1、中国知识产权司法保护The IP Judicial Protection in China,夏君丽 Xia JunliBerkeley, Oct. 2012For the conference only, no further distribution,中国法院层级系统Hierarchy of Court System China,两审终审制度Two-Tier Appellate System,人民法院审理案件，实行两审终审制度。The case will end when it undergoes the trials of two level of courts and the decis
2、ion made by the second trial court will come into force. 当事人对已经发生法律效力的判决、裁定认为有错误，可以向上一级人民法院申请再审，但不停止判决裁定的执行。If a party considers that a legally effective judgment or order has some error, he may apply to a peoples court at the next higher level for retrial; however, the execution of the judgment or
3、order shall not be suspended.,知识产权审判庭IP Tribunals,最高人民法院、高级人民法院和中级人民法院普遍设立知识产权审判庭。The IP tribunals are generally set up in the Supreme Peoples court, high peoples courts and intermediate peoples courts.129个基层人民法院经最高人民法院批准，可以管辖商标、著作权、不正当竞争案件。3个试点基层法院可以审理实用新型和外观设计专利纠纷案件。With the approval of the Suprem
4、e Peoples Court, 129 primary peoples courts may have jurisdiction over trademark, copyright and unfair competition cases. 3 pilot primary courts may hear the dispute cases of utility models and design patents.共有从事知识产权审判的法官2000多名There are over 2,000 IP judges.,最高人民法院知识产权庭IP Tribunal of the Supreme Pe
5、oples Court,审理著作权、商标权、专利权、不正当竞争、技术合同、植物新品种、不正当竞争等第一审、第二审知识产权案件First and second instance of Intellectual Property cases for copyright, trademark right, patent right , unfair competition, technical contract, new variety of plant, etc.不服下级人民法院生效裁判的知识产权民事再审案件；IP civil retrial cases for refusing to accep
6、t the effective judgments of lower peoples courts;不服北京高级人民法院生效的商标、专利授权确权类知识产权行政再审案件IP administrative retrial cases for refusing to accept the trademark and patent authorization and right confirmation of the Beijing Higher Peoples Court.,司法解释 Judicial Interpretation,制定司法解释 Making Judicial Interpretat
7、ion is one of the methods for the SPC to fulfill its function of adjudication guidance.在中国最高人民法院的判例不具有先例地位，但可以作为下级法院裁判案件的指导和参考。 The SPCs judgments and rulings do not possess the status of precedents, yet they can serve as a guidance and reference for the courts at lower levels in case hearing.,司法解释
8、Judicial Interpretation,最高人民法院的司法解释不是立法，而是对审判过程中如何具体应用法律进行的解释，与法律具有同等效力，是法官办案的直接依据。法院将司法解释作为裁判依据的，应当在司法文书中援引。The SPCs judicial interpretations are not legislation but explanation on how to apply the laws in the trail proceedings. They are of the same effect as the laws and may act as a direct base f
9、or the judges in case handing and should be cited in the judicial documents.,司法解释 Judicial Interpretation,自2000年以来，根据入世和建设创新型国家的需要，制定了23件知识产权的司法解释。Since 2000, 23 Intellectual Property judicial interpretations have been made based on the requirements of entry into the WTO and construction of an innov
10、ation country.涉及案件管辖、保全、诉前临时禁令等程序性规定，也涉及专利、商标、著作权、不正当竞争、反垄断、技术合同、驰名商标保护的侵权判定等法律适用问题。These interpretations are related to the procedural regulations on case jurisdiction, preservation, pre-judgment interlocutory injunction, etc. and the application of law for judging the infringement of the protectio
11、n of patent, trademark, copyright, unfair competition, anti-trust, technical contract and well-known trademark.正在起草关于信息网络传播权的司法解释。The judicial interpretation on right communication through information network is being drafted.,司法解释稿的主要内容The Main Content of the Draft Judicial Interpretation,意见稿共22条，对
12、网络用户、网络服务提供者侵犯著作权行为，以及侵权认定情形做出规定。The draft of April 2012 provides how to determine the infringement and civil liability if the network users and NSPs infringe RCIN.基本原则：人民法院审理侵犯信息网络传播权民事纠纷案件，在行使裁量权时应当兼顾权利人、网络服务提供者和社会公众的利益平衡。The basic principle: In the course of trials of civil disputes related to in
13、fringements of RCIN, the Peoples Courts shall balance the interests among right owners, network service providers (“NSP”) and the public when exercising their discretion.,信息网络传播权及提供行为RCIN and Act of Providing,意见稿指出，网络用户、网络服务提供者未经许可，通过信息网络提供他人享有权利的作品、表演、录音录像制品，人民法院应当判令其承担侵犯信息网络传播权的民事责任。The Peoples Co
14、urts shall be responsible for making rulings and orders that network users and NSPs who provide works, performances, audio and video products of others though information networks without authorization must bear civil liability for infringements of RCIN.上传到网络服务器或者以其他方式，将作品、表演、录音录像制品置于向公众开放的信息网络中，使公众
15、可以以下载、浏览或者其他方式获得的，人民法院应当认定其构成作品、表演或者录音录像制品的提供行为。Where works, performances, and audio and video products of others that are placed on a publicly-accessible information network through uploading to network servers or in another manner become available to the public through downloading, browsing or oth
16、er means, the Peoples Courts shall determine that such acts constitute an act of providing works, performances, and audio-visual products.,提供行为的例外Exception to Act of Providing,原告能够举证证明网络服务提供者具有提供作品、表演、录音录像制品的外观，人民法院可以认定其实施了提供行为，但网络服务提供者能够证明其仅为被诉侵权的作品、表演、录音录像制品提供了自动接入、自动传输、信息存储空间、搜索、链接、点对点技术等服务的除外。Wh
17、ere a plaintiff can prove that an NSP appears to have provided a work, performance, or audio-visual product, the Peoples Courts may determine that the NSP has committed the act of “providing a work”, provided however that the NSP can prove that it merely provided services such as automatic access, a
18、utomatic transmission, information hosting, searching, linking, or point-to-point technology for the allegedly infringed work, performance, audio-visual product.,网页快照和缩略图的合理使用Fair Use to Web Pages and Thumbnail Images,网络服务提供者为提供搜索服务，按照一定的技术安排生成作品、表演、录音录像制品的网页快照、缩略图等并向公众提供的，人民法院应当认定其构成提供行为。Where an N
19、SP uses certain techniques to generate cached web pages or thumbnail images of works, performances, or audio-visual products for the purposes of providing searching service and makes them available to the public, the Peoples Courts shall determine such acts as “providing works”.前款规定行为未影响作品、表演、录音录像制品
20、的正常使用，亦未不合理损害权利人对作品、表演、录音录像制品的合法权益，网络服务提供者主张其构成合理使用的，人民法院应予支持。Where an act specified in the preceding paragraph neither affect the normal exploitation of the work, performance, or audio-visual product nor unreasonably prejudices the legitimate interests of right owners in their work, performances, o
21、r audio-visual products, if the NSP claims that the act constitutes fair use, the Peoples Courts shall support the claim.,共同侵权行为承担连带责任Joint Infringement and Joint and Several Liability,网络服务提供者主张其仅提供信息存储空间、搜索、链接、点对点技术等网络服务，但有证据证明其与侵权作品、表演、录音录像制品的提供者，通过分工合作等方式共同实施提供行为，符合共同侵权行为要件的，人民法院应当判令其承担连带责任。 Wher
22、e an NSP claims that it merely provided network services such as information hosting, search, linking, and point-to-point technologies, if there is evidence proving that the NSP, in the manner of division of labor, cooperation, etc., jointly commits the act of providing infringing works, performance
23、, audio-visual products with the providers of the same, and if the act meet the conditions for a finding of joint infringement, the Peoples Courts shall order the NSP to bear joint and several liability.,连带责任和帮助侵权,网络服务提供者提供信息存储空间、搜索、链接、点对点技术等网络服务时，教唆或者帮助网络用户实施侵犯他人信息网络传播权行为的，人民法院应当判令其承担连带责任。网络服务提供者明知
24、或者应知其网络用户侵害他人信息网络传播权，人民法院应当认定其构成帮助侵权行为。Where an NSP who provides internet services such as storage, hosting, search, linking and point-to-point technology, instigates or assists network users to commit an act of infringement against the RCIN, the Peoples Court shall hold the NSP jointly and severall
25、y liable. Where the NSP knows or should have known that its network users were infringing upon RCIN, the Peoples Court shall determine the NSPs act to constitute assistance of infringement.,Joint and Several Liability and Assistance of Infringement,过错的认定标准Determination of “Fault”,判断网络服务提供者是否具有过错，一般应
26、当以其是否明知或者应知网络用户侵犯他人信息网络传播权的具体事实为标准。网络用户侵犯信息网络传播权的具体事实明显，网络服务提供者仍为其提供服务或者不采取合理措施的，人民法院应当认定其构成应知。In determining whether or not an NSP has fault, the Peoples Courts shall generally make a determination based on the standard of whether or not the NSP knew or should have known of the concrete facts relat
27、ed of its network users infringement of anothers RCIN. Where the concrete facts proving the infringement by a network user of anothers RCIN are obvious, if the NSP continues to provide services or fails to adopt reasonable measures, the Peoples Court shall find that the NSP should have known i.e., c
28、onstructive knowledge exists.,明知应知的考虑因素Factors of Knowledge,认定网络服务提供者是否明知或者应知其提供服务的网络用户侵害他人信息网络传播权，可以根据案件的具体情况、网络服务提供者提供服务的性质、方式及其引发侵权的可能性大小，综合考虑以下因素：When determining whether an NSP knew or should have known that the network user served by an NSP has infringed another persons RCIN, the Peoples Court
29、 may refer to the specific circumstances of the cases, the nature and means of the services provided by the NSP and the likelihood of infringement, and take into account the following factors:,（一）网络服务提供者应当具备的管理信息的能力；the capabilities of information management of the NSP;（二）传播的作品、表演、录音录像制品的类型、知名度及侵权信息
30、的明显程度；the types and degree of fame of the disseminated works, performance or audio-video recording products, and the level of obviousness of the information (indicating the) infringement; （三）网络服务提供者因传播作品、表演、录音录像制品的直接获利情况；the situation with respect to the NSPs direct benefits derived from disseminati
31、on of works, performance, or audio and video recording products;（四）网络服务提供者是否主动对作品、表演、录音录像制品进行了选择、编辑、修改、推荐等；whether the NSP proactively takes actions, such as selection, editing, modification, recommendation, etc., of works, performances, or audio-video recording products; （五）网络服务提供者是否采取了同行业普遍采取的、预防侵
32、权的技术措施、对侵权通知是否做出合理的反应；whether the NSP adopts commonly-adopted industry practices and infringement prevention technological measures, and whether the NSP makes reasonable reactions to notifications of infringement（六）网络服务提供者是否针对同一作品的重复侵权行为采取了相应的合理措施；whether the NSP adopts reasonable measures to addres
33、s repeat infringements of the same work; （七）其他相关情形。other relevant circumstances.,不具有过错的考虑因素Factors for No Fault,网络服务提供者未对网络用户侵害他人信息网络传播权的行为进行主动审查的，人民法院一般不将其作为网络服务提供者具有过错的考量因素。 Where an NSP does not carry out a proactive review of act of infringements of RCINs by network users, as a general rule, the
34、 Peoples Court will not consider this as a factor in finding fault by the NSP.网络服务提供者主动采取相关技术措施，防止侵犯信息网络传播权行为发生的，人民法院可以根据案件具体情况，将其作为认定网络服务提供者不具有过错的考量因素。Where an NSP proactively adopts relevant technological measures to prevent the occurrence of infringements of RCINs, the Peoples Courts may, in acco
35、rdance with the actual circumstances, consider this as a factor when determining that the NSP does not have fault. 网络服务提供者采取合理、有效的技术措施，仍难以发现侵权行为的，人民法院一般不认定其明知或者应知网络用户侵害他人信息网络传播权Where an NSP has adopted reasonable and effective technological measures, but it is difficult to discover infringements, th
36、e Peoples Courts should generally not find that the NSP knew or should have known that its network users infringed the RCINs of others.,搜索引擎服务的应知“Should Have Known” of Search Engine,网络服务提供者仅通过搜索引擎根据网络用户指令自动提供搜索结果链接的，人民法院一般不认定其应知他人利用其网络服务侵害权利人信息网络传播权。Where an NSP merely provides automatic search resu
37、lts through a search engine based on commands made by network users, the Peoples Courts shall generally not determine that the NSPs should have known someone else used their network services to infringe the RCIN of a right holder. 网络服务提供者有下列情形之一的，人民法院一般可以认定其构成应知侵权：As a general rule, the Peoples Cour
38、t may find the NSP “should have known” of an infringement in any of the following circumstances:,（一）通过对热播影视作品、流行度较高的文字作品、音乐作品设置榜单、目录、索引并提供深层链接服务的；providing ranking lists, catalogues, indexing and providing deep linking services for current hot broadcast films or television programs, literary works o
39、r music works with relatively high degree of popularity;（二）通过描述性段落、内容简介等方式对链接作品、表演、录音录像制品等进行推荐的；recommending linked works, performances, recordings and video works and other works by means of descriptive paragraphs, introductory description of contents, etc.;（三）为主要从事侵权活动的第三方网站提供定向链接的；directing web l
40、inkage to a third party website which is mainly engaged in infringing activities;（四）可以认定应知的其他情形。 other circumstances.,信息存储空间提供者的应知“Should Have Known” of Information Hosting,有下列情形之一的，人民法院可以根据案件具体情况，认定信息存储空间的网络服务提供者应知网络用户提供的被诉作品、表演、录音录像制品侵权： Under the following circumstances, the Peoples Courts may fi
41、nd that an information hosting service provider should have known that the works, performance or audio-video recording products in dispute provided by a network user are infringing:,（一）将标有明确的权利人、著作权保护权限等信息的内容完整的热播影视作品等，置于首页、其他主要页面等能够为网络服务提供者明显感知位置的；placing complete copies of hot current films or bro
42、adcasting television programs, etc., which are identified with clear information, such as the (the name of the) right owners, limitations on copyright authorization, etc., at an obviously perceptible place by the NSP, such as the homepage and other main pages of websites.（二）对本条第（一）项热播影视作品的主题、内容主动进行选
43、择、编辑、整理、推荐，或者为其设立专门的排行榜的；proactively conducting selection, editing, organizing and recommendation of the theme or content of the hot showing/airing films or television programs as referred to item (1) hereof, or providing special ranking lists thereof;（三）其他可以明显感知相关作品、表演、录音录像制品侵权性质，仍未采取合理措施的情形any oth
44、er circumstances where the NSP can obviously perceive the nature of the infringement of the relevant works but fails to take reasonable measures.,信息存储空间的无过错认定Determination of “No Fault” of Information Hosting,提供信息存储空间服务的网络服务提供者对网络用户提供的作品、表演、录音录像制品的下列改变情形，人民法院一般不认定其具有过错：Under following circumstances,
45、 the Peoples Courts may generally find that an NSP of a web hosting service does not have fault for the changes made to works, performances or audio-video recording products provided by its network users:（一）仅改变作品、表演、录音录像制品的存储格式；merely making changes to the storage formats of the works, performance o
46、r audio and video recording products; （二）对作品、表演、录音录像加注数字水印等网站标识；adding website identification information, etc., such as digital watermarks to works, performances, audio-video recording products; （三）其他不足以认定构成过错的改变行为。any other changes by NSPs that are insufficient to be determined as constituting “fa
47、ult”.,直接经济利益与过错的认定Direct Ecnomic Interest and Determination of Fault,提供信息存储空间服务的网络服务提供者从其网络用户提供的作品、表演、录音录像制品中直接获得经济利益的，人民法院可以推定其对该网络用户侵害信息网络传播权的行为具有过错。 Where an information hosting service provider obtains direct financial benefits from the works, performance or audio-video recording products provid
48、ed by its network users, the Peoples Courts may assume that the NSP has fault for the act of infringement of RCINs conducted by its network users.,提供信息存储空间服务的网络服务提供者按照时间、流量等向其服务对象收取标准费用的，不属于前款规定的直接获得经济利益的情形。Where the NSP of a web hosting service charges standard fees to its customers based on data v
49、olume or duration, its revenue shall not be deemed as “directly obtaining financial benefits” as provided in the preceding paragraph. 网络服务提供者因提供信息存储空间服务而收取的广告费，一般不认定为直接获取的经济利益。网络服务提供者针对特定作品、表演、录音录像制品投放广告所获取的收益，或者有其他证据证明与提供作品、表演、录音录像制品存在特定联系的获利，可以根据案件具体情况认定为直接获得的经济利益。Where an information hosting serv
50、ice provider charges advertising fees for its hosting services, as a general rule, the Peoples Court should not find that collecting the advertisement fee constitutes “direct financial benefits”. Where the NSP derives benefits from advertisement targeting at specific works, performance or audio and
51、video recording products, or there is other evidence showing specific connection between benefits and the making available of specific works, performance or audio and video recording products, the Peoples Courts may, based on the specific circumstances of the case, determine that the NSP obtained direct financial benefits.,
