The 20-year report of the party maintains the centrality of innovation in the overall modernization of the country, emphasizing the strengthening of the rule of law guarantees for intellectual property. Strengthening of the office of the high commissioner for human rightsIntellectual property protectionIn an important spirit of direction, better service and innovative state-building, the supreme inspection established the office of the inspector of intellectual property in november 2020, which integrates criminal, civil and administrative prosecutorial functions, promotes joint prosecutorial oversight of cases and strengthens comprehensive judicial protection of intellectual property. At the same time, it was decided that the nine provincial (municipal) prosecutors ' offices in beijing and beijing would undertake a centralized pilot exercise of the inspection of intellectual property. On the basis of the review of the pilot, the supreme inspectorate held a pilot promotion meeting in september 2021 to focus on the centralization of the intellectual property inspection function. In response to the request for its deployment, the henan provincial prosecutor's office established the office of the public prosecutor of intellectual property in december 2021, and decided to conduct a pilot exercise in 10 public prosecutors ' offices, namely the office of the public prosecutor of the opening city and the office of the public prosecutor of the city of sinyang。
The criminal jurisdiction of intellectual property is well developed. Since 2012, henan province has been piloting the third instance of intellectual property, with the intermediate people's court of zhengzhou and loyang covering criminal, civil and administrative cases of intellectual property throughout the province. In contrast, the prosecution of criminal cases of intellectual property throughout the province is handled by the public prosecutor's office of zhengzhou and the public prosecutor's office of loyang. In recent years, especially following the reform of the internal structure of the public prosecution service in 2018, the number of cases involving intellectual property in the public prosecution service of the province has increased by 20 per cent annually. The increase in the caseload has led to an unsatisfactory implementation of cross-regional centralized jurisdictions, a low level of motivation for cross-regional transfers by investigative authorities, high cost and efficiency issues, and a negative impact on comprehensive judicial protection of intellectual property rights。
Upgrading intellectual property to further adapt to casework needsCase qualityIn accordance with the spirit of the relevant documents, the provincial public prosecutions act has three times adapted the optimal jurisdiction of criminal cases relating to intellectual property, in line with the civil and administrative aspects of intellectual property, and has a relatively centralized territorial jurisdiction, i. E. The territorial and municipal jurisdictions have centralized jurisdiction over criminal, civil and administrative matters relating to intellectual property in the first instance, with one or two primary courts and the corresponding prosecutor's office assigned, respectively, to ensure that the “triple” mechanism for intellectual property proceedings is fully consistent with the central functions of the intellectual property prosecution。
Increased integration of intellectual property rights inspection. The restructuring of the jurisdiction of intellectual property cases, which addresses the mismatch between the jurisdiction of criminal and administrative cases and the level of adjudication of intellectual property cases in judicial cases, is the basis for central and unified intellectual property prosecutions and provides a solid basis for a centralized approach to the new stage of development of the criminal, civil, administrative and public interest proceedings. To date, 15 municipal prosecutors ' offices and 15 decentralized grass-roots prosecutors ' offices in henan province have established the office of the inspector of intellectual property, which has largely achieved full coverage of cases. At the same time, pilot projects have been carried out in various regions, with a view to strengthening the protection of intellectual property rights. In the case of the pilot, centralization is still at an early stage of development, with insufficient substantive integration, inadequate integration into the broader protection landscape and insufficient experience in the casework, and a large gap between the “four-in-one” integration objectives required by the highest scrutiny. As a next step, the integration of intellectual property rights should be strengthened by:。
Strengthening the substantive integration of intellectual property inspections. First, efforts should be made to achieve substantive institutional integration. Despite the establishment of the office of the inspector of intellectual property rights in the pilot unit, the staff is still decentralized, resulting in a lack of continuity in the handling of cases involving both civilian and cross-cutting executions, and centralization of staff is a first step towards substantive integration. Secondly, the integration of case management concepts should be achieved. In practice, there is a low level of awareness of integration, a low focus in many pilot districts, a focus on criminal prosecution, neglect of other oversight operations and a low level of effectiveness. In carrying out their functions, a comprehensive focus should be established on the different characteristics of the case. In dealing with criminal cases, emphasis is placed on examining whether the executive authorities have failed to exercise due diligence in the commission of offences, or on examining whether violations have been committed against the public interest, and on developing the concept of a combination of criminal, civil and administrative means for resolving intellectual property cases, with a view to achieving substantive integration. Thirdly, substantive integration of the intellectual property inspection function. In the light of the current caseload, although some leads have also been found in civil, administrative and public service cases, the vast majority of criminal cases are still being handled, and the concept of integration needs to be further enhanced, based on the integration of institutional personnel, and the substantive integration of functions through the exploration of the application of criminal incidental civil or administrative civil proceedings, with a view to maximizing the effectiveness of the judicial protection of intellectual property rights in the prosecution service by maximizing the effects of the integration of intellectual property rights。
Actively integrated into the broader protection landscape of intellectual property. The combination of intellectual property inspections requires not only a smooth interface between the internal criminal, civil, administrative and public interest prosecution services of the prosecution services, but also between criminal justice and administrative law enforcement. Although mechanisms are in place, implementation in practice is not optimal. The first is the efficient implementation of mechanisms for the coordinated protection of intellectual property rights established with administrative law enforcement authorities, the opening of channels of communication with administrative law enforcement authorities, the facilitation of the normal functioning of collaborative mechanisms, such as case cooperation, two-way transfer of leads and information-sharing, and ensuring the effectiveness and efficiency of intellectual property inspections. Second, the ad hoc assistant prosecutor's support mechanism should be fully utilized. Cases should be handled pragmatically and efficiently with specialized expertise, such as specially invited assistant prosecutors, who can contribute to the high quality of cases through different forms of support, such as attendance at joint prosecutors ' meetings, attendance at hearings and participation in ad hoc cases. Third, there is a need to harmonize standards for judicial casework. (c) to ensure that criminal offences and violations of the law are accurately defined in cases, to strengthen research on theoretical issues relating to the boundaries of intellectual property offences and civil torts, to properly address the relationship between combating intellectual property offences and protecting property rights in accordance with the law, and to promote sustainable and healthy economic development。
Increased professional capacity for integration and efficiency gains. The comprehensive performance of the ipr requires not only the relevant expertise, but also the continuity of the skills required to integrate and understand the application of different legal provisions. However, the experience of case handlers is still insufficient in relation to the need to integrate the prosecution of intellectual property. Special training in the integration of intellectual property should be targeted. At present, there are fewer operational and operational trainings on integration to meet the short-term need for upgrading the level of competence of ipr inspectors. The second is to create specialized case teams. The selection of personnel with a complex intellectual background, especially those with experience in criminal, civil, administrative and public interest proceedings relating to intellectual property, creates specialized intellectual property case teams that can be used throughout the province. Thirdly, there is a need to strengthen the normativeization of cases. (b) strengthening internal regulatory safeguards, actively learning from casework and exploring the development of procedures for the management of intellectual property cases, guidelines for handling cases, standards of proof, guidelines for regularizing sentences, etc., in order to regularize the performance of duties and functions。
In addition, the public prosecution service of henan province has adapted its approach to intellectual property inspection and protection, implemented the provincial council's opinions on accelerating the construction of the state highland for innovation in the development of first class innovative ecology, strengthened the protection of intellectual property rights in priority functional areas such as the henan free trade experiment district, zhengzhou, the open and loyang zone, conducted a four-case review of intellectual property cases, conducted parallel reviews of administrative violations, criminal prosecutions, civil prosecutions and public interest litigation, broke down barriers to criminal prosecution, civil prosecution, administrative prosecution and prosecution of public goods litigation, integrated the concept of casework, carried out a prosecutorial function to provide specialized, rigid and comprehensive judicial protection of intellectual property rights, and worked to develop an integrated model of intellectual property prosecution with a henan character。
(by the people's procuratorate of henan province)
