Research On The Forum Shopping In Patent Infringement Litigation

The explosive development of the Internet has posed great challenges to traditional regional jurisdiction rules.The existing regional jurisdiction rules for patent infringement lawsuits do not specify in the relevant laws and regulations whether the infringement place includes jurisdictional connection points such as "place of online purchase receipt" and "place of residence of the infringed person".Therefore,there are considerable differences in practice among different courts over whether the “place of online purchase receipt” and the “place of infringed person” can be used as the jurisdictional connection point for patent infringement cases.The loopholes in jurisdictional rules and disputes in judicial practice have virtually created a huge space for the parties to "forum shopping." Although " forum shopping" has been studied more by scholars in extraterritorial civil litigation,it has always existed in civil litigation in China.In recent years,the rapid development of the patent industry,the increasing number of patent applications and grants,and the increasing number of infringement disputes have caused this problem to become more apparent in patent infringement litigation.In the patent infringement litigation involving the Internet," forum shopping" has gradually become the customary litigation strategy for patentees when suing.Patentees often use the controversial jurisdictional connection points above to select courts,which usually follow a fixed behavior model: purchase the alleged infringing product from the infringer through the Internet,and use the place of residence or any designated place as the place of receipt Sign the infringing product,and the place of receipt is usually located in the jurisdiction of the chosen court.Therefore,many courts that tend to determine that the infringing place includes jurisdictional connection points such as "place of purchase of online purchases" have become the target courts selected by patentees.The reason for the "forum shopping" is that because the cases are tried by different courts,the cost of litigation may be different,and the outcome of the litigation may also be different.Therefore,as a "reasonable economic man" in a lawsuit,a patentee usually chooses one of the courts that is most advantageous from several courts with jurisdiction to meet the needs of maximizing the benefits of litigation.In view of the trial of domestic cases by various regional courts in China,the application of procedural law and substantive law is relatively consistent,and there is no "forum shopping" in the United States due to differences in the application of laws between states.Therefore,the parties in domestic patent infringement lawsuits choose courts based more on reducing litigation costs,circumventing possible local judicial protection,and creating "litigation troubles" for the other party.At the same time,the technical complexity of patent cases and the difficulty of trials have caused a certain gap in the jurisdiction of courts with jurisdiction over patent disputes in different regions.It is difficult to determine the amount of compensation for patent cases and the standards of regional courts are not consistent."Different judgments" happen from time to time.It is also reasonable for patentees to adopt a "forum shopping" strategy in order to seek a more professional court for patent cases,obtain more compensation,and maximize their litigation benefits.In addition,due to the convenience of prosecution in the place where the goods were purchased online and where they lived,this litigation strategy was gradually abused by the patentees,resulting in an extremely uneven distribution of cases in different regional courts,and the pressure for trials in some court cases was extremely serious Affects the efficiency of litigation and the quality of case trials.At the same time,this "intentional selection" makes a court that had no jurisdiction in accordance with the general jurisdiction principle become the responding court,which will also greatly damage the convergence and stability of the jurisdiction of the patent infringement litigation.In order to better study and solve this problem,this article uses comparative research method and empirical research method to explore the loopholes in jurisdictional rules,differences in judicial practice,subjective motivations of parties,the rationality,legitimacy and disadvantages of "forum shopping",and the status of regulation and existing flaws.Through analysis,the author concludes that loopholes in regional jurisdiction rules and differences in the level of trials of patent cases are the fundamental incentives for the proliferation of "forum shopping".The reasoning behind the inducement lies in the absence of law on this issue,which makes patentees “opportunity to choose” when choosing a court.The difference in the trial level of patent cases has prompted many patentees to have a stronger willingness to choose a court.Therefore,only by making up for the shortcomings of the regional jurisdiction rules and improving the trial level of the jurisdiction courts of patent cases can we effectively respond.Regarding the regulatory countermeasures for this issue,this article puts forward four suggestions.First,the Supreme Law clarifies the understanding and application of the relevant provisions of the jurisdiction of patent litigation.Second,improve the prelitigation review mechanism based on jurisdiction.Third,re-examine the tolerance of the defendant’s jurisdictional objection.Fourth,establish and improve the "technical judge" and "technical investigator" systems.These countermeasures can become an important reference for China’s judicial reform practice and the only way to rectify the source of the "choice court" problem.The research in this article will effectively fill the gaps in this field.