In 2019, the amendment of laws relating to intellectual property has become frequent, with the soon to be issued bills including the fourth revision of the Patent Law, judicial interpretations for the trial of administrative cases involving the granting and confirmation of patent rights and new judicial interpretations for the Law Against Unfair Competition.  Those that have already been issued and implemented include judicial interpretations for act preservation in intellectual property disputes and the E-Commerce Law (which contains numerous provisions relating to intellectual property).

From the perspective of the laws and judicial interpretations mentioned above that have already been or are in the course of being revised, the trend in intellectual property protection in China can be summarized in the following four points: (1) increases in the statutory measure of damages; (2) easier securing of preliminary and interlocutory injunctions; (3) greater concurrence of the patent system with those extant internationally, particularly in the medical field; and (4) increasingly greater entanglement with the Internet, data  and competition.

The Supreme People’s Court’s Intellectual Property Tribunal officially began work also in 2019.  It is specifically tasked with trying appeals of technology and monopoly cases and, together with the 18 intellectual property tribunals that have been spread around China’s main economic development belts during the last few years, as well as the three Intellectual Property Courts in Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou, has essentially given rise to a dedicated court system for intellectual property adjudication in China.

In contrast with the organizational method for trying other traditional cases, under this new structure we can sense an enhancement in the quality of the adjudication of intellectual property cases and a uniformity of standards, and the emergence of a professional legal community.  Complemented by the above mentioned increase in the measure of damages and the legislative resources for the issuance of temporary injunctions, and seconded by technical investigation, judicial evaluation, evidence preservation, allocation and shifting of the burden of proof, and dovetailing with the preliminary ruling system, a number of cases worthy of attention and having influence beyond the jurisdiction of China have occurred recently.  With the strengthening of protection, the enthusiasm of parties seeking intellectual property remedies in China is continuing to increase.

Of course, the issue that cannot be overlooked is that, as the number of cases has exploded in such economically vibrant regions as Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou, the speed of judicial adjudication has slowed.  However, due to the existence of the Supreme People’s Court’s Intellectual Property Tribunal which is specifically responsible for appeals cases, it, on the one hand, definitely increases the centralization of adjudication power over intellectual property cases at the center, while, on the other hand, laying a solid foundation for uniform adjudication standards.  Accordingly, the practice of parties often opting for Beijing, Shanghai or Guangzhou as the seat for resolving disputes out of fear of strong local protectionism has begun to change, and a strategy seeking to establish case jurisdiction in the regions where the other 18 intellectual property tribunals are located has started to be considered by more parties and lawyers.

From practical experience and industry observation, the author is of the opinion that the medicine, chemical, telecommunication, Internet, data and entertainment industries will be the areas to draw the greatest attention for their intellectual property disputes for a relatively long time into the future, and will be the most active part of the legal services market.

That is because the changes in China’s socioeconomic structure and age structure are causing people to place greater emphasis on health and quality of life, and local pharmaceutical enterprises are also rapidly maturing and strengthening their strategies in the intellectual property field.  Furthermore, China’s gap with advanced countries in the 5G communication, Internet, big data, artificial intelligence and entertainment sectors is minimal and it is on pace to surpass them, but these sectors are swarming with deep-pocketed competitors which is bound to lead to a large number of foreign-related intellectual property disputes.

The relationship between intellectual property, on the one hand, and data and competition, on the other hand, is growing increasingly tighter, and the trend toward industrial integration of those involved is increasingly clear.  As mentioned above, the Internet, big data and artificial intelligence sectors are the trending sectors in the global economy, and from current US, European and Chinese judicial and law enforcement practice it can be seen that relevant intellectual property disputes are invariably intertwined with data protection, competition and anti-monopoly issues.  The multifaceted demands of intellectual property disputes place numerous demands on, and pose numerous challenges to, legal service providers, and traditional intellectual property practitioners will in future need to be more competitive, and will need to give greater consideration to specific industry integration, no longer providing their services along the lines of the division of law departments in academia.

中国知识产权保护的新变化

涉及知识产权的法律修订在2019年变得频繁起来，将要出台的法案有专利法的第四次修改、审理专利授权确权行政案件的司法解释、新反不正当竞争法的司法解释。已经出台施行的有关于知识产权纠纷行为保全的司法解释，以及电子商务法（其中有相当一部分条款涉及知识产权）。

从上述已经修订或正在修订的法律或司法解释来看，中国知识产权保护的趋势也可以被总结为如下四个方面：（1）法定赔偿数额的提升；（2）诉前、诉中禁令的更易取得；（3）专利制度更加地与国际接轨，医药领域尤其明显；（4）与互联网、数据竞争的关系日益紧密。

最高人民法院知识产权法庭也在2019年正式办公，其专门审理涉技术及垄断案件的上诉案件，加上在过去的几年间设立的遍布中国主要经济发展带的十八个知识产权法庭，以及北京、上海和广州的三个知识产权法院，中国已经基本形成了知识产权审判的专门法院体系。

与其他传统案件审理的组织方式不同，在此全新架构下，我们能感知到知识产权案件审理的质量提升、标准统一，及专业的法律共同体的形成。再与前述的赔偿数额提升、临时禁令颁发的立法资源相配套，辅以技术调查、司法鉴定、证据保全、举证责任分配与转移、先行裁判制度的衔接，近期出现了一批值得关注，并具有超出中国法域影响力的案件，当事人在中国寻求知识产权救济的热情随着保护效果的加强在持续提升。

当然不可忽视的问题是，北京、上海和广州等经济热点地区的司法审判速度随着案件量的井喷而有所减缓。但因专门负责上诉案件的最高人民法院知识产权法庭的存在，一方面其确实加强了中央对知识产权案件的审判集权，但同时也为统一审判标准奠定了基础。因此，此前出于对地方保护主义盛行的担心，当事人更多选择在北上广解决争议的方式开始发生变化，寻求在其他十八个知识产权法庭地区建立案件管辖的策略开始为更多的当事人和律师所考虑。

笔者通过实务经验结合行业观察，认为医药化工、通讯、互联网、数据及娱乐行业会是未来相当长一段时间内最引人关注的知识产权争议领域，也是法律服务市场最具活力的部分。

原因是中国社会经济结构和年龄结构的变化决定了人们更加重视健康与生命质量，本土的医药企业也正在迅速地成长并在知识产权领域加强布局。另外中国在5G通讯、互联网、大数据、人工智能与娱乐领域与先进国家的差距最小，且有超越之势，但在此领域重筹投入的竞争者云集，大量的涉外知识产权争议势不可免。

知识产权与数据、竞争的关系愈加密切，从业者的行业化融合趋势显现。如前所述，互联网、大数据与人工智能领域是全球经济的热点领域，从美国、欧洲及中国目前的司法和执法实践看，相关知识产权争议往往还与数据保护、竞争和反垄断问题交织在一起，知识产权争议的多面向需求对法律服务的提供者提出了更多的要求与挑战，传统的知识产权从业者要在未来更具竞争力，需要更多地考虑与具体行业的融合，而不再是按照学院派的部门法划分提供服务。