热门站点| 世界资料网 | 专利资料网 | 世界资料网论坛
收藏本站| 设为首页| 首页

青海省实施《中华人民共和国未成年人保护法》办法

作者:法律资料网 时间:2024-06-17 08:27:56  浏览:8201   来源:法律资料网
下载地址: 点击此处下载

青海省实施《中华人民共和国未成年人保护法》办法

青海省人大常委会


青海省实施《中华人民共和国未成年人保护法》办法
青海省人大常委会


(1992年6月30日青海省第七届人民代表大会常务委员会第二十七次会议通过)

目 录

第一章 总 则
第二章 家庭保护
第三章 学校保护
第四章 社会保护
第五章 几种未成年人的特殊保护
第六章 司法保护
第七章 未成年人保护委员会
第八章 奖励与处罚
第九章 附 则

第一章 总 则
第一条 为了保护未成年人的身心健康,维护未成年人的合法权益,优化未成年人的成长环境,促进未成年人在品德、智力、体质等方面全面发展,根据《中华人民共和国未成年人保护法》的规定,结合我省实际情况,制定本办法。
第二条 本《办法》所指的未成年人是指居住和进入本省境内的不满十八周岁的公民。
第三条 保护未成年人是国家机关、政党、社会团体、武装力量、学校、企事业单位、居(村、牧)民委员会、家庭及每个成年公民的共同责任。
第四条 保护未成年人,应在严厉打击各种违法犯罪活动,大力优化社会环境的同时,对未成年人坚持教育与保护相结合的原则。

第二章 家庭保护
第五条 父母或其他监护人必须使适龄未成年人按照规定接受义务教育,不得使在校接受义务教育的未成年人辍学。
第六条 父母或其他监护人应当教育、预防和制止未成年人的下列不良和违法行为:
(一)逃学、携带凶器、吸烟、酗酒、打架斗殴、流浪以及聚赌、吸毒、卖淫、嫖娼;
(二)参与封建迷信活动;
(三)毁损树木花草、文物古迹、公共设施及其它公私财物;
(四)妨害公共秩序、公共卫生。
第七条 禁止父母或其他监护人对未成年人施行下列行为:
(一)歧视;
(二)虐待;
(三)遗弃、溺婴;
(四)迫使辍学务工经商或外出乞讨;
(五)强迫订婚、换亲或早婚;
(六)教唆、纵容、包庇违法和犯罪;
(七)其它损害未成年人健康成长的行为。

第三章 学校保护
第八条 学校和教师要爱护学生,尊重学生的人格,关心学生的身体健康,严格执行国家教育部门规定的课程和学业量,保证学生有休息、文娱、体育和课外活动时间。
禁止学校、教师违反国家规定向学生滥收费和以罚款手段惩处违反校规的学生。
第九条 学校应按教育部门的有关规定对未成年人进行适时青春期生理、心理卫生的科学教育。
第十条 学校应加强管理,保持正常的教学秩序。凡在学校赌博、酗酒、寻衅滋事、打架斗殴,破坏教学设施,扰乱教学秩序的,从重处罚。
第十一条 学校应当指导、支持共青团、少先队、学生会等组织开展有利于学生身心健康的活动。
第十二条 学校应尊重未成年学生的受教育权,对品学较差的学生,应当耐心教育、帮助,不得歧视。学校不得设立“双差生班”。居住分散的边远山区和纯牧业区,对儿童入学的年龄可以适当放宽,以使其接受完义务教育。
学校不得随意勒令未成年学生退学或开除学籍。被勒令退学或开除学籍的未成年学生或监护人有权向上一级教育行政部门申请复议。

第四章 社会保护
第十三条 各级人民政府对未成年人的保护工作,应当全面规划,组织实施,把建立和完善未成年人活动场所和设施纳入经济建设和社会发展规划,逐步为未成年人开辟多种形式的文化、科技、娱乐、体育等活动场所,为未成年人的成长创造良好的外部环境。
严禁任何单位和个人挪用、挤占、毁坏未成年人活动场所和设施。
第十四条 任何人不得侵犯未成年人继承、接受赠予或以其它合法方式获得财产的权利。
第十五条 未经未成年人本人或监护人许可,不得以营利为目的使用未成年人的肖像。
第十六条 任何组织和个人不得侵占、剽窃未成年人在科技、文学艺术等方面的发明权、创作权、著作权及其它成果。

第十七条 对有特殊天赋、创造发明或有突出成就的未成年人,各级人民政府应为他们的发展成才创造良好的条件,关心他们的身心健康,保护他们的智力成果不受侵犯。
第十八条 禁止任何组织和个人非法剥夺未成年人的人身自由及非法搜查未成年人的身体。
第十九条 依法保障少数民族未成年人有学习和使用本民族语言、文字的自由。
第二十条 广播、电影、电视、出版、发行、经销部门及个体销售摊点,不得出版、发行、销售、出租、出借、播放淫秽、色情、暴力、凶杀、恐怖、封建迷信等毒害未成年人身心健康的报刊、图书和音像制品。
第二十一条 影剧院、俱乐部、体育馆、博物馆、纪念馆、文化馆、科技馆、美术馆、公园、动物园及其它公共娱乐场所,应当为未成年人开展集体活动和学习提供方便,优惠开放。
公共图书馆应创造条件,逐步开设未成年人阅览室。
第二十二条 下列场所必须设置明显标志,禁止未成年人进入:
(一)营业性舞厅;
(二)酒吧;
(三)未成年人保护委员会确认的其它场所。
上述场所的工作人员,有权对难以判定是否成年的人要求出示身份证件。否则,可以拒绝其进入。
第二十三条 任何组织和个人不得招收未满十六周岁的未成年人从业,国家另有规定的除外。
凡依照国家有关规定招收已满十六周岁未满十八周岁未成年人的,不得让其从事过重、有毒、有害的劳动或者危险的作业。
未成年人参加公益劳动受意外伤害者,由组织者和受益单位共同承担责任。

第五章 几种未成年人的特殊保护
第二十四条 各级人民政府和有关部门应重视盲、聋哑、弱智及其他残疾未成年人的特殊保护,并为之创造接受教育和治疗康复的条件。
第二十五条 民政及其他有关部门应做好未成年孤儿、流浪乞讨者以及无生活依靠的未成年残疾人的收容、遣送和安置工作。
第二十六条 任何组织和个人不得歧视、侮辱、虐待、遗弃、迫害有生理缺陷或有心理、精神障碍和弱智及非婚生的未成年人。
第二十七条 对工读学校结业、劳动教养期满和刑满释放的未成年人不得歧视,教育、劳动部门应按有关法律和政策的规定,对他们的就学、就业同等对待。
第二十八条 未成年人已经受完规定年限的义务教育不再和不能再升学的,各级人民政府和社会团体、企业事业组织应当根据实际情况,采取多种形式,对他们进行职业技术培训,为他们创造劳动就业条件。

第六章 司法保护
第二十九条 任何组织和个人不得向未成年人提供公安机关明令管制的刀具、火器。
第三十条 严禁教唆、传授、诱骗、胁迫未成年人进行赌博、封建迷信、吸食毒品、卖淫、嫖娼等违法犯罪活动和从事有害其身心健康的演出活动。
第三十一条 已满十四周岁的未成年人犯罪,因不满十六周岁不予刑事处罚的责令其家长或者其他监护人负责管教。
第三十二条 公安、司法机关对侵犯未成年人合法权益行为的投诉、举报应当及时处理。
第三十三条 公安、司法机关办理未成年人违法犯罪案件,应当照顾未成年人的身心特点,不得采用有损其身心健康的方式方法进行审查和审理。
对不满十六周岁的未成年人,公安机关不得收容审查。
公安、司法机关对审前羁押的未成年人,应当与羁押的成年人分别看管;对经人民法院判决服刑的未成年人,应当与服刑的成年人分别关押、管理。
第三十四条 人民法院审理离婚案件,婚姻登记机关办理离婚登记时必须保障当事人未成年子女的合法权益,保护他们受抚养、受教育等权利。
第三十五条 劳动教养所和少年犯管教所应当尊重未成年人的人格,维护他们的合法权益,实行文明管理,不得以任何理由对未成年人实行体罚、辱骂和其它摧残身心的行为。

第七章 未成年人保护委员会
第三十六条 省、市(州、地)、县(区、市)设立未成年人保护委员会,受同级人民政府的领导。
未成年人保护委员会由教育、司法、公安、劳动、文化、民族、民政、工商及共青团、工会、妇联等行政机关和社会团体的负责人组成。委员会的主任委员由该级人民政府的负责人担任。
未成年人保护委员会设置办事机构,负责承办未成年人保护方面的日常事务。
第三十七条 未成年人保护委员会行使下列职责:
(一)宣传、贯彻、执行国家有关保护未成年人的法律、法规和政策;
(二)研究决定本行政区内有关未成年人保护工作中的重大事项;
(三)监督、检查本办法的实施;
(四)协调有关部门的未成年人保护工作;
(五)接受对侵害未成年人合法权益行为的检举、控告、举报;
(六)对未成年人合法权益保护工作进行调查、研究,交流和推广经验;
(七)对因国家机关和国家工作人员的违法、失职行为致使未成年人合法权益受到严重损害的,有权建议有关机关对责任人员给予行政处分。
第三十八条 各级未成年人保护委员会可以设立未成年人保护基金,资助失去家庭抚养的未成年人完成义务教育,奖励在未成年人保护工作中成绩显著的单位和个人。
未成年人保护基金的筹措、管理及使用办法由县级以上人民政府制定。

第八章 奖励与处罚
第三十九条 各级人民政府、未成年人保护委员会应对有下列情形之一的单位或个人,给予表彰或奖励:
(一)从事未成年人保护工作成绩显著的;
(二)创作出有利于未成年人健康成长优秀作品的;
(三)教育、挽救违法犯罪未成年人事迹突出的;
(四)为未成年人提供、兴建活动场所、设施或捐赠、赞助未成年人保护事业,贡献较大的;
(五)援救处于危险境地的未成年人,表现突出的;
(六)培训、安置盲、聋哑、弱智和其他残疾未成年人及工读学校毕业生就学、就业成绩显著的;
(七)培训、安置刑满释放、解除劳动教养的未成年人就学、就业成绩显著的。
第四十条 违反本办法第七条情节轻微的,由所在单位、街道办事处、居(村、牧)民委员会给予批评教育或行政处分;情节严重,构成违法犯罪的依法处理。
第四十一条 违反本办法第八条第二款的,由教育行政部门责令将款项返还。
第四十二条 违反本办法第十三条第二款规定的单位和个人,由其主管部门责令改正;造成损失的,依法予以赔偿。
第四十三条 违反本办法第二十条规定的,分别由当地工商行政管理、公安、新闻出版、文化、广播电视等部门依法处理。
第四十四条 违反本办法第二十二条规定的,公安、工商、文化主管部门可视情节轻重,分别给予警告、罚款、停业整顿、吊销营业执照(许可证)的处罚。
第四十五条 违反本办法第二十三条第一款规定的,由劳动部门责令改正并处以罚款。情节严重的,由工商行政管理部门吊销营业执照;违反第二款规定的,由劳动部门责令改正并追究有关人员的行政责任。造成严重后果的,应追究法律责任。

第四十六条 违反本办法第三十条规定的,由公安、司法机关依法处理。
第四十七条 当事人对行政处罚不服的,可以向上一级行政机关申请复议。对复议决定不服的,可以向人民法院起诉(国家法律、法规另有规定的除外)。对处罚决定不履行又逾期不起诉的,由作出行政处罚决定的机关申请人民法院强制执行。


第九章 附 则
第四十八条 本办法未作规定的,按照《中华人民共和国未成年人保护法》的规定执行。
第四十九条 本办法自1992年8月1日起施行。



1992年6月30日
下载地址: 点击此处下载

国家安全监管总局、中华全国总工会、共青团中央关于深入开展企业安全生产标准化岗位达标工作的指导意见

国家安全生产监督管理总局 中华全国总工会 共青团中央


国家安全监管总局 中华全国总工会 共青团中央关于深入开展企业安全生产标准化岗位达标工作的指导意见

安监总管四〔2011〕82号


各省、自治区、直辖市及新疆生产建设兵团安全生产监督管理局、总工会、团委,各中央企业:

为贯彻落实《国务院关于进一步加强企业安全生产工作的通知》(国发〔2010〕23号)和《国务院办公厅关于继续深化“安全生产年”活动的通知》(国办发〔2011〕11号)精神,更加有效地推进企业安全生产标准化建设工作,指导各地企业深入开展岗位达标,强化安全生产基层基础工作。根据《国务院安委会关于深入开展企业安全生产标准化建设的指导意见》(安委〔2011〕4号)的要求,现就企业安全生产标准化岗位达标工作,提出以下意见:

一、岗位达标的重要性

(一)岗位达标是企业安全生产标准化的基本条件。岗位是企业安全管理的基本单元,在安全生产标准化建设过程中,应当通过考核、评定或鉴定等方式,对每个岗位作业人员的知识、技能、素质、操作、管理及其作业条件、现场环境等进行全面评价,确认是否达到岗位标准。只有每个岗位,尤其是基层操作岗位,将国家有关安全生产法律法规、标准规范和企业安全管理制度落到实处,实现岗位达标,才能真正实现企业达标。

(二)岗位达标是企业开展安全生产标准化建设工作的重要基础。目前工矿商贸行业中大部分企业为中小型企业,这些企业安全管理基础薄弱、事故隐患多,在开展安全生产标准化建设工作时,面临人才短缺、投入不足等实际困难,在逐步完善作业条件、改良安全设施和提高安全生产管理水平的同时,应从开展岗位达标入手,加强安全生产基础建设,重点解决岗位操作问题和作业现场管理问题,为实现企业达标奠定基础。

(三)岗位达标是企业防范事故的有效途径。据统计,企业生产安全事故多数是由“三违”(违章指挥、违规作业、违反劳动纪律)造成的。有效遏制较大以上事故、减少事故总量,必须落实各岗位的安全生产责任制,提高岗位人员的安全意识和操作技能,规范作业行为,实现岗位达标,减少和杜绝“三违”现象,全面提升现场安全管理水平,进而防范各类事故的发生。

二、岗位达标的目标

企业开展岗位达标工作,以基层操作岗位达标为核心,不断提高职工安全意识和操作技能,使职工做到“三不伤害”(不伤害自己、不伤害别人、不被别人伤害);规范现场安全管理,实现岗位操作标准化,保障企业达标。

三、实现岗位达标的途径

(一)制定岗位标准,明确岗位达标要求。

企业要结合各岗位的性质和特点,依据国家有关法律法规、标准规范制定各个岗位的岗位标准。岗位标准是该岗位人员作业的综合规范和要求,其内容必须具体全面、切实可行。岗位标准主要要求:

1.岗位职责描述;

2.岗位人员基本要求:年龄、学历、上岗资格证书、职业禁忌症等;

3.岗位知识和技能要求:熟悉或掌握本岗位的危险有害因素(危险源)及其预防控制措施、安全操作规程、岗位关键点和主要工艺参数的控制、自救互救及应急处置措施等;

4.行为安全要求:严格按操作规程进行作业,执行作业审批、交接班等规章制度,禁止各种不安全行为及与作业无关行为,对关键操作进行安全确认,不具备安全作业条件时拒绝作业等;

5.装备护品要求:生产设备及其安全设施、工具的配置、使用、检查和维护,个体防护用品的配备和使用,应急设备器材的配备、使用和维护等;

6.作业现场安全要求:作业现场清洁有序,作业环境中粉尘、有毒物质、噪声等浓度(强度)符合国家或行业标准要求,工具物品定置摆放,安全通道畅通,各类标识和安全标志醒目等;

7.岗位管理要求:明确工作任务,强化岗位培训,开展隐患排查,加强安全检查,分析事故风险,铭记防范措施并严格落实到位;

8.其他要求:结合本企业、专业及岗位的特点,提出的其他岗位安全生产要求。

企业要定期评审、修订和完善岗位标准,确保岗位标准持续符合安全生产的实际要求。在国家法律法规和标准规范、企业的生产工艺和设备设施、岗位职责等发生变化时,及时对岗位标准进行修订、完善。

(二)建立评定制度,确定达标评定程序。

企业要建立岗位达标评定工作制度,对照岗位标准确定量化的评定指标,明确评定工作的方式、程序、评定结果处理等内容。企业岗位达标评定可以采用达标考试、岗位自评、班组互评、上级对下级评定、成立评定小组统一评定等方式进行。安全生产标准化评审单位在现场评审时,要按有关规定将岗位达标作为安全生产标准化的重要内容进行考评,对重要岗位和关键岗位的达标情况进行抽查。

(三)切实加强班组建设。

将班组安全管理作为岗位达标的重要内容,从规范班前会、开展经常性的安全教育等班组安全活动入手,将各项安全管理措施落实到班组,将安全防范技能落实到每一个班组成员,强基固本,真正把生产经营筑牢在安全基础上。

(四)丰富达标形式,推动岗位达标创新。

企业可采取开展班组建设活动、危险预知训练、岗位大练兵、岗位技术比武、全员持证上岗、师傅传帮带等切合实际、形式多样的活动,营造“全员参与岗位达标,人人实现岗位安全”的活动氛围,不断提升职工的安全素质,推动岗位达标工作。

四、岗位达标的保障措施

(一)落实企业责任,规范岗位达标。

企业是岗位达标的主体,要切实加强对岗位达标工作的领导,紧密结合生产经营实际,突出重点岗位和关键环节,组织制定本企业推进岗位达标工作的方案,并建立有关岗位达标工作制度,定期组织开展岗位达标工作检查,做到“岗位有职责、作业有程序、操作有标准、过程有记录、绩效有考核、改进有保障”,提高达标质量,确保岗位达标工作持续、有效地开展。

(二)加大宣教力度,提升岗位技能。

各企业要增强岗位教育培训尤其是基层岗位教育培训的针对性,使职工具备危险预知能力、应急处置能力、安全操作技能等,自觉抵制“三违”行为。企业要充分利用班前班后会、安全讲座、安全知识竞赛和安全日活动等各种方式,开展经常性、职工喜闻乐见的安全教育培训,不断强化和提升职工安全素质。

(三)制定奖罚措施,促进岗位达标。

各企业要建立并完善企业岗位达标工作的激励和约束机制,制定具体的奖罚措施,将岗位达标与职工薪酬福利、职位晋升、评先评优等挂钩;对规定期限内不达标的,采取重新培训、调岗、待岗等措施。

(四)加大安全投入,创造达标条件。

各企业要加大安全投入,为开展岗位达标工作提供人、财、物等方面的条件,确保作业环境、安全设施、人员防护等方面符合国家有关法律法规和标准规范的要求,为岗位达标以及现场标准化创造条件。

(五)树立典型示范,引领岗位达标。

各企业要在岗位达标工作中,积极总结经验,学习借鉴其他企业岗位达标工作的经验和做法,在企业内树立岗位达标的典型,鼓励职工互帮互学,开创你追我赶、争创岗位达标的局面,进一步推动和促进岗位达标。

(六)加强工作指导,推动岗位达标。

各级安全监管部门要把岗位达标作为安全生产标准化建设的一项重要内容,加强本意见的宣贯工作,抓好企业负责人的业务培训;加强指导和组织协调,强化对企业岗位达标工作的监督检查,指导督促企业落实岗位达标的要求;适时总结和推广岗位达标工作中的成功经验和做法,为企业之间相互交流学习提供渠道和平台;充分利用电视、广播、报纸等新闻媒体,加强岗位达标的宣传,营造良好的舆论氛围。

各级工会组织要充分发挥引导职能,组织技能比赛、技术比武、师徒帮教、岗位练兵等活动,推广选树“金牌工人”、“首席职工”、“创新能手”、“创新示范岗”的经验,结合创建“工人先锋号”、“安康杯”竞赛等活动,不断提高员工安全意识和安全技能;要发挥安全生产监督检查职能,加强对岗位达标的检查,推动岗位达标。

各级团组织要深入推进青年文明号、青年岗位能手、青工技能振兴计划,开展“争创青年安全生产示范岗”活动,激励引导广大青年职工强化安全生产意识,提高安全生产技能,促进岗位达标。

各省级安全监管部门、工会和共青团组织要加强领导,创新工作思路和工作方式,认真贯彻落实本意见要求,并于2011年12月底前将岗位达标落实情况报国家安全监管总局、中华全国总工会、共青团中央。国家安全监管总局、中华全国总工会和共青团中央将适时联合组织开展贯彻落实本意见情况的检查,总结经验,表彰先进,推动工作。

国家安全监管总局

中华全国总工会

共 青 团 中 央

二○一一年五月三十日

2012年中国法院知识产权司法保护状况(英文)

最高人民法院


2012年中国法院知识产权司法保护状况(英文)


Content

Introduction

Adjudicated according to Law, and Focused on Delivery of Justice
Served the Needs of Socioeconomic Development, and Implemented the National Intellectual Property Strategy
Increased adjudication supervision and guidance, and ensured consistency in application of law
Bolstered the foundation of Basic-Level Courts, and Strengthened the Adjudication Team

Conclusion



Introduction

   In 2012, the people’s courts have advanced judicial operations in the protection of intellectual property rights. Adjudication of intellectual property-related disputes has taken to new heights.
   Several major events relating to the judicial protection of intellectual property have taken place as follows:
Wang Shengjun, President of the Supreme People’s Court, presented the Report on Strengthening Intellectual Property Adjudication to Advance the Building of an Innovative Country at the Thirtieth Session of the Standing Committee of the Eleventh National People’s Congress, elaborating the people’s courts activities relating to intellectual property adjudication since 2008;
The Supreme People’s Court (SPC) has issued judicial interpretations Provisions on Issues Relating to the Application of the Law in Adjudicating Civil Disputes Arising from Monopolistic Behaviour, the Provisions on Issues Relating to the Application of the Law in Adjudicating Civil Disputes Involving the Infringement of the Right to Network Dissemination of Information and the judicial policy document Opinions on Leveraging the Adjudicatory Function to Provide Judicial Safeguards for Deepening the Reform of Scientific & Technological Institutions and for Accelerating the Establishment of a National System of Innovation;
The first national workshop for chief judges of intellectual property divisions was held in Guangzhou. This was the first time that Xi Xiaoming, Vice-president of the Supreme People's Court, provided a comprehensive narrative of the policy to “strengthen protection, classification, appropriate stringency” in the judicial protection of intellectual property;
The China-United States Intellectual Property Adjudication Conference was held in Beijing.

Adjudicated according to Law, and Focused on Delivery of Justice
  In 2012, the people’s courts discharged their official responsibility in adjudicating intellectual property matters. Delivery of justice was the top priority. Intellectual property-related cases were adjudicated fairly and efficiently. This has improved adjudication quality and efficiency, enhanced judicial credibility, and has enabled the judiciary to further its primary role in intellectual property protection.
  In the past year, the people’s courts have adjudicated cases involving all aspects of intellectual property law, encompassing civil, administrative and criminal matters. The number of intellectual property cases has increased substantially this year; the increase in the number of criminal cases most significant, more than double last year’s figures. In terms of the number of first instance intellectual property cases accepted in 2012, there were 87,419 civil cases, 45.99% more than last year; 2,928 administrative cases, 20.35% more than last year; and 13,104 criminal cases, 129.61% more than last year.
  
   Civil Litigation has become an increasingly important means to protect intellectual property.
    Adjudicating intellectual property-related civil disputes is essential to the people’s courts. Civil litigation is an important means to protecting intellectual property. In 2012, the people’s court have strengthened protection of various intellectual property branches: patent, to encourage innovation and drive development; trademark, to enable brand-building; copyright, to enhance the overall capacity and competitiveness of the cultural sector; competition, to motivate market players and invigorate the market.
   The number of first instance civil intellectual property cases accepted and disposed by local courts grew by 45.99% and 44.07% to 87,419 and 83,850 cases respectively. Within each intellectual property branch, the case numbers and percentage change compared to last year were as follows: 53,848 copyright cases, 53.04% higher; 19,815 trademark cases, 52.53% higher; 9,680 patent cases, 23.80% higher; 746 cases involving technology agreements, 33.93% higher; 1,123 cases involving unfair competition (of which, 55 were first instance civil cases involving monopoly disputes), 1.23% lower; 2,207 cases involved other intellectual property disputes, 0.64% higher. 1,429 first instance cases involving foreign parties were disposed, 8.18% higher; 613 first instance cases involving parties from either Hong Kong, Taiwan or Macao were disposed, 3.46% lower.
   For second instance cases involving civil intellectual property disputes, 9,581 were accepted, and 9,929 disposed (including carried over cases), 25.37% and 21.32% higher than last year respectively. New cases and concluded and reopened (zaishen) cases fell by 41.5% and 0.45%, to 172 and 223.
   SPC’s intellectual property division accepted 237 cases, concluded 246 cases (including carried over cases); 181 were newly reopened cases, and 186 were disposed (including carried over cases).
   Adjudication quality and efficiency has improved. Clearance rate of civil intellectual property cases of first instance at the local courts maintained at 2011’s level of 87.61%; appeal rate fell from 47.02% in 2011 to 39.53% in 2012; reopen (zaishen) rate fell from 0.51% in 2011 to 0.20% in 2012; and overrule or remand for retrial (chongshen) rate increased from 3.66% in 2011 to 5.46% in 2012. The percentage of civil intellectual property cases of first instance concluded within time limit increased from 98.57% in 2011 to 99.24% in 2012.
  27 cases preliminary injunction relating to intellectual property disputes were accepted by the various levels of people’s courts; approvals were granted for 83.33% of the cases admitted. To reduce the burden of proof on the part of the applicant, the people’s courts accepted 320 applications for pre-trial preservation of evidence, and 96.73% were granted approval. 74 applications for pre-trial preservation of property were accepted, and 94.67% approved.
  High profile cases include Apple Inc. and IP Application Development vs. Shenzhen Proview Technology, involving the “IPAD” trademark dispute; Sany Heavy Industry Co., Ltd vs. Ma’anshan City’s Yonghe Heavy Industry Technology Co., Ltd, involving an unfair competition dispute;Beijing University’s Founder Electronics Co. Ltd vs. Blizzard Entertainment etc., involving the copyright infringement of game fonts; Hu Jinqing and Wu Yunchu vs. Shanghai Animation Film Studio, involving attribution of copyright of the cartoon character “Huluwa” (lit. "Calabash Babies"); Han Han vs. Beijing Netcom Science & Technology Co., Ltd, involving copyright infringement; Zhejiang’s Holley Communications infringement case vs. Shenzhen’s Samsung Kejian Mobile Communication Technology Co., Ltd, involving a patent invention dispute; Zhang Chang, Zhang Hongyue, Nirenzhang Arts Development Co., Ltd vs. Zhang Tiecheng, Beijing Nirenzhang Bogu Clay Factory and Beijing Nirenzhang Arts & Craft Co., Ltd, involving unfair competition dispute; Yaoming vs. Wuhan Yunhedasha Sporting Goods Co., Ltd, involving infringement of moral rights and unfair competition.
  
   Adjudication of intellectual property-related administrative actions further the support and supervision of administrative authorities to ensure lawful operations
   In 2012,by granting and validating intellectual property rights and judicial review of administrative enforcements, the people’s courts have streamlined and improved upon the review criteria for granting and validating intellectual property rights, and in regulating administrative operations for matters relating to intellectual property.
   The local courts accepted 2,928 intellectual property-related administrative cases of first instance, 20.35% more than last year, and closed 2,899 cases, 17.37% more than last year. Of those accepted, the breakdown by intellectual property branch and percentage change compared to last year is: 760 patent cases, 16.21% higher; 2150 trademark cases, 21.68% higher; 3 copyright cases, 50% higher; 15 cases of other categories, 50% higher.
  The number of first instance cases involving foreign parties or Hong Kong, Macao or Taiwan parties continued to account for a large percentage of the cases. Total number of cases was 1,349, representing 46.53% of the concluded intellectual property-related administrative cases of first instance; 1,127 of the above cases involved foreign parties, 109 Hong Kong parties, 0 Macao parties and 113 Taiwan parties.
  Total intellectual property-related administrative cases of second instance accepted and concluded by the local courts was 1,424 and 1,388 respectively. Of the concluded cases, 1,225 were affirmed, 118 reversed, 3 remanded for retrial (chongshen), 22 withdrawn, 15 dismissed; in 1 case, the original ruling was revoked and an order issued to docket the case for hearing; 4 other cases were disposed of through other methods.
   SPC accepted 98 intellectual property-related administrative cases and concluded 98. Of the concluded cases, 70 cases or 72.16% were dismissed; tishen orders (similar to certiorari) were issued for 20 cases or 20.41%, 2 cases or 2.04%were ordered to reopen (zaishen); 5 cases or 5.10% were withdrawn; 1 case or 1.02% was disposed through other methods.
   SPC reviewed 24 tishen cases and concluded 22. Of those concluded, SPC affirmed the original decision for 5 cases, or 22.73%; reversed the decision for 16 cases, or 72.73%. 1 case, or 4.55%, withdrew.
   High profile administrative cases include: Wei Tingjian vs. Tiansi Pharmaceutical & Health Co., Ltd, Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration of Industry & Commerce, involving an administrative dispute concerning the cancellation of review; Suzhou Dingsheng Food Co., Ltd vs. Suzhou Administration Bureau of Industry & Commerce, Jiangsu Province, involving the administrative sanction of infringement of the “乐活LOHAS” trademark.
   

Better leverage of criminal adjudication to sanction and prevent infringement of intellectual property
   In 2012, the people’s courts have stepped up the criminal enforcement of intellectual property to sanction and prevent infringement of intellectual property.
   For intellectual property-related criminal cases of first instance handled by local courts, new filings increased by 129.61% to 13,104 cases, including 7,840 intellectual property infringement cases (4,664 involved infringement of registered trademarks, such as use of counterfeit marks), 150.16% higher than last year; 2,607 were intellectual property infringement cases involving the crime of production and sale of fake or inferior goods, 236.82% higher than last year; 2,587 were intellectual property infringement cases involving the crime of illegal business operations, 48.08% higher than last year; 70 were cases of other nature, 34.62% higher than last year.
  The number of intellectual property-related criminal cases of first instance concluded by the local courts has increased by 132.45%, to 12,794 cases. The number of persons against whom judgments were effective totalled 15,518, 54.33% higher than last year, including 15,338 who were given criminal sanctions, year-on-year increase is 94.35%. Of the concluded cases, 7,684 involved infringement of intellectual property; 2,504 involved production and sale of fake and inferior goods (involving intellectual property infringement); 2,535 involved illegal business operations (involving intellectual property infringement); 71 were of other nature (involving intellectual property infringement).
  In cases where the offender was found guilty of intellectual property infringement, 2012 cases were convicted of counterfeiting a registered trademark; 1,906 were convicted of selling goods bearing a counterfeit trademark; 615 were convicted of illegally manufacturing or selling illegally manufactured counterfeit marks; 63 were convicted of patent counterfeiting; 3,018 were convicted of copyright infringement; 27 were convicted of selling infringing reproductions; and 43 were convicted of infringing upon trade secrets.
  A high profile case involved the copyright infringement of an online game through a private server.
  
  Combined Mediation and Adjudication to resolve disputes in response to the need to build a harmonious society
   In 2012, the people’s courts continued to broaden the use of mediation for intellectual property disputes, so as to manage conflicts and maintain social harmony and stability.
   First, better aligned the adjudication-mediation processes, where improvement is made in the bridging and balance of adjudication with people’s mediation, administrative mediation and judicial mediation in resolving intellectual property disputes.
  The Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region’s High People’s Court worked with the region’s various authorities, including the intellectual property bureau, industry and commerce bureau, press & publication bureau and cultural office, to clarify the bridging of the pre-trial mediation and litigation procedure, as well as systems as “mediation by invitation” (yaoqing tiaojie) and “mediation by appointment” (weituo tiaojie) during the trial process.
  The Hunan High People’s Court had relied upon the results of its Study on the Judicial Affirmation of Mediation Agreements for Administrative Actions to initiate a pilot study on judicial affirmation of mediation agreements for administrative cases of patent disputes at Changsha Municipality’s Yuelu District People’s Court.
  The Fuzhou Intermediate People’s Court had entered into an Agreement on Alignment of Adjudication and Mediation Processes for Intellectual Property Disputes with the Fuzhou customs authority and industry & commerce bureau.
   The courts in Tibet, and Hebei, Henan, Jiangsu, Jiangxi, Sichuan, Guangdong and Hainan provinces also prioritised the development and improvement of a multifarious dispute resolution mechanism, and in the creation and positive development of a “three-in-one” mediation structure that integrates judicial mediation, people’s mediation and administrative mediation.
  Second, formulate more innovative mediation methods. To benefit from the professional expertise of industry associations and technical experts, the courts have explored a multi-prong mediation strategy, comprising “mediation by invitation”, “industry mediation” and “expert mediation”. The Beijing courts have established a dispute resolution mechanism comprising mediation strategies “mediation by invitation” and “cooperative practice” by working with entities such as the mediation centre of the Internet Society of China, China Writers’ Association and the Beijing Intellectual Property Bureau. The Zhejiang High People’s Court has also explored the possibility of establishing a mechanism for mediation by appointment, targeting at civil patent disputes. The Xinjiang Autonomous Region High People’s Court has invited technical experts to assist in the mediation for intellectual property cases.
  Third, focused on mediation of related cases, and guided the parties to re-channel their resentment from infringement into energy for business cooperation. The Jiangsu Province High People’s Court has assessed the circumstances of related cases in the Karaoke industry and have organised several seminars for copyright owners, copyright collective management organisations, representatives of Karaoke bar owners and the relevant authorities to address at source the many issues in copyright disputes in the Karaoke industry. For high profile intellectual property disputes with related cases, the Guangxi Province High People’s Court organised discussions at the local level with the parties, lawyers and the industry’s regulatory authority.
  The people’s courts have made remarkable progress in mediating intellectual property disputes. 70.26% of first instance intellectual property-related civil cases withdrew after mediation. The success in mediating the highly publicised dispute between Apple Inc. and Proview Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd involving the “IPAD” mark was highly commended at home and abroad.
   
   Greater judicial openness for improved credibility to address public concerns
  In 2012, the people’s courts have employed various methods and approaches when adjudicating intellectual property disputes, and have increased openness and implemented open hearing.
   First, the open intellectual property court includes circuit trials, live online telecast of court hearings, invitation of deputies of people’s congresses, members of people's political consultative conferences and members of the public to observe hearings. In the anti-monopoly case of Qihoo 360 Technology Co., Ltd vs. Tencent Inc., the Guangdong Province High People’s Court invited the media and the general public to observe the case proceedings, and allowed live telecast over the micro-blog. The courts of Inner Mongolia, Henan, Jiangsu, Anhui, Hunan, Sichuan, Fujian, Jiangxi, Ningxia provinces and Xinjiang region have established a permanent system of observation of court hearings by deputies of people’s congresses and members of people's political consultative conferences, as well as online live telecast.
   Second, published written judgements of intellectual property cases to publicise the outcome of the courts’ decisions. The SPC continued to maintain the quality of the Intellectual Property Judgements in China website and the Judicial Protection of Intellectual Property sub-website under the SPC website. The high people’s courts have designated information officer responsible for uploading judgements and decisions on the websites and for maintaining the websites. Information officers must also implement web analytics, and must report and improve the web traffic. As at end 2012, 47,422 intellectual property judgements and decisions have been published on the Intellectual Property Judgements in China website.
   Third, published white papers on intellectual property protection and yearbook to present and publicise the people’s court’s adjudication operations for intellectual property cases. In April 2012, SPC released the Intellectual Property Protection by Chinese Courts in 2011 (Chinese & English Editions). In November 2012, Supreme People’s Court, Supreme People’s Procuratorate (SPP) and Ministry of Public Security (MPS) jointly published the first Yearbook on Intellectual Property Protection in China (2011), which compiles important normative documents, work summaries, statistics, research outcomes and typical cases relating to the judicial protection of intellectual property rights. The high people’s courts of Beijing, Chongqing, Shandong, Hebei, Henan, Gansu, Xinjiang, Jiangsu, Hunan, Sichuan, Guangdong, Guangxi and Hainan have each issued a white paper or blue paper outlining the judicial protection of intellectual property at the local level.

Served the Needs of Socioeconomic Development, and Implemented the National Intellectual Property Strategy
  Based on adjudication practice, the people’s courts found the appropriate points of breakthrough to serve the broader goals of socioeconomic development, and have implemented the national intellectual property strategy to ensure and enable speed and excellence in development. The courts have endeavoured as follows: first, continued extending the boundaries of the intellectual property-related adjudication function to answer the demands of economic and social development; second, persisted in reform and innovation by improving upon the intellectual property-related adjudication system and work mechanisms to address the demands of the national intellectual property strategy; third, further publicised the judicial protection of intellectual property to broaden public impact; fourth, strengthened cooperation with the administrative and law enforcement authorities to broadened the social impact of judicial protection of intellectual property; fifth, buttressed international and inter-regional cooperation to increase global impact.
  
   Continued extending the boundaries of the intellectual property-related adjudication function to answer the demands of economic and social development
   In July, to leverage the adjudicatory function as a means to intensify reform of the of scientific & technological institutions and for accelerating the establishment of a national system of innovation, SPC publish the Opinions on Leveraging the Adjudicatory Function to Provide Judicial Safeguards for Deepening the Reform of Scientific & Technological Institutions and for Accelerating the Establishment of a National System of Innovation. The Opinions noted that the people’s courts should improve upon their understanding and their sense of responsibility and of mission in providing judicial protection to serve the said objectives. The Opinions also pointed out that outcomes of intellectual endeavours should be given better protection to spur indigenous innovation and technological transcendence, that new factors should receive allocated rationally and according to law to align science and technology with social and economic development, and that centralised coordination should be strengthened to improve operations and measures, and ultimately augment judicial capacity in rendering protection.
   Thus, based on the local cultural characteristics and development of the local cultural industry, the high people’s courts of Tianjin, Inner Mongolia, Hubei, Guangdong, Guangxi and Sichuan have issued specific rules of implementation for providing judicial protection of intellectual property to facilitate development and prosperity of our socialist culture. The rules were formulated to strengthen intellectual property protection in the cultural sector, enable development of the traditional cultural sector, and provide impetus for growth of emerging creative industries. The high people’s courts of Hunan and Shanxi have developed rules of implementation for judicial protection and service for building an innovative economy, which tailored to the local state of socioeconomic development. This would drive innovation and development of science and technology, as well as strategic restructuring of the economy.
   The Jiangsu Province High People’s Court surveyed various segments of the cultural industry, such as film production, publication and distribution, Karaoke, games and animation, and intangible cultural heritage, to find out the demands for intellectual property-related judicial protection within the cultural industry. The study culminated in the Report on the Situation Analysis of Intellectual Property Protection of the Cultural Industry in Jiangsu Province, within which included 14 judicial recommendations. The Hunan Province High People’s Court reviewed the irregularities in notarial evidence in intellectual property litigation, and submitted to the local department of justice the Judicial Recommendations for Regulating the Notarisation and Preservation of Electronic Information & Evidence. The Hubei provincial courts have focused on cases involving copyright infringement of KTVs and internet cafes in the course of business operation, and submitted judicial recommendations to the local bureau of industry & commerce, copyright bureau and cultural bureau. The Huangpu District Court in Shanghai also reviewed the irregularities in authorship of movie and television productions and submitted judicial recommendations to the then-State Administration of Radio, Film & Television.
   The courts of Beijing, Shanghai, Heilongjiang, Inner Mongolia, Shandong, Henan, Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Sichuan and Guizhou visited business enterprises and organised intellectual property workshops to establish a long-term contact mechanism with innovators to find out the difficulties and demands of innovators encounter in respect of intellectual property protection. This was as way to provide judicial protection and service that serve the local needs in developing innovative economies. The specific activities were:
Beijing Xicheng District People’s Court visited companies with old trade names, and to protect old trade names and intangible cultural heritage, cooperated with the relevant authorities to initiate the “Intellectual Property Protection Campaign for Old Trade Names”;
Shijingshan District People’s Court proposed the idea of “intelligent protection for CRD (zhi hu CRD) and to build a “Shijingshan Service” brand, so as to provide judicial protection and service for the distribution of goods and the cultural and creative industries under its jurisdiction;
Changzhou Intermediate People’s Court in Jiangsu Province has established a judicial protection contact point for intellectual property matters for key creative industries;
Xuzhou Intermediate People’s Court has set up an intellectual property protection base at the “Creative 68 (‘Chuang Yi 68’)” Cultural Industrial Park;
Shaoxing Intermediate People’s Court in Zhejiang Province has organised a special study on the intellectual property protection of Shaoxing yellow wine;
Hefei Hi-Tech District People’s Court in Anhui Province has completed the Analysis of the Pattern of Typical Cases Involving Copyright Disputes and Study of the Development Strategies of Cultural Industries;
Jingdezhen Intermediate People’s Court in Jiangxi Province initiated a survey of intellectual property protection of porcelain arts and crafts, and provided recommendations for the drafting of the Jingdezhen Porcelain Arts & Crafts Standard;
Hainan High People’s Court commenced studies on the adjudication of intellectual property disputes in the context of Hainan Island being a destination for international tourism;
During the Second China-EuroAsia Exposition and the Eighth China-Kashgar Commodities Trade Fair, the Urumqi Intermediate People’s Court, Shuimogou District People’s Court, Kashgar Region Intermediate People’s Court and the Kashgar City People’s Court deployed intellectual property judges to provide advisory services on intellectual property protection at exhibitions for exhibitors;
Jilin High People’s Court was invited to provide services at the “Intellectual Property Complaint Centre” of the Eighth North-east Asia Investment & Trade Exposition.
  Persisted in reform and innovation by improving upon the intellectual property-related adjudication system and work mechanisms to address the demands of the national intellectual property strategy
   In 2012, the people’s courts have continued to improve upon intellectual property-related adjudication system and work mechanisms based on the Outline of the National Intellectual Property Strategy, to advance the National Intellectual Property Strategy.
   First, promoted the pilot project of centralised adjudication of civil, administrative and criminal cases on intellectual property by the intellectual property division (“three-in-one” adjudication of intellectual property disputes), and improved upon the coordinated adjudication mechanism of civil, administrative and criminal matters relating to intellectual property, such that the overall effectiveness of judicial protection of intellectual property is given play preliminarily. As at end 2012, there were 5 high people’s courts, 59 intermediate people’s courts and 69 basic-level courts that have initiated the pilot project. There are several interesting developments:
  In 2012, the Guangdong courts have gone full steam ahead in implementing the reform pilot programme of “three-in-one” adjudication of intellectual property disputes. The provincial court, 19 intermediate courts and 30 basic-level courts have begun implementing the system, where 90% of criminal intellectual property cases were included in the pilot. The Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court has done so well in the “three-in-one” reform, and the social media has referred to its distinctive model as the “Shenzhen Model”.
  The Jiangsu High People’s Court has stepped up its study of the application of the law for criminal intellectual property matters in the “three-in-one adjudication” reform pilot programme, and has led the completion of the Summary of Issues in the Application of law in Intellectual Property Disputes (Draft for Public Opinion).
  The courts in Inner Mongolia, Shandong, Hunan, Sichuan, Fujian and Guizhou have also relied on various methods to strengthen cooperation with the administrative and law enforcement authorities to drive the “three-in-one” pilot programme for adjudication of intellectual property disputes.
  Second, continued to fine-tune the jurisdiction structure of intellectual property cases. While concentrating the adjudication of cases involving patent, well-known mark and anti-monopoly dispute in certain courts as appropriate, certain basic-level courts are given an appropriate level of authority to accept intellectual property cases. Basic-level courts are encouraged to exercise extra-regional jurisdiction, in order to create a more logical jurisdiction structure. As at end 2012, SPC has appointed 83 intermediate people’s courts to adjudicate cases involving patent disputes, 45 for new plant varieties, 46 for topographies of integrated circuits, and 44 for determination of well-known marks; 141 basic courts are given jurisdiction for general intellectual property cases.
  Three, continued improving the fact-finding mechanism for specialised technologies. The courts of all levels have explored effective fact-finding methods for specialised technology in intellectual property adjudication, which encompass forensic examination, expert assistant (zhuanjia fuzhuren) and expert assessor (zhuanjia peishenyuan) as part of the technical fact-finding system. Much effort has been taken by the courts in different regions:
  The Heilongjiang Province High People’s Court has developed the Heilongjiang Province Rules of Implementation for Consultation in Scientific & Technological Matters in Intellectual Property Adjudication; Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region High People’s Court has signed a memorandum of cooperation on judicial protection of intellectual property with the region’s science and technology association, and have appointed 25 technical experts as litigation assistants; Jiangsu Province High People’s Court has outlined the method of use of expert witnesses during intellectual property litigation in the Practical Uses of Expert Witnesses in Adjudication of Intellectual Property Cases; the Urumqi Intermediate People’s Court uses expert assessors for all intellectual property cases; Beijing 2nd Intermediate People’s Court has employed the “three-member technical team, and five-member adjudication panel” to try patent cases involving complex technical fact-finding. The courts of Tianjin, Xinjiang, Hubei, Hunan and Sichuan have been actively exploring the expert technical assessor system, and have appointed experts to be lay judges to plug the specialised technical knowledge gaps of intellectual property judges.
  
  Further publicised the judicial protection of intellectual property to broaden public impact
  In 2012, the people’s courts have used the World Intellectual Property Day on 26 April as opportunity to organise a Publicity Week for the April 26 World Intellectual Property Day. Wide-ranging, comprehensive and multi-perspective publicity activities on the judicial protection of intellectual property were organised, so as to accelerate the formation of a rule of law culture for intellectual property and to widen the public impact of intellectual property judicial protection.
   On 26 April World Intellectual Property Day, SPC organised a press conference and released the Intellectual Property Protection by Chinese Courts in 2011 (Chinese & English Editions), and published the Ten Major Cases and Fifty Typical Cases on Judicial Protection of Intellectual Property for 2011, and the Supreme People’s Court’s Annual Report on Intellectual Property Cases. In November 2012, SPC, SPP and MPS jointly published the first Yearbook on Intellectual Property Protection in China (2011). The local courts have captured fully the benefits of newspapers, books and magazines, publicity brochures, radio stations, television stations, broadcast networks and the internet and other media to promote the significance, judicial policies and achievements of the judiciary in protecting intellectual property, so as to nurture the awareness of intellectual property right and rule of law concept among the public.
   The high people’s courts in Beijing, Chongqing, Gansu, Xinjiang, Shandong, Hebei, Henan, Jiangsu, Hunan, Guangdong, Guangxi, Sichuan and Hainan have published their own white paper or blue paper on the judicial protection of intellectual property for 2011. During the publicity week, the Liaoning Province High People’s Court had organised a public incineration of pirated publications, and the Liaoning Television Station broadcasted a special documentary film called the Glorious Path in Intellectual Property Adjudication; the Xining Intermediate People’s Court of Qinghai Province has forged a long-term collaborative relationship with the Qinghai Television Station, which through the economic segment’s “Life and Law (shenghuo yu fa) programme, reported and publicised the court’s work in protecting intellectual property; many media, such as the Legal Daily, Dazhong Daily, Shangdong Satellite Television and Shandong Legal News have reported the intellectual property adjudication work of the courts in Shandong Province, and the People's Court Daily has also published an article entitled “Clearing the Skies for Rule of Law in Intellectual Property Rights” relating the work of the Shandong courts; the branch courts of the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps have also publicised its efforts in protecting intellectual property by giving out questionnaires on intellectual property knowledge and books of the law, and by providing legal advice.
   
  Strengthened cooperation with the administrative and law enforcement authorities to broadened the social impact of judicial protection of intellectual property
   In 2012, the people’s courts have aligned as appropriately the relationship between the judicial protection and administrative protection of intellectual property, and furthered their cooperation with the administrative authorities, and have optimised the intellectual property protection regime; in doing so, they have established a synergistic force, and have continued to expand the social impact of the judiciary in intellectual property protection.
   The SPC has convened many inter-departmental meetings with the Ministry of Public Security (MPS), SPP, and SAIC to discuss draft legislative proposals for the criminal enforcement of intellectual property, study the standard of proof for criminal cases involving counterfeit and fake or inferior goods, and promoted the establishment of a case guidance mechanism for criminal adjudication intellectual property cases, so as to improve the consistency in judicial enforcement of intellectual property rights.
   The people’s courts have assisted the MPS in combating the crime of infringement of rights and counterfeiting, and have since solved 43,000 cases involving the crimes of infringement of intellectual property and of manufacturing and sale of fake and inferior goods. More than 60,000 criminal suspects were arrested, and the amount involved was 11.3 billion yuan.
   The high people’s courts of Heilongjiang, Shaanxi etc. have signed a Memorandum of Cooperation on Strengthening Intellectual Property Protection with the administrative and law enforcement agencies, such as the provincial intellectual property bureau, the copyright bureau, industry & commerce bureau, to work together in protecting and managing intellectual property. The Guizhou High People’s Court has stepped up its cooperation and coordination with the relevant authorities, such as the provincial intellectual property bureau, industry & commerce bureau, food and drug administration, the cultural regulatory authorities and the public security department, to find ways to establish a long-term mechanism jointly enforced by the judiciary and the administrative authorities, to protect intellectual property rights involving the cultural heritage of Guizhou’s ethnic minorities, geographical indications, and traditional Chinese medicine. The high people’s courts of Ningxia, Anhui, Hebei, Henan and Guangxi have also taken an active role in adopting various ways to strengthen communication, coordination and cooperation with administrative authorities as the intellectual property bureau, copyright bureau, and industry & commerce bureau, to facilitate positive interaction between the judiciary and administrative law enforcement authorities for a powerful and synergistic force in intellectual property protection.
   
  Buttressed international and inter-regional cooperation to increase global impact
  In 2012, the people’s courts have continued to adopt an international perspective, and have broadened the avenues and format to strengthen international and regional exchanges. These are ways to dispel misunderstandings, build trust, and facilitate cooperation, to continue expanding the international impact of China in respect of judicial protection of intellectual property.
  In May, the China-United States Intellectual Property Adjudication Conference was held in Beijing. More than 1,200 participants, including representatives of intellectual property judges from China and the United States, government officials, academics, lawyers, representatives of intellectual property owners, attended the seminar. More than 240 intellectual property judges from China were at the conference; the United States sent a delegation of more than 200 people, including seven judges from United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and president of the Federal Circuit Bar Association. Twenty-six topics, including “Macro Issues concerning Intellectual Property Adjudication” and “Contribution of Court to the IP System”, were discussed in depth and extensively, with 143 speaking at the conference. The conference reflected the sincerity and goodwill on the part of the Chinese and the Americans to share and cooperate for the future in the increasingly globalised world, and was indeed a milestone in intellectual property relations between the two countries.
  SPC has responded positively by sending representatives to participate in activities as the China-US Intellectual Property Work Group Meeting, the China-Europe Intellectual Property Work Group Meeting, the Cross-Straits Intellectual Property Agreement Work Group Meeting, and the intellectual property public relations team that visited the United States etc, and have prepared more than thirty sets of work plans and recommendations that showcased our achievements in intellectual property protection. SPC judges have also received nearly one hundred high level delegates from the United States, the European Union, Japan and Korea, and have responded to the concerns for their foreign visitors, clarified misunderstandings, and shared our practices and achievements in intellectual property protection. They have also corrected misconceptions of a handful of countries in our intellectual property protection regime. SPC has also sent some of its intellectual property judges as participants in international intellectual property meetings in countries as the United States, Ireland and Korea.

Increased adjudication supervision and guidance, and ensured consistency in application of law
  The people’s courts have stepped up adjudication supervision and operational guidance for intellectual property cases, unified the judicial standards and improved the quality of adjudication. First, judicial interpretations were strengthened, judicial policies improved, and exercise of discretion during adjudication unified; second, the ways of providing supervision and guidance were broadened to improve the quality of adjudication; third, research and analysis was stepped up to resolve promptly any emerging or difficult problems in application of law.
  
   Strengthened judicial interpretation, improved judicial policies and unified exercise of discretion during adjudication
   In May, SPC released the Provisions on Issues Relating to the Application of the Law in Adjudicating Civil Disputes Arising from Monopolistic Behaviour. This was the first judicial interpretation pertaining to anti-monopoly that SPC has issued, providing for initiation of action, accepting a case, jurisdiction, distribution of burden of proof, evidence in litigation, civil liabilities, statutory limitation etc. It was essential for guiding the courts in applying the Anti-Monopoly Law correctly to stop monopolistic behaviour according to law and to ensure fair competition.
   In December, SPC issued the Provisions on Issues Relating to the Application of the Law in Adjudicating Civil Disputes Involving the Infringement of the Right to Network Dissemination of Information. This was a judicial interpretation that provided for the principles on which discretion is exercised in cases involving infringement of the right to network dissemination of information, determination of infringement behaviour, determination of joint-direct infringement, induced infringement and contributory infringement, and determination of objective fault on the part of the network service providers. It is an effective tool for dealing with the impact and challenges that the internet presents for the traditional protection of copyright and for ensuring the correct application of the Copyright Law.
   In February, Xi Xiaoming, Vice-president of SPC gave a keynote speech at the first workshop for presiding judges of intellectual property divisions on the topic “Grasping Precisely the Current Policies on Judicial Protection of Intellectual Property to Further Strengthen Judicial Protection for Intellectual Property”. For the first time, he gave a comprehensive explanation of how the SPC’s intellectual property tribunal has actively explored the judicial policy of “strengthen protection, classification, appropriate stringency”. These are the basic tenets on which our judicial protection of intellectual property is based. To “strengthen protection” is the necessary path, given our socioeconomic situation as well as the domestic and international environment; “classification” is the necessary requirement, given the nature and characteristics of intellectual property; “appropriate stringency” is the demand, given the implicit connection between protection of intellectual property and economic development.
   
   Broadened ways of providing supervision and guidance to improve quality of adjudication
   In 2012, the people’s courts have relied on a variety of methods, such as published guiding opinions and guiding cases, organised meetings on adjudication operations, and announcing information on major and related intellectual property cases to broaden the means of supervision and guidance to improve the quality of adjudication.
   In December, SPC has issued a notice on “Issues Regarding the Implementation of the ‘Decision of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress on Amendment of the Civil Procedural Law of the People’s Republic of China’ in Intellectual Property Adjudication”. The notice highlighted the importance of implementing the Decision on Amendment of the Civil Procedural Law (“Decisions”) for intellectual property adjudication, and set forth matters as a patent agent becoming an agent ad litem in the capacity of a citizen, and correct application of the pre-trial preservation of evidence, to guide the courts in applying the Decisions correctly in the course of their intellectual property adjudication.
   The people’s courts have always attached great importance to the demonstrative and guidance function of typical cases in intellectual property adjudication. The selection and publication of typical cases are subject to a unified standard and has become part of the institutional practice over the long term. In April, SPC has selected 34 typical cases from the concluded cases in 2011, and has extracted and summarised 44 problems of application of law which are universally applicable. The problems are compiled in the Supreme People’s Court’s Annual Report on Intellectual Property Cases (2011) and published. SPC has also published the Ten Major Cases and Fifty Typical Cases on Judicial Protection of Intellectual Property for 2011. Those that have also published their local versions of typical intellectual property cases or annual report were the high people’s courts of Beijing, Tianjin, Chongqing, Heilongjiang, Liaoning, Inner Mongolia, Gansu, Henan, Hubei, Hunan, Sichuan, Jiangsu, Anhui, Fujian, Guangxi, Yunnan and Xinjiang.
   The Zhejiang High People’s Court has organised a province-wide work meeting on intellectual property adjudication and a seminar for presiding judges of intellectual property division for all the intermediate people’s courts within the province. These were aimed at sorting thoughts for adjudicating emerging and difficult cases, to unify the adjudication standards. The courts of Jiangsu Province have created a new approach to adjudicating related cases, and have selected related cases that are either typical or demonstrative, and have taken the initiative to organise circuit tribunals. The Shanghai High People’s Court has developed the Guidebook on Adjudicating Copyright Cases and the Several Issues in Intellectual Property Adjudication during the First Half of 2012. The Hunan High People’s Court has observed and improved upon the reporting system on case trends and information, analysis system of the quality and effectiveness of cases remanded for retrial or cases with amended judgements, and the communication system for cases remanded for retrial or cases with amended judgements, and have promptly studied and notified the courts within the province salient problems in intellectual property cases. The Heilongjiang High People’s Court has leveraged the Heilongjiang adjudication network and relied on the internet for instantaneous communication and the email to set up a guidance network for comprehensive intellectual property research to which all the courts within the province have access. The high people’s courts of Henan, Shanxi and Jiangxi have established a reporting system for related intellectual property cases to ensure consistency of judgement for the same case.
   Stepped up research and analysis to promptly resolve any emerging or difficult problems in application of law
  In 2012, the people’s courts have focused on intellectual property adjudication, and have continued to strengthen research and analysis to cope with new situations and problems, so as to resolve promptly emerging and difficult problems with application of law.
  2012 saw the amendment of six major laws, being the Patent Law, Trademark Law, Copyright Law, Civil Procedural Law, Regulations on Patent Commissioning, and Measures on Service Invention, and SPC has participated in the relevant meetings and discussions, and has closely followed the development of the law, taken note of new situation and emerging issues. It has also reviewed the judicial principles and experiences generated from its adjudicatory practice in recent years, and conducted extensive studies and analysis to propose recommendations for legislative amendments. The intellectual property division SPC has also organised special discussions on particularly salient and difficult issues, including directions for use of drugs, copyright in karaoke, copyright for drama works, and non-squatting trademark issues.
  Beijing High People’s Court have completed research outcomes as Answers to Several Issues on Adjudicating Disputes Involving the Infringement of Intellectual Property in E-Commerce, and Bench Book on Adjudicating Copyright Disputes Involving the Sharing of Video Clips etc; Tianjin High People’s Court has published the Study on Intellectual Property Protection for Technology-Based Small & Medium-Sized Enterprises; Shanghai High People’s Court has published the Study on Judicial Protection of Intellectual Property to Facilitate Development of the Cultural and Creative Industries; Hunan Province People’s Court has completed the Research Report Copyright Cases on Karaoke Operators for all Courts within the Province; Jiangsu High People’s Court have commence studies as A Study on Problems Relating to Evidentiary Rules during Adjudication of Intellectual Property Cases and the Study on the Judicial Protection of Intellectual Property for the Cultural Industry; and the Hebei High People’s Court has commenced the Study on Intellectual Property Protection of Fine Ethnic Cultures.


Bolstered the Foundation of Basic-Level Courts, and Strengthened the Adjudication Team
  In 2012, the people’s courts have further consolidated the fundamental capacities of intellectual property adjudication and the basic-level courts, strengthened the capacity of the team of intellectual property judges, and drove the scientific development of intellectual property adjudication, so as to respond to the people’s concerns and expectations in intellectual property adjudication. First, the courts have strengthened the adjudication team to improve upon the adjudication regime; second, they have improved political and judicial attitudes and ways, and have strengthened the building of an incorrupt practice to advance judicial impartiality; third, enhanced capacity building of intellectual property judges to elevate judicial credibility.
  
  
  
   Strengthened the adjudication team to improve upon the adjudication regime
   The people’s courts have always given priority to establishing an intellectual property division within the courts and to building a strong team. Courts that are of intermediate-level and above have intellectual property divisions, and the 141 basic-level courts with civil jurisdiction for general intellectual property matters have also established intellectual property divisions. Intellectual property judges for all levels of courts are selected from candidates who are well-versed in the law, highly-educated, with extensive adjudication experience. This was the way to strengthen the adjudication team and to optimise the adjudication structure. As at end 2012, there were 420 intellectual property divisions across the country, 2,759 intellectual property judges, and of whom, 97.5% with at least a bachelor degree and 41.1% with at least a master degree.
Also important is the leveraging of the fundamental roles of the basic-level and intermediate courts in intellectual property adjudication. In April, SPC issued the Decision on Establishing a Research Base for the Judicial Protection of the Intellectual Property of Pharmaceutical Industry and on Increasing the Number of Demonstration Courts for Intellectual Property Adjudication and Field Study Bases and Theoretical Research Bases for the Judicial Protection of Intellectual Property. Newly added basic-level demonstration courts for intellectual property adjudication were the Beijing Haidian District People’s Court, Shanghai Huangpu District People’s Court, Guangdong Province’s Guangzhou Tianhe District People’s Court, Jiangsu Province’s Nanjing Gulou District People’s Court, and Zhejiang Province’s Hangzhou Xihu District People’s Court, bring the total number to ten. Jiangsu Province’s Nanjing Intermediate People’s Court and Hubei Province’s Wuhan Intermediate People’s Court were the new research bases for intellectual property judicial protection; also, special research bases for intellectual property judicial protection for pharmaceutical industry were established at Jiangsu Province’s Taizhou Intermediate People’s Court and Lianyungang Intermediate People’s Court, bringing the total number of research bases to nine.
  Improved political and judicial attitudes and ways, and strengthened the building of an incorrupt practice to advance judicial impartiality
  The people’s courts have always focused on developing the political attitudes and ways of intellectual property judges. In 2012, the people’s courts have pursued party-building to lead team-building and finally to achieve adjudication quality. To do that, many thematic activities were organised, such as learning and practising the scientific development concept, education sessions on the socialist rule of law concept, and entitled “People’s Judge for the People” nurture and consolidate the socialist rule of law concept in intellectual property judges, and help the judges reinforce their ideals and beliefs.
   The people’s courts have always given priority to strengthening the judicial attitudes and ways of intellectual property judges. The value pursuit is “justice for the people”. To achieve that, the courts have organised major discussions with the public and major checks on judicial attitudes and ways, so as to regulate judicial behaviour and improve on the judicial practice. In December, to implement the eight required qualities to improve the work practice and to regulate judicial actions as set forth by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, SPC published a notice pertaining to the Six Measures to Improve the Judicial Practice to guide the courts to observe the following, based on their practical realities: pursue justice for the people, and maintain close contact with the public; advance judicial openness, and accept the public’s supervision; strengthen communication of the people’s opinions, and expand judicial democracy; streamline meetings and activities, and really improve upon the ways that meetings are conducted; simplify documented reports, and really improve upon the ways that documents are prepared; improve research studies, and improve the effectiveness of research studies. These were the six areas that were worked on to achieve better attitudes and ways on the part of the judiciary.
The people’s courts have always given priority to building a clean and uncorrupted judicial practice among intellectual property judges. In 2012, the people’s courts have launched moral education programmes promoting incorrupt judicial practice, addressing problems with temporary and permanent solutions, but focusing on the root of problems. Moral education aims to help elevate the moral integrity of intellectual property judges and be conscious of resisting moral depravity. The courts of various levels have stepped up the creation of a corruption risk prevention and control mechanism to realise the “five strict prohibitions and the various anti-graft systems. Anti-corruption ombudsman, recusal of judges, anti-interference of case operations by internal officers, anti-conflict of interest etc. are anti-graft measures, which are internal supervisory efforts aimed at improving judicial powers at work.

   Enhanced capacity building of intellectual property judges to elevate judicial credibility
The people’s courts have always place great emphasis on strengthening capacity-building among intellectual property judges. In 2012, the people’s courts have adopted a multi-prong approach, and have developed learning-based adjudication divisions, held trainings, organised seminars, initiated the hearing-cum-written judgement “double evaluation system”, to put together a team of high quality and professional intellectual property judges. This was a practical way to improve ability and quality of intellectual property judges in applying the law and in resolving practical problems.
In February, SPC held the first National Workshop for Presiding Judges of Intellectual Property Divisions. All presiding judges from the high people’s courts, intermediate people’s courts and basic-level courts having jurisdiction for intellectual property cases were at the workshop. More than 230 participants were at the meeting. Local experts from the State Council Legislative Affairs Office, the State Intellectual Property Office, and Renmin University of China, and foreign experts from the United States Federal Circuit were invited to give keynote addresses, during which the basic intellectual property regime as well as the most discussed and difficult issues were discussed extensively. In September, SPC held a training course on intellectual property adjudication practice at the National Judges College, where more than 2oo intellectual property judges from across the country were trained. Famous academics and experience SPC judges were invited to impart knowledge on the adjudication practice of patent, trademark, copyright and unfair competition disputes.
SPC has organised more than ten seminars, including “Seminar on the Foremost Intellectual Problems”, “Seminar on the Protection of Copyright on the Internet and Well-Known Marks”, “Forum on Intellectual Property Right of Pharmaceuticals”, “Seminar on the Protection of Intellectual Property Right in the Information Era” and “Seminar on Strengthening Protection of Well-Known Marks and Contain Illegal Trademark Squatting”. Other courts in different regions have also organised similar activities:
The Beijing High People’s Court held the “Fourth Seminar on Prime Intellectual Property Cases for Beijing Courts”; the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region High People’s Court enrolled all the region’s judges in the distant learning programme organised by the China Intellectual Property Training Centre; the Shandong courts were gearing towards the building of a learning-based party branch, where weekly discussions on hot and difficult issues encountered during adjudication of intellectual property cases were held; the Zhejiang High People’s Court has developed a training system for key adjudication personnel of intellectual property-related civil cases; the Sichuan Province courts have stepped up their training of new intellectual property judges by adopting a “one-to-one” mentoring system; the Hunan Province High People’s Court has held trainings on intellectual property adjudication, and have since trained more than 160 key adjudicators of intellectual property cases.


Conclusion
   2012 was a gainful year for the judiciary in terms of intellectual property adjudication. For 2013, the people’s courts will assess any changing circumstances and determine the new tasks ahead, and will work towards advancing their cause.
   2013 is the first year to implementing the principles as set forth at the National Congress of the Communist Party. It is also a critical year to build on the previous year’s achievements and to continue the good work in the year ahead. It is a year which offers unprecedented opportunities. The people’s courts will practise the principles of the 18th party congress and adhere to the key notions underlying the Deng Xiaoping Theory, the “Three Represents” and the Scientific Development Concept. Their goals are to build a safe country governed by the rule of law, and to “work towards ensuring that the people will experience equity and justice in every judicial case”. They work to enforce the law and adjudicate intellectual property-related disputes, initiate judicial reforms, supervise and guide, build capacity, and strengthen the fundamentals at the basic-level courts. Their ultimate aim is to serve the people, deliver justice, improve judicial credibility, and to power the building of a complete xiaokang society by providing the most effective judicial service.

版权声明:所有资料均为作者提供或网友推荐收集整理而来,仅供爱好者学习和研究使用,版权归原作者所有。
如本站内容有侵犯您的合法权益,请和我们取得联系,我们将立即改正或删除。
京ICP备14017250号-1