court to carry out professional training and guidance, and constantly improve the professional quality and trial level of intellectual property judges in China, so as to ensure the trial quality of patent cases and protect the legitimate interests of patentees, which should continue to be implemented.

According to Article 19 (3) of the Civil Procedure Law and Article 2 (2) of the Supreme People's Court's Opinions on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Civil Procedure Law, when formulating the interpretation of the patent law, the Supreme People's Court still limited the jurisdiction of some patent dispute cases to the intermediate people's courts and higher people's courts of some provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities directly under the Central Government, specifically to the intermediate people's courts of provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities directly under the Central Government and the intermediate people's courts of special economic zones and the Supreme People's Court. When deciding whether an intermediate people's court can be the court of first instance for patent cases, the Supreme People's Court generally considers the following factors: (1) the number of local patent disputes; (2) Whether there is a patent management authority; (3) Yes

Whether it has been approved by the local higher people's court.

At present, there are 43 intermediate people's courts in China as the courts of first instance for patent disputes. Specifically, it includes the intermediate people's courts of provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities directly under the Central Government and special economic zones, and the intermediate people's courts of the following cities designated by the Supreme People's Court: Dalian, Yantai, Wenzhou, Foshan and Qingdao.

(3) Comments on the above cases.

In the above case, the plaintiff Zhao and Wang filed a patent infringement lawsuit. Defendants are Luoyang Electric Power Section of Zhengzhou Railway Bureau and TEDA Industry and Trade Co., Ltd. of Luoyang Railway ... This is a patent infringement dispute case in which both the infringement place and the defendant's domicile are in Luoyang City, Henan Province. According to the provisions of Article 2 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on the Applicable Law in the Trial of Patent Disputes, it shall be under the jurisdiction of the Intermediate People's Court where the Henan Provincial People's Government is located. The seat of the People's Government of Henan Province is Zhengzhou City, so the Intermediate People's Court of Zhengzhou City, Henan Province has the right to accept all first-instance patent dispute cases within the scope of Henan Province according to law. The above case is a patent infringement dispute case in which both the infringing place and the defendant's domicile are in Luoyang City, Henan Province, and the Zhengzhou Intermediate People's Court has jurisdiction over this case according to law. The defendant Luoyang Railway TEDA Industry and Trade Co., Ltd. had no objection to the jurisdiction, and the Zhengzhou Intermediate People's Court ruled that it was correct to reject the defendant Luoyang Railway TEDA Industry and Trade Co., Ltd.' s objection to the jurisdiction of this case.

Disclaimer: Excerpts from this book are scanned and entered by this website.

Only used for the introduction of books,

Errors are inevitable, please check with the original when quoting.