|
|
|
| Doubts on the Establishment of Mandatory Mediation for Technological Intellectual Property Appellate Cases in China ——A Review of the Experience of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit |
| Xie Jiatu |
| Law School,Shantou University,Shantou 515063,China |
|
|
|
|
Abstract Since the Supreme People's Court of China has the national jurisdiction in technological Intellectual Property(IP)appeal cases,the dilemma of litigation explosion and lack of judges emerged gradually.The legislators and scholars force on the strategy come from American that to establish the Mandatory Mediation to solve this dilemma.The U.S.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has faced significant controversy over the establishment of Mandatory Mediation.The mediation statics disclosed by CAFC is misleading because of the statistical caliber deviation.The statistics which is re-statistics commonly used statistical caliber in China show that the effect of Mandatory Mediation on IP appeal lawsuit in CAFC was deteriorating year by year.The effect of existing mediation regulation in China's Court is better than the former.With the improvement of IP litigation environment in China,it is difficult for the parties to enhance their motivation for mediation,and it is difficult to achieve desirable results in the implementation of mandatory mediation.The Mandatory Mediation Construction program based on the Appellate Mediation Program of CAFC is lack of a clear selecting criteria.Moreover,this program is contrary to the China's Civil Procedure Law legislation tradition which come from the Civil Law,and does not conform with the development stage of the China civil mediation at present.Therefore it is not appropriate for China to establish the Mandatory Mediation for technological intellectual property appeal cases at this stage.
|
|
Received: 30 December 2022
|
|
|
|
|
|
[1]中国人大网.全国人民代表大会常务委员会关于专利等知识产权案件诉讼程序若干问题的决定[EB/OL].(2018-10-26)[2022-12-11].http://www.npc.gov.cn/npc/c12435/201810/e47a80671d5e4c85b7b531e7e6cbf0e7.shtml.
[2]周强.最高人民法院关于《全国人民大表大会常务委员会关于专利等知识产权案件诉讼程序若干问题的决定》实施情况的报告[EB/OL].(2022-02-28)[2022-12-11].http://www.npc.gov.cn/npc/c30834/202202/6ffeee2ff0fa4ba8bbb62206cd-872b30.shtml.
[3]中国人大网.对《全国人民大表大会常务委员会关于专利等知识产权案件诉讼程序若干问题的决定》实施情况报告的意见和建议[EB/OL].(2022-03-25)[2022-12-11].http://www.npc.gov.cn/npc/c30834/202203/7c2c1de1e69441c6bb404-40e56471a21.shtml.
[4]齐树洁.域外调解制度发展趋势述评[J].人民司法(应用),2018(1):22-27.
[5]齐树洁.域外调解制度研究[M].厦门:厦门大学出版社,2022.
[6]何炼红,邓欣欣.论中国专利等技术类上诉案件强制调解制度的构建——美国联邦巡回上诉法院相关经验借鉴[J].政治与法律,2019(5):2-15.
[7]BENITEZ G.Mediation at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit[J].American University Intellectual property brief,2015(7):113.
[8]刘敏.论裁判请求权——民事诉讼的宪法理念[J].中国法学,2002(6):132-144.
[9]周永坤.警惕调解的滥用和强制趋势[J].河北学刊,2006(6):166-168,176.
[10]肖建国,黄忠顺.诉前强制调解论纲[J].法学论坛,2010(6):38-45.
[11]江伟,谢俊.德国巴伐利亚州强制诉前调解法及其对中国的启示[J].公民与法(法学版),2009(3):2-7.
[12]中村英郎.新民事诉讼法建议[M].北京:法律出版社,2001.
[13]王阁.强制调解模式研究[J].政法论丛,2014(6):104-111.
[14]庞晓.论美国判决要约规则及其对中国的启示[J].法治研究,2020(2):58-71.
[15]HALSEY V.Milton Keynes General NHS Trust[Z].(2004)Emgland & Wales Court of Appeal(Civil Division)No.576.
[16]United State Court of Appeals for the Federal United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Historical Caseload.[EB/OL].(2022-09-30)[2022-12-11].https://cafc.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/reports-stats/FY2022/HistoricalCaseloadGrap-h_83-22.pdf.
[17]American Intellectual Property Law Association(AIPLA),2019 Report of the Economic Survey 37-38(2019)[R/OL].(2019-09-30)[2022-12-11].https://www.aipla.org/home/news-publications/economic-survey/2019-report-of-the-economic-survey.
[18]United State Court of Appeals for the Federal.Median Time to Disposition in Case Terminated After Hearing or Submission[EB/OL].(2022-09-30)[2022-12-11].https://cafc.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/reports-stats/disposition-time/06_Med_Disp_Time_MERITS_table.pdf.
[19]DEAN W L.Let's make a deal:negotiating resolution of intellectual property disputes through mandatory mediation at the federal circuit[J].The John Marshall review of intellectual property law,2006(6):365-372.
[20]LIM M M.ADR of patent disputes:a customized prescription,not an over-the-counter remedy[J].Cardozo journal of conflict resolution,2004(6):155.
[21]CORBETT S.Mediation of Intellectual property disputes:a critical analysis[J].New Zealand business law quarterly,2011(6):51-67.
[22]VIDAL K,KALAY L G,MENELL S P,et al.Patent mediation guide[EB/OL].(2019-06-22)[2022-12-11].https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3320111.
[23]CASEY K R.IP mediation at the Federal Circuit[J].Delaware lawyer magazine,2008/2009:24-27.
[24]United State Court of Appeals for the Federal.Appellate Mediation Program Guidelines[EB/OL].(2021-06-15)[2022-12-11].https://cafc.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/Mediation/MediationGuidelines.pdf.
[25]COTROPIA C A,KESAN J P,ROZEMA K,et al.Progression and workload in civil litigation:an empirical analysis of patent disputes[R].Urbana Champaign:University of Illinois College of Law Legal Studies research paper,2017.
[26]TRAIN T.The appeals of patent mediation:are incentives to mediate patent disputes reduced on appeal[J].Intellectual property and technology law journal,2016(2):145.
[27]严仁群.消失中的审判:重新认识美国的诉讼和解与诉讼调解[J].现代法学,2016(5):159-169.
[28]United State Court of Appeals for the Federal.United State Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Frequently Asked Questions about Volunteer Mediators[EB/OL].(2019-06-22)[2022-12-11].https://cafc.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/Mediation/MediationFrequentQuestions.pdf.
[29]上海知识产权法院.知识产权司法保护状况[R/OL].(2021-05-11)[2022-12-11].http://www.shzcfy.gov.cn/detail.jhtml?id=10015089.
[30]嘉兴市中华华工有限责任公司、上海欣晨新技术有限公司与王龙集团有限公司等侵害技术秘密纠纷二审民事判决书[Z].(2020)最高法知民终1667号.
[31]United State Court of Appeals for the Federal.Median Disposition Time for Cases Terminated After Hearing or Submission(Table)[EB/OL].(2021-09-30)[2022-12-11].https://cafc.uscourts.gov.
[32]王阁.民事强制调解研究[D].重庆:西南政法大学,2013. |
|
|
|
2024, Vol. 5 
