| In 2014,with the proposal of China’s dual-creation theory,an unprecedented wave of innovation was launched throughout the country.The slogan of mass entrepreneurship and innovation has been continuously transformed into practice in the enthusiasm of the public participation.Innovation results require legal protection,and innovative talents need legal escort.In the huge invisible thrust,all sectors of society have put forward higher demands on China’s intellectual property system.In order to solve the inadequacies of China’s intellectual property litigation system and implementing the strategy of innovation driven development,it is necessary for China to attach great importance to the judicial guarantee function of the intellectual property litigation system,provide a strong judicial guarantee for the strong power of intellectual property and a great power of science and technology in the world.Taiwan and China are of the same origin and the same family belongs to the continental law system,Taiwan’s intellectual property rights system relatively early development,its intellectual property litigation system has undergone long-term practical exploration and the theory has became matured.Taiwan’s intellectual property litigation system has also put forward some advanced theories in the world:the tri-trial mode,technology review officers,Keeping secret order,gives the court the power to judge the validity of intellectual property in cases,temporary rights protection and long-distance video trial methods and so on.The two sides of the Taiwan Strait can absorb it rationally on the basis of mutual reference,take their essence and go to the dregs.In accordance with the traditional method of writing thesis,this article is based on the logic of asking questions,analyzing problems,and solving problems.After looking at the differences in the intellectual property lawsuit systems across the Taiwan Strait,the paper selected several important aspects to compare the intellectual property litigation systems across the Strait.The full text is divided into 8 parts.The introductory part briefly summarizes the current achievements and shortcomings in China’s intellectual property.For example,by the end of 2017,China has set up a system of technical inquisitors,a total of 394 people’s courts have the right to hear cases of first instance intellectual property rights,and to implement "tri-trial mode" system around the whole country,etc.But there are still problems such as low litigation efficiency and difficulty in handling the ban before the appeal.The introduction also introduced the development of intellectual property rights in Taiwan.It also briefly and concisely compares several important and featured intellectual property rights systems in Taiwan and the mainland and the respective deficiency between each other.The establishment of special courts is the basis for the innovation of intellectual property lawsuit systems and the prerequisite for the study of other innovation theories.Therefore,the first chapter mainly introduces the development process of intellectual property litigation systems and the natural attributes of intellectual property rights,and the establishment of specialized courts in countries around the world.Practice and detailed introduction of the background of the establishment of the Taiwan intellectual property court and the mainland intellectual property court.The second chapter makes a detailed comparison of the trial modes of cross-strait intellectual property litigation cases,and details the pioneering "tri-trial mode" system in Taiwan and the jurisdictional disputes based on the current co-existence model of ordinary courts and intellectual property courts.The issue,the first instance and the second instance were filed with the court of intellectual property,discussed the contradiction between the present trial mode of the "dual-trial mode" trial in the intellectual property court of the mainland and the trial mode of the "tri-trial mode" system in the ordinary court.The third chapter explores the trial procedures of intellectual property lawsuits across the Taiwan Strait,including litigation procedures,trials that are not open,Keeping secretive orders,and special courts to determine the validity of patents.Taiwan’s legislation empowered intellectual property courts to adjudicate the validity of patents,and effectively solved the problem of malicious procrastination by litigants.The author analyzes the development history of patent validity defense in mainland China,and explores the feasibility of granting the court a patent right of jurisdiction in mainland China。The fourth chapter compares the systems of cross-strait technical inquisitors and discusses in detail the most prominent ones,such as the selection of technical inspectors,the activation procedures,the legal effects of technical investigation reports or opinions issued by them,and technical investigations.The offside problem that officials may have in practice,and attempts to find solutions and specific solutions to these problems.Chapter fifth compares and analyzes the litigation protection system across the Taiwan Strait,including the Pre-suit prohibition orders system and the evidence preservation system.The statutory prohibition system has a short history of development in China.The author analyzes its problems in judicial practice.And the fact that the evidence preservation system was abused by the parties tried to find a solution.Chapter sixth focuses on the analysis and comparison mentioned above,summarizes reflections and puts forward suggestions to improve the cross-strait intellectual property litigation system in China.It hopes to benefit China’s intellectual property protection system and contribute to the realization of a powerful country with knowledge and a big country with innovation.The last chapter is the conclusion.The last chapter is the conclusion. |
