Intellectual Property Court Research Articles

What mode is conducive to an effective regional IP regime? Evidence from intellectual property courts in China

Amid a patent boom and increase in patent infringement cases, China is a fast-growing catch-up country in the intellectual property (IP) regime, with arguments on effectiveness and standardization. In 2014, China installed three intellectual property courts (IPCs) in Beijing, Shanghai, and Guangzhou. This reform represents a crucial step in a series of reforms and actions that seek to establish a uniform and standardized judicial IP regime in China. Based on interviews, statistical reports, and an analysis of judicial documents, this study argues that the interpretation and execution of IP law vary across the three locations due to the embeddedness of those courts and their judges in the regions. Indications that the regional setting and presence of international firms affect the efficient proceedings of IP tribunals and courts were found as a result. Given that IP law is the same all over a country, it can be concluded that courts balance national regulation and regional realities.

Intellectual property protection and total factor productivity of enterprises: A quasi-natural experiment of intellectual property courts

This study reveals that the establishment of intellectual property courts can significantly improve the TFP of enterprises. After a series of robustness tests, the conclusion is still valid. Mechanistic research finds that the establishment of intellectual property courts can promote TFP of enterprises by strengthening regional law enforcement, improving the quality of enterprise innovation, and enhancing the regional business environment. Intellectual property rights protection has heterogeneous effects on different ownership types, enterprise sizes, and product competitive position. Intellectual property protection is highly important for improving the total factor productivity of enterprises and achieving high-quality economic development.

Promoting corporate independent innovation through judicial protection of intellectual property rights

This study examines the impact of judicial protection of intellectual property rights on firms' independent innovation. Using a staggered difference-in-differences model with panel data from Chinese manufacturing listed businesses (2014–2021) and the successive establishment of intellectual property courts in Chinese prefectural-level cities as a quasi-natural experiment, we find that establishing intellectual property courts in China encourages businesses to accumulate more technology-based intangible assets. Mechanism analysis suggests that judicial intellectual property protection enhances enterprises' independent innovation capacity by establishing a conducive institutional framework. This stimulating effect is particularly significant for industry-leading companies with technological supremacy. Heterogeneity analysis reveals that judicial intellectual property protection increases the generation of patents and trade secrets, with a more pronounced effect on firms receiving higher government research and development subsidies and better tax incentives. This study offers valuable insights for policymakers to encourage corporate independent innovation.

FEATURES OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION IN POLAND

In today's interconnected global economy, the protection of intellectual property (IP) is crucial for fostering innovation and securing the economic interests of creators and inventors. As Poland continues to develop within Europe's dynamic market, understanding its IP protection mechanisms is essential for both domestic and international stakeholders. This article aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of the multifaceted features of intellectual property protection in Poland, assessing its legal underpinnings, recent reforms, and broader economic and cultural impacts. Employing a diverse research methodology, this study combines a detailed literature review, documentary analysis, and comparative studies. The literature review examines existing Polish IP laws, scholarly articles, and international treaties, while the documentary analysis includes reports from Polish governmental agencies and reviews of judicial decisions shaping IP enforcement in Poland. The research highlights Poland’s robust legal framework aligned with EU standards, yet points to challenges in enforcement, particularly regarding digital piracy and judicial inefficiencies. Solutions such as specialized IP courts and enhanced online IP enforcement mechanisms are discussed. The role of various governmental and non-governmental bodies in raising public awareness and facilitating IP education is also emphasized as crucial for improving the overall IP protection landscape. The article suggests that while Poland has established a solid foundation for IP protection, continuous adaptation and improvement are necessary to address emerging challenges effectively. To improve the legal frameworks, invest in technology-driven enforcement tools, and foster a culture of respect for intellectual property among the public. These measures will protect creators' rights and strengthen Poland's reputation as a hub for innovation and creativity within the European Union.

The future perspectives of the European Unified Patent Court in the light of the existing intellectual property courts in the United States and Japan

AbstractThe entering into force of Europe's Unified Patent Court (UPC) on 1 June 2023 shifts the question on whether and how a specialised and unified court should be designed to the question on how the already conceived court shall function to meet the set institutional and substantive goals for the European patent adjudication. Despite the contextual legal and economic differences, the examples of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) and the Tokyo Intellectual Property High Court (IPHC) can serve as guidance for the new European court, especially in its early days of operation. This article, outlining both the differences and similarities in the origins of the three courts, articulates upon the challenges as well as the achievements of the United States and Japanese examples to shed light on the future perspectives of the UPC and wherever relevant, provide policy‐oriented and practical recommendations for those in charge of shaping the UPC's jurisprudence. To this end, it is submitted that particular attention should be paid to ensuring the wide range of competences of the UPC judges; the interinstitutional dialogue between the UPC and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) as well as the dialogue among the UPC judges, including the encouragement of dissenting opinions; consultation of public, if possible in the form of amicus curiae briefs; and international cooperation with existing specialised IP courts worldwide. Based on evidenced foreign practices, these mechanisms are argued to serve the objectives of avoiding ‘overspecialisation’, achieving uniformity while maintaining accuracy, securing the new court's legitimacy and, finally, fostering global judicial harmonisation.

Intellectual property judicial protection, innovation factor input, and corporate innovation: Evidence from the establishment of intellectual property courts in China

AbstractBased on the establishment of China's intellectual property (IP) courts, this article examines the impact of intellectual property judicial protection (IPJP) on corporate innovation using the sample of China's A‐shared listed firms from 2013 to 2021 by the time‐varying difference‐in‐differences (DID) model. The result shows that IP courts have a significant positive effect on corporate innovation, mainly by increasing innovation factor input, including expenditure of R&D funds and R&D personnel quantity. Additionally, the effect is stronger for invention patents and in non‐state‐owned firms, small firms, high‐tech firms, and firms with low financing constraints.

Key Issues in the Intellectual Property Court’s Presidium Rulings

The comment reviews key positions in the rulings of the Presidium of the Russian Intellectual Property Court (IPC) issued between July and September of 2023. The Chamber hears cassation appeals against the decisions of the IPC first instance and deals primarily, but not only, with matters of registration and validity of industrial property rights. Therefore, the review predominantly covers substantive requirements for patent and trademark protection, as well as procedural issues both in the administrative adjudicating mechanism at the Patent office (Rospatent) and at the IPC itself. The current review encompasses a variety of topics related to trademark law, patent law and various procedural matters.

The impact of intellectual property rights protection on green innovation: A quasi-natural experiment based on the pilot policy of the Chinese intellectual property court.

In the context of high-quality economic development in China, it is important to promote green innovation development by protecting intellectual property rights (IPR). Taking the pilot policy of the intellectual property courts in Beijing, Shanghai, and Guangzhou for example in a quasi-natural experiment, this article examines the effect of IPR protection on the development of corporate green innovation and its mechanisms by using a difference-in-differences model and a mediating effect model based on Chinese enterprise data from 2011 to 2019. The study found that first, IPR protection promotes enterprise green technological innovation; second, IPR protection affects green innovation through enterprise financing constraints and R&D investment; that is, increasing enterprise R&D investment and alleviating enterprise financing constraints are two important channels through which IPR protection promotes enterprise green technological innovation.

Key Issues in the Intellectual Property Court Presidium Rulings

The comment reviews key positions in the rulings of the Presidium of the Russian Intellectual Property Court (IPC) issued between July and September 2022. The Chamber hears cassation appeals against the decisions of the IPC first instance and deals primarily, but not only, with matters of registration and validity of industrial property rights. Therefore, the review predominantly covers substantive requirements for patent and trademark protection, as well as procedural issues both in the administrative adjudicating mechanism at the Patent office (Rospatent) and at the IPC itself. The current review encompasses a variety of topics related to trademark Law, patent law and various procedural matters.

The impact of judicial protection of intellectual property on digital innovation: Evidence from China

Using the patent data of Chinese A-share listed companies from 2009 to 2020 and the pilot of China's intellectual property (IP) courts in late 2014, we apply a triple difference (DDD) method to estimate the effect of judicial protection of IP on corporate digital innovation. Our findings suggest that enhanced judicial protection of IP has a positive impact on corporate digital innovation, and that it contributes more to underlying digital technology innovation. Moreover, small firms are more likely to be affected by judicial protection of IP in their digital innovation activities than large firms.

Key Issues in the Intellectual Property Court Presidium Rulings

This comment reviews key positions in the rulings of the Presidium of the Russian Intellectual Property Court (IPC) issued between March and July 2022. This Chamber hears cassation appeals against the decisions of the IPC first instance and deals primarily, but not only, with matters of registration and validity of industrial property rights. Therefore, this review predominantly covers substantive requirements for patent and trademark protection, as well as procedural issues both in the administrative adjudicating mechanism at the Patent office (Rospatent) and at the IPC itself. The current review encompasses a variety of topics related to trademark law, such as acquired distinctiveness, revocation for lack of use, unprotected elements; the protection of utility models; various procedural matters.

The Jurisdiction of Administrative Courts and Common Courts in the Industrial Property Cases from a Historical Perspective

The origins of the administrative court system go back to the period of building of the system of government in the Second Republic after Poland’s partitions and are associated with the establishment of the Supreme Administrative Tribunal (SAT) in 1922. Significant changes were made to the administrative court system by the Polish Constitution of April 2, 1997, which, in Article 175(1), stipulates that administrative courts – in addition to common courts and military courts – administer justice. Administrative courts are therefore a separate part of the judiciary based on a two-instance adjudication system. In this paper, the author presents the origins of the administrative court system, including the Supreme Administrative Tribunal, the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC). The author indicates the models of the administrative court system, its essence, and the role it plays in the justice system. Then she analyzes the jurisdiction of administrative courts in industrial property cases from a historical perspective An interesting issue in this context is the existing dualism of the consideration of industrial property cases by administrative courts and by common courts. An important change that came into effect on July 1, 2020 pursuant to the Act of February 13, 2020 on amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) was the introduction of separate proceedings in the intellectual property cases and the establishment of the so-called IP courts (intellectual property courts), and the impact of these changes on the development of relations in terms of the jurisdiction of administrative courts and common courts.

Trademark Rights of Fictional Characters and Use as a Trademark: Comment on Two Judgements of the Intellectual Property Court

Trademark Rights of Fictional Characters and Use as a Trademark: Comment on Two Judgements of the Intellectual Property Court

Property rights and access to equity capital in China

This study uses recent improvements to China's physical and intellectual property protections to test information asymmetry, signaling, and litigation risk theories of initial public offering (IPO) underpricing. We find robust evidence that stronger physical and intellectual property protections are associated with lower initial returns, especially among smaller IPOs and non-equity carve-outs. This result is consistent with the notion that property rights reduce information asymmetry among IPO participants; however, some of China's reforms, including the 2014 establishment of specialized intellectual property courts in Beijing, Shanghai, and Guangzhou, appear to have increased litigation risk. Additional tests indicate that property rights positively impact the likelihood that an IPO firm is backed by venture capital. Overall, these results are consistent with the idea that strong property rights help alleviate the adverse selection problem that results from information asymmetry among firms and equity investors.

Key Issues in the Intellectual Property Court’s Presidium Rulings

The comment reviews key positions in the rulings of the Presidium of the Russian Intellectual Property Court (IPC) issued between January and March 2022. This Chamber hears cassation appeals against the decisions of the IPC first instance and deals primarily, but not only, with matters of registration and validity of industrial property rights. Therefore, this review predominantly covers substantive requirements for patent and trademark protection, as well as procedural issues both in the administrativeadjudicating mechanism at the Patent office (Rospatent) and at the IPC itself. The current review encompasses a variety of topics related to trademark law, such as the assessment of the risk of confusion, invalidity grounds based on a prior well-known trademark or on an appellation of origin, the application of art. 6.septies of the Paris Convention, early termination of the legal protection of a trademark, unfair competition. This review also highlights several procedural points, such as the suspensionof administrative proceeding in parallel trademark litigation and the limits of a third party’s intervention in patent invalidity proceedings. Regarding patents, the review deals with prior art, encompassing unpublished patent applications, and the rules for determining claims’ features.

The high court for intellectual property as an element of the judicial system in Ukraine. CONTRA SENTENTIAM

Keywords: intellectual property law, Higher IP Court, judicial system, legal position,fact in issue
 Based on the analysis of the provisions of the Law of Ukraine «On Judicial System and Status of Judges», provisionsof procedural codes, as well as international practices, the author expresses doubts about the expediency of existence in the judicial system of Ukraine of a Higher Intellectual Property Court as a separate judicial institution. The identified proceduraland organizational flaws point to the untenability of the position that introducing such a specialized court into the judicial system would increase the effectiveness of intellectual property protection in Ukraine.There is every reason to assert that the Ukrainian state policy in the matter of the specialized court for this field tends towards ending up with something like a patent court. However, considering the qualification of the candidates for the domestic IPcourt and the first results of the competition, most likely Ukraine is going to end up with a High Court for Intellectual Property Matters composed of regular judges.In view of that, the decision to establish a specialized court for intellectual property matters as a separate element of the judicial system appears to be quite questionable, as it defeats the purpose of its creation. And this means, at the very least, budget wasted on the maintenance of an entire judicial institution.It is also absolutely unclear how the judges of the specialized court will be able to improve the quality of justice in the field of intellectual property law, as they will be effectively unable to bring law enforcement to a new level due to being burdened bythe already existing legal positions of the Supreme Court.The purpose of the article is to demonstrate the importance of the problems that are to be expected as a result of functioning of the Higher IP Court, and to propose an alternative way of ensuring the effectiveness of the protection of exclusive rights.

Problems of patenting inventions created using artificial intelligence: doctrine and practice

Keywords: intellectual property, artificial intelligence, inventor, software, examination,patent, digital transformation
 The dynamics of development of the worldmarket of artificial intelligence (AI), patent activity in this field, problematic issuesarising in connection with the patenting of inventions created using AI are studied.Aspects of doctrine formation and policy development in the field of intellectual property(IP) and AI are considered. Features of examination of patentability of inventionscreated with the use of AI in different jurisdictions (EPO, USA, Germany, China), foreignlegislation, doctrinal positions and case law in this field are analysed. Accordingto the analysis of the Artificial Inventor project, DABUS applications indicating theAI system as the inventor, submitted in 17 jurisdictions, were mostly rejected at thelevel of intellectual property offices and as a result of court appeals. In general, theapplicant failed to persuade the IP courts and agencies with his arguments, despitedifferences in national law and patent systems.
 The main provisions of the draft law «On Amendments to the Law of Ukraine» OnProtection of Rights to Inventions and Utility Models «on the regulation of relationsarising in relation to inventions and utility models created using artificial intelligence» are considered. It is concluded that the Law on the Protection of Rights to Inventionsand Utility Models excludes computer programs from patented objects. Theirminority is stated in the total number of filed applications and issued patents. Between1980 and 2018, only 740 such applications were published (1.26% of the total).The rules for compiling, submitting and reviewing an application for an invention(utility model) in Ukraine are outdated and do not reflect aspects of AI. Only a comprehensiveapproach (changes in legislation and improvement of expertise) will solvethis problem.

Intellectual Property Court and Firm Innovation in China

Intellectual Property Court and Firm Innovation in China

Key Issues in the Intellectual Property Court’s Presidium Rulings

The comment reviews key positions in the rulings of the Presidium of the Russian Intellectual Property Court (IPC) issued in December 2021 and January 2022. This Chamber hears cassation appeals against the decisions of the IPC first instance and deals primarily, but not only, with matters of registration and validity of industrial property rights. Therefore, this review predominantly covers substantive requirements for patent and trademark protection, as well as procedural issues both in the administrative adjudicating mechanism at the Patent office (Rospatent) and at the IPC itself.The current review encompasses a variety of topics related to trademark law: signs that are contrary to the public interest, signs conflicting with an earlier trademark or an appellation of origin, signs using a geographical name, deceptive signs, the comparison of signs, trademark revocation for lack of use, unfair competition, procedural challenges, etc. The review further considers one patent case, in which the IPC Presidium resolved the issue of establishing priority date for a divisional application for a utility model derived from an application initially filed for an invention.

Problems of patenting inventions created using artificial intelligence: doctrine and practice (р. 1)

Keywords: intellectual property, artificial intelligence, inventor, software, examination,patent, digital transformation
 The dynamics of development of theworld market of artificial intelligence (AI), patent activity in this field, problematic issuesarising in connection with the patenting of inventions created using AI are studied.Aspects of doctrine formation and policy development in the field of intellectualproperty (IP) and AI are considered. Features of examination of patentability of inventionscreated with the use of AI in different jurisdictions (EPO, USA, Germany,China), foreign legislation, doctrinal positions and case law in this field are analyzed.According to the analysis of the Artificial Inventor project, DABUS applications indicatingthe AI system as the inventor, submitted in 17 jurisdictions, were mostly rejectedat the level of IP offices and as a result of court appeals. In general, the applicantfailed to persuade the IP courts and agencies with his arguments, despite differencesin national law and patent systems. The main provisions of the draft law «OnAmendments to the Law of Ukraine «On Protection of Rights to Inventions and UtilityModels» on the regulation of relations arising in relation to inventions and utilitymodels created using artificial intelligence» are considered. It is concluded that theLaw on the Protection of Rights to Inventions and Utility Models excludes computerprograms from patented objects. Their minority is stated in the total number of filedapplications and issued patents. Between 1980 and 2018, only 740 such applicationswere published (1.26% of the total). The rules for compiling, submitting and reviewingan application for an invention (utility model) in Ukraine are outdated and do not reflectaspects of AI. Only a comprehensive approach (changes in legislation and improvementof expertise) will solve this problem.