1、天津市第三中级人民法院天津知识产权法庭服务保障科技创新白皮书White Paper on Serving and EnsuringScientific and Technological Innovationby Tianjin Intellectual Property Tribunal ofTianjin No.3 Intermediate Peoples Court2019年4月2023年4月April 2019 April 2023前言天津市第三中级人民法院天津知识产权法庭（以下简称天津知产法庭）于 2018 年 6 月挂牌成立，于 2019 年 4 月 1日正式对外履职，集中管辖发生

2、在天津全市范围内的发明专利、实用新型专利、植物新品种、集成电路布图设计、技术秘密等技术类案件和辖区内其他知识产权案件。四年以来，天津知产法庭坚持以习近平新时代中国特色社会主义思想为指导，全面贯彻习近平总书记有关知识产权工作的重要指示批示精神，认真落实中央、市委和上级法院关于知识产权服务科技创新的部署要求，在天津市第三中级人民法院党组坚强领导下，以“建设全国一流知识产权法庭”为目标，充分发挥跨区域集中管辖技术类案件的专业化审判优势和保护创新的示范引领作用，认真履行司法职能、聚焦精品审判工程、创新优化工作举措、服务科技自立自强，协同培育天津市自主创新的重要源头和原始创新的策源地，走出了一条具有天津

3、特色的知识产权司法服务保障科技创新之路，为打造天津知识产权强市和建设创新型城市提供有力司法服务和保障。现发布天津知识产权法庭服务保障科技创新白皮书和典型案例，向全社会汇报天津知产法庭自成立以来技术类案件审判情况和服务科技创新工作取得的成果。ForewordThe Tianjin Intellectual Property Tribunal of the TianjinNo.3 Intermediate Peoples Court(hereinafter referred to as theTianjin Intellectual Property Tribunal)was inaugurate

4、d in June2018 and officially commenced to perform its duties on April 1,2019,with centralized jurisdiction over technical cases such asinvention patents,utility model patents,new plant varieties,designs of layout of integrated circuits,technical secrets andother intellectual property cases within th

5、e jurisdiction ofTianjin.Over the past four years,Tianjin Intellectual PropertyTribunal has adhered to the guidance of Xi Jinpings Thought onSocialismwithChineseCharacteristicsforaNewEra,comprehensively put into practice the spirit of General SecretaryXiJinpingsimportantinstructionsandinstructionson

6、intellectual property affairs,and conscientiously implementedthe deployment requirements of the Central Committee,theMunicipal Committee and the superior courts on intellectualproperty services for scientific and technological innovation.Under the steadfast leadership of the Party Leading Group of t

7、heTianjin No.3 Intermediate Peoples Court,and with theobjective of building a first-class intellectual property tribunalin China,the Tribunal has exerted fully its advantages ofspecializingincross-regionalcentralizedjurisdictionovertechnological cases and its exemplary and leading role inprotecting

8、innovation,earnestly performed its judicial functions,focused on high-quality trial programs,innovated and optimizeditsworkinitiatives,andservedtheself-relianceandself-improvement of science and technology,collaborated withTianjin City to cultivate an important source of independentinnovation and a

9、source of original innovation,and walked out apath of serving and ensuring scientific and technologicalinnovation by intellectual property rights justice with Tianjincharacteristics,so as to safeguard and provide strong judicialservices for building a robust city of intellectual property rightsand a

10、n innovative city of Tianjin.This White Paper on Servingand Ensuring Scientific and Technological Innovation by TianjinIntellectual Property Tribunal as well as typical cases are herebyreleased to report to the general public on the trial of technicalcases and the achievements of the Tianjin Intelle

11、ctual PropertyTribunal in serving scientific and technological innovation sinceits establishment.目录一、服务保障科技创新状况（中文）1二、服务保障科技创新状况（英文）22三、技术类典型案例（2022.4-2023.4）63四、历年发布技术类典型案例（2019.4-2022.3）87Table of ContentsI.Serving and Ensuring Scientific and Technological Innovation(Chinese)1II.Serving and Ensuri

12、ng Scientific and Technological Innovation(English)22III.Typical Cases（April 2022-April 2023）63IV.Typical Cases（April 2019-March 2022）87 1 天津知识产权法庭天津知识产权法庭服务保障科技创新状况服务保障科技创新状况（2019.42019.42023.42023.4）天津知产法庭于成立之初集中管辖发生在天津全市范围内的专利、植物新品种、集成电路布图设计、技术秘密、计算机软件、涉及驰名商标认定及垄断纠纷的第一审知识产权民事和行政案件和辖区内其他知识产权案件。202

13、2 年 5 月管辖规定调整后，天津知产法庭集中管辖天津市全市范围内的发明专利、实用新型专利、植物新品种、集成电路布图设计、技术秘密、计算机软件权属、侵权纠纷及垄断纠纷的第一审知识产权民事和行政案件和辖区内其他知识产权案件。四年来，法庭始终坚持立足天津、面向全国、放眼世界的工作格局，始终将各项工作置于服务创新发展大局中谋划，公正高效审理了一大批在全市、全国，乃至具有跨国影响力的精品标杆案件，以高水准司法审判护航新时代科技自立自强。一、技术类知识产权案件审理情况一、技术类知识产权案件审理情况（一）收案情况（一）收案情况1.按年度统计：截至 2023 年 3 月 31 日，法庭共计受理技术类案件 1

14、102 件；其中，2019 年受理技术类案件 188 件（一审案件 185 件，二审案件 3 件）；2020 年受理技术类案件 269 件（均为一审案件）；2021 年受理技术类案件 407 件（一审案件 404 件，二审案件 3 件）；2022 年受理技术类案件 197 件（一审案件 196 件，二审案件 1 件）；2023 年一季 2 度受理技术类案件 41 件（一审案件 40 件，二审案件 1 件）。（详见图表一）（图表一）2.按案由统计：受理技术类案件中，专利案件 684 件、计算机软件案件 303 件、技术合同案件 73 件、技术秘密案件 17 件、涉及驰名商标认定案件 15 件、垄

15、断纠纷案件 7 件、植物新品种权案件 2 件、集成电路布图设计案件 1 件。受理的全部技术类案件中，民事案件 1096 件，行政案件 5 件，刑事案件 1 件。（详见图表二）（图表二）3 3.按集中管辖统计：受理的全部案件中，集中管辖的专利、植物新品种、集成电路布图设计、技术秘密、计算机软件、涉及驰名商标认定及垄断纠纷的第一审技术类案件共计1029 件，占比 93.37%，非集中管辖的技术类案件 73 件，占比 6.63%。（详见图表三）（图表三）集中管辖的案件中，发明及实用新型专利案件 387 件、计算机软件 303 件、外观设计专利案件 222 件、其他专利案件 75 件、技术秘密 17

16、件、涉及驰名商标认定纠纷 15 件、垄断纠纷 7 件、植物新品种纠纷 2 件、集成电路布图设计 1件。（详见图表四）（图表四）4（二）结案情况（二）结案情况在案件数量快速增长与案件难度日益增大的严峻形势下，法庭全体干警锐意精进、潜心钻研，高质量完成各项审判任务。2019 年审结技术类案件 111 件，结案率为 59.04%；2020年审结技术类案件 266 件，结案率为 76.87%；2021 年审结技术类案件 351 件，结案率为 72.07%；2022 年审结技术类案件 280 件，结案率为 84.08%。结案率总体稳步提升。（三）案件呈现的特点（三）案件呈现的特点一是案件数量总体攀升。一

17、是案件数量总体攀升。2020年收案较2019年增加43.09%（2019年4月1日正式对外履职），2021年收案较2020年增加51.3%，2022年受疫情及管辖制度调整影响，收案总数较2021年虽回落51.6%，但权属、侵权类等专业难度较大的案件较上年增加46.58%。二是案件类型更加丰富二是案件类型更加丰富，“卡脖卡脖子子”关键核心技术与关键核心技术与“专精特新专精特新”新领域新业态纠纷层出不新领域新业态纠纷层出不穷穷。从案由上看，除传统专利、计算机软件、技术秘密等案件外，集成电路布图设计纠纷、植物新品种纠纷等新案件不断涌现。从诉争领域来看，诸多案件涉及“高精尖”的核心技术领域，除传统的机

18、械、光电、化学等领域外，微电子芯片、纳米、量子点、种子、生物医药等技术领域纠纷大量涌现，复杂的技术事实给司法审判带来更大挑战。三是利益平是利益平衡日益复杂衡日益复杂。知识产权涉及利益复杂，尤其是随着科技创新的发展，在涉及“高精尖”领域的专利、技术秘密等案件中，权利边界的界定直接影响到个人利益与公共利益的平衡，如 5 何精准定位权利边界，准确把握多层次价值取向，进而平衡个人利益和公共利益的关系，都对司法审判提出更高的要求。四是涉外案件明显增加四是涉外案件明显增加，涌现出一批具有国际影响力的精品涌现出一批具有国际影响力的精品案件案件。截至2023年3月31日，共计受理涉外技术类案件24件，占比2.

19、18%。审理了涉纳米、三星、戴森、环盛、贝比赞等诸多有国际影响力的跨国知识产权纠纷案件，平等保护中外市场主体权益，打造公正权威的国际司法形象。五是审判质五是审判质效不断提升效不断提升，审理了一批全国审理了一批全国、全市首创性案件全市首创性案件。法庭作出全国首例适用惩罚性赔偿的涉外专利侵权判决；作出全国首例涉外发明专利案件海关临时禁令；审理天津首例以许可费认定损失数额的侵害技术秘密刑事案件；审理天津首例植物新品种案件，打造出一批标杆案例，精品成果显著。二、二、实施精品工程，护航实施精品工程，护航创新驱动发展国家战略创新驱动发展国家战略（一）（一）加强关键核心技术保护加强关键核心技术保护，保障战略

20、新兴产业发展保障战略新兴产业发展创新是引领发展的第一动力，是贯彻新发展理念、构建新发展格局、推动高质量发展的必然要求。法庭紧扣天津高质量发展要求，找准司法服务保障创新发展切入点，加强对“卡脖子”关键核心技术、战略新型产业、技术密集型产业及原始创新成果的保护，发挥技术类案件审理对科技创新的带动效应。加强芯片领域知识产权保护，审结国内某手机基带芯片公司与某科技公司侵害发明专利权纠纷案。该案原告系国内手机基带芯片领军企业，其生产的28纳米手机基带芯片为该领域核心技术，法庭精准查明技术事实，及时作出判决，高效保护涉案专利技术。加强对高端装备材料领域知识 6 产权保护，注重促成技术成果转化应用，审结纳米

21、公司与三星公司侵害发明专利权案件。该案中，纳米公司系全球三大量子点材料研发高精尖企业，涉案专利“纳米颗粒”系量子点材料核心专利，双方在美国德克萨斯州东区联邦地区法院、德国杜塞尔多夫法院存在平行国际诉讼，最终，法庭助力纳米公司与三星公司达成全球和解，有效推进了全球高端电子产业领域技术成果的转化交易和运用创新。加大集成电路布图设计保护，促进微电子技术产业健康发展，审理天津某执行器公司与张某某集成电路布图设计纠纷案。该案涉及智能型阀门电动装置控制集成电路布图，案涉集成电路布图复杂，审理难度大，在集成电路布图设计案件中具有典型性，本案的审理积极回应数字技术创新领域司法需求。（二）（二）加强制造业知识产

22、权保护加强制造业知识产权保护，推动制造业转型升级推动制造业转型升级天津市坚持制造业立市战略部署，高端化、智能化、绿色化的制造业发展离不开创新驱动，更需要知识产权保驾护航。法庭找准服务保障制造业高质量发展的结合点、着力点，通过司法审判助力天津建设全国先进制造研发基地。加强对智能制造业和数字产业创新保护，审结天津某科技公司与天津某公司技术合同纠纷案。该案涉及光伏板自动清扫机器人与光伏板自动喷涂机器人制造研发，法庭逐条梳理技术协议，对照组织勘验，快速高效作出判决，定纷止争，有效保护工业机器人、人机交互等高端智能制造领域技术成果。加强对现代化数控机电与精密设备制造业技术成果保护，审结天津某机电设备有限

23、公司诉山东某机电公司侵害其“具有轴向推 7 力自我平衡功能的高压水旋转喷头”发明专利案。该案系知产法庭调派技术调查官参与技术事实查明首案，精准查明技术事实，及时制止侵权行为，高效保护权利人合法权益。加强对汽车制造业及新能源产业知识产权保护，审结中国一汽、中汽研工程研究院、中汽研检测中心、国能新能源、猎豹汽车等众多涉及新能源、汽车电子、智能网联等汽车制造业前沿领域案件，服务天津汽车制造业及新能源产业高质量发展。在天津某科技公司与中国一汽公司专利侵权纠纷案件中，涉及“红旗 HS5”在带断开检测装置的曲轴箱通风管中使用“基于导电回路机理的管路断开检测系统”专利技术纠纷，合议庭以被诉侵权产品合法来源为

24、突破口，主动联系侵权产品制造商，并成功组织三方达成调解，在保护专利技术的同时促进科技成果应用。依职权适用等同侵权判定，高效保护权利人合法权益，审结某电子公司诉某科技公司侵害“一种手动电动一体式执行机构”专利纠纷案。法庭针对被告将他人专利通过非实质性改动方式实施的侵权行为，依职权主动适用等同侵权判定，精准划分、比对技术特征，有效保护创新主体合法权益，取得良好社会效果。（三（三）加强种业知识产权保护加强种业知识产权保护，激发植物新品种研发动激发植物新品种研发动力力党的二十大报告提出，要全方位夯实粮食安全根基，深入实施种业振兴行动，确保中国人的饭碗牢牢端在自己手中。种子是农业的“芯片”，种业知识产权

25、保护事关国家粮食安全与乡村振兴战略实施。天津作为重要种源地和新品种科研 8 培育聚集地，需要强有力的种业知识产权司法保障。法庭加强对植物新品种的保护，审结天津市首例侵害植物新品种权纠纷案件“济麦 22”植物新品种侵权案，该案审理中，合议庭走访行政执法机关，调取了与本案关联的行政处罚案卷，抽丝剥茧还原出被告与第三人的交易过程。在充分查清案件事实的基础上，经法庭主持调解，双方达成和解并即时履行，充分保障植物新品种权利人的权益，快速高效化解矛盾纠纷，取得良好的社会效果。审理天津两种业公司间关于某黄瓜植物新品种权纠纷，该案中，法庭依职权向农业农村部及植物新品种保藏中心调取品种样本并移送鉴定，积极稳妥推

26、进案件进程。法庭还积极对接植物新品种保护需求，与天津市市场监管综合行政执法总队共赴市农业农村委员会，就如何以司法审判和行政执法等手段协同保护天津“小站稻”进行调研、座谈，为促进种业自主创新和行业健康有序发展提供良好的法治环境，助力天津打造国家种业科技创新和产业发展的重要基地。（四）（四）加强医药创新成果保护加强医药创新成果保护，助力生物医药产业振兴助力生物医药产业振兴中医药是中华文明的灿烂瑰宝，中医药产业是天津的一抹亮色。法庭主动对接中医药企业需求，走访、调研天津中医药百年老字号津药达仁堂集团股份有限公司，针对中医药企业在知识产权保护方面的现实困境，深入探索以知识产权保护为抓手助力天津中医药强

27、市建设的路径，从商标、字号、技术秘密、专利等多领域共同发力，保障天津中医药产业的传承与发展，为建立国内领先、世界知名的中医药强 9 市提供知识产权服务。生物医药关系人类生存发展与生活品质，法庭持续强化生物医药行业知识产权保护。审结美国某医药公司与天津某医药公司侵害发明专利权纠纷案。该案涉及国际前沿生物医药技术领域，法庭创新工作方法，跨区域调派技术调查官，准确聚焦技术事实争议，快速查明技术问题。审结杭州某生物技术公司与天津某生物技术公司“一种用于肝纤维化和肝硬化检测的试剂盒”发明专利权纠纷案，因案件专利涉及地方疫情防控核酸检测工作，法庭严防案件的审理对当时严峻的疫情防控形势产生影响，稳妥快速推进

28、案件进度，高质高效解决案件争议，实现良好的法律效果与社会效果。（五（五）平等保护中外市场主体平等保护中外市场主体，打造打造优质优质国际营商环境国际营商环境知识产权具有国际属性，中国是推动知识产权国际保护的重要力量。法庭始终坚持依法平等保护中外高新技术企业合法权益，维护科技创新企业核心竞争力，主动融入服务天津市一流营商环境和国际化优质投资环境建设。四年来，法庭审理了涉及美、英、德、法、日等十余个国家的技术类案件，纠纷涉及高端材料、生物医药、体育器械等多领域。审结纳米技术公司（英国）与三星公司（韩国）涉“纳米颗粒”发明专利权纠纷，助力双方达成全球和解，实现司法案件促成技术成果转化的良好效果。审结贝

29、比赞公司（法国）诉河北某玩具公司、河北某童车公司等侵害发明专利案件，该案系全国首例适用惩罚性赔偿的涉外专利侵权案，率先将倡导已久的惩罚性赔偿司法政策理念和学术观点成功运用到司 10 法实践当中。同时该案作出的行为保全裁定也是全国首例在发明专利侵权案件中涉及海关的行为保全裁定，充分运用临时性保护措施，提高司法救济的及时性和有效性，达到“严保护”与“快保护”并行的效果。审结王子运动集团公司（美国）、霍伊特弓箭公司（美国）诉环耀公司侵害发明专利案，涉案发明专利为“具有多管结构的射箭弓”，该案是产品专利方法特征与结构特征保护范围具备不同的认定标准的典型案例，在国际贸易繁荣发展与国际体育用品大量出现在国

30、内市场的背景下，该案确立了在既有结构特征又有方法特征的专利案件中，应优先适用结构特征限定的裁判规则，实现在加强对专利权保护力度的同时，防止权利人获得不当扩大保护的效果。（六（六）规范技术交易市场秩序规范技术交易市场秩序，促进科技成果转化应用促进科技成果转化应用党的二十大报告指出，要营造有利于科技型中小微企业成长的良好环境，推动创新链产业链资金链人才链深度融合。知识产权全链条体系既包括强化保护体系，又包括完善运营体系和优化服务体系。技术成果的交易服务市场是技术成果实现产能转化的重要平台，交易秩序的规范直接关系到技术成果的应用及创新生态环境的营造。法庭积极发挥司法主导作用，通过司法裁判规范、服务、

31、保障优质知识产权服务机构，促进知识产权资源要素的有效配置和流通，最大限度释放创新创造活力。在审理天津某科技公司与天津某知识产权代理公司专利代理合同纠纷案件中，针对被告已高质量完成专利撰写、申报等工作，但仅由于原告怠于缴纳费用导致专 11 利申请被驳回的情形，依法判令驳回原告要求退还专利费的诉讼请求，保护优质知识产权服务机构的合法权益。以案件裁判规则引领知识产权服务机构行业准则，规范专利代理、转让许可、技术成果交易流转等行为，引导知识产权服务行业健康有序发展。在审理天津某科技公司与天津某专利代理公司以及王某与天津某专利代理公司专利代理合同纠纷案件中，对于代理机构拖延申请专利，专利文件质量不高等违

32、约行为，判令专利代理机构返还收取的代理费，规范专利代理市场，促进专利申请质量和效率的提高。（七（七）保护创新主体合法权益保护创新主体合法权益，激励全民发明创造热情激励全民发明创造热情科技是第一生产力，人才是第一资源。法庭充分发挥司法主导与引领作用，保障创新主体合法权益，着力营造尊重知识、尊重人才的良好创新氛围，助力天津打造自主创新的重要源头和原始创新策源地。法庭妥善处理涉及企业与离职员工的专利归属及奖励的纠纷，坚持既要保护高新技术企业的技术成果，又要保护离职员工获得报酬权的司法理念，充分激发市场主体创新动力。在吴某与天津某科技公司职务发明创造发明人报酬纠纷一案中，针对双方对报酬无法达成一致的情

33、况，法庭通过数次沟通，最终调解解决该案，保护了离职员工作为发明人获得报酬奖励的权利。通过司法裁判，依法妥善处理科技成果权属认定、权利转让、利益分配纠纷，提高知识产权的利用率、变现率和回报率，支持科技成果转化应用和产业化。在因科公司与某科技公司专利权权属纠纷系列案件中，针对被告将职务发明据为己有的事实，法庭判 12 决专利权及申请权归原告所有，有效保护企业的知识产权，激发企业的创新动力。在天津汽车模具公司诉天津某科技公司、湖南某公司侵害技术秘密纠纷中，依法惩治离职员工窃取原单位技术秘密违法行为，保护创新主体在汽车模具领域技术优势。三、创新三、创新机制举措，释放司法服务高质量发展新动能机制举措，释

34、放司法服务高质量发展新动能（一（一）构建纵横联动平台构建纵横联动平台，推动知识产权全链条大保护推动知识产权全链条大保护1.1.构建构建“京津冀京津冀”知识产权司法保护协作机制知识产权司法保护协作机制。天津三中院深入贯彻落实党的二十大关于推进京津冀协同发展的战略部署及全面加强知识产权保护的要求，与北京知识产权法院、河北雄安中院共同签署加强知识产权司法保护合作框架协议，打造“京津冀”知识产权大保护联动协同平台，有力开拓京津冀知识产权协同保护事业新渠道、新路径，有效推进三地法院在人才培养、司法协同、联合调研等方面的协同互补，护航京津冀知识产权司法保护高质量发展。2.构建知识产权司法与行政执法联动机制

35、。构建知识产权司法与行政执法联动机制。创新驱动是一项系统工程，市场主体创新意愿和创新投入的提升，有赖于严密的创新保护体系，包括审查授权、行政执法、司法保护等各个环节。为进一步强化知识产权全链条保护，天津三中院与天津海关、市文旅局、市市场监管委、市知识产权局联合签订知识产权司法与行政执法联动机制，搭建司法与行政执法联动平台，统筹制度机制、业务领域、人才培养、党建共建四个协同，合力构建知识产权协同保护新格局。天津三中院还与天津市知识产权保护中心建立 13 司法行政联动保护机制，会同滨海新区法院与滨海新区知识产权局、中国（滨海新区）知识产权保护中心搭建司法保护与行政保护合作机制，与国家知识产权局专利

36、审查协作天津中心建立协作机制，健全创造、保护、运用、管理和服务全链条，为激励创新发展、深化知识产权运用、打造知识产权保护高地提供有力支撑和坚强保障。3.构建司法与高校知识产权保护协作机制。构建司法与高校知识产权保护协作机制。市委市政府“十项行动”明确提出科教兴市人才强市行动。为充分释放高校智力资源与司法保护新动能，天津三中院与天津科技大学、滨海新区人民法院签订知识产权保护协作机制，构建知识产权保护理论实践创新转化平台，畅通高校智力资源与法院司法保护的融合渠道。双方加强在技术调查官选聘、知识产权专家库、法律实习生机制、学术研讨及交流、知识产权人才培养、党建共建等领域的协作，扎实推进知识产权保护的

37、理论研究与成果转化，共同提升知识产权司法审判水平与高校人才培养质量。（二（二）持续完善办案机制持续完善办案机制，优化知产案件审判质效指标优化知产案件审判质效指标1.1.“三合一三合一”审判机制运行成效显著审判机制运行成效显著。加大刑事打击力度，严惩犯罪行为，刑事震慑效果明显。积极贯彻宽严相济的刑事政策，重拳打击侵害创新创造的犯罪行为，在打击犯罪的同时实现对高新技术企业关键核心技术的有效保护。法庭公开审理赵某某侵犯商业秘密罪一案并当庭宣判，被告人当庭悔罪认罪并表示服从判决不上诉，该案系最高人民法院、最高人民检察院关于办理侵犯知识产权刑事案件具体应 14 用法律若干问题的解释（三）施行后，首例以合

38、理许可费确定损失数额的案件，回应了司法实践中长期存在的单纯获取型侵犯商业秘密行为入罪难的现实问题，为公、检、法等司法机关开展相关刑事工作提供了良好的范例，也为法律开创性适用提供了鲜活的教材。妥善审理行政案件，促进行政与司法标准统一。四年来，法庭共审结技术类知识产权行政案件 5 件，涉诉的具体行政行为涵盖技术秘密、专利侵权等多方面。在行政案件审理中，行政机关主要负责人出庭，相关行政机关旁听庭审，新闻媒体对庭审活动做了报道。通过行政案件的审理，法庭积极履行司法审查职能，监督、规范行政执法，积极引导知识产权行政执法机关的调查取证、证据审查、侵权判定、责任承担等处理标准与司法标准相统一。2.2.多元化

39、技术事实查明体系持续健全多元化技术事实查明体系持续健全。天津知产法庭作为天津全市技术类案件的集中管辖法庭，受理案件涉及诸多理工科知识，如何客观、科学、中立查明技术事实成为审理该类案件的重点和难点。法庭在全国首创跨域调派技术调查官，通过“全国法院技术调查人才共享机制”向“全国法院技术调查人才库”申请最高法院异地调派技术调查官。天津三中院与国家知识产权局专利审查协作天津中心签订知识产权工作合作框架协议，与天津科技大学签订知识产权保护协作机制，聘用技术调查官参与案件技术事实查明。制定技术调查官参与诉讼活动工作规则，参与编撰最高院技术调查官工作手册，完善规章制度。截止目前，共选聘技术调查官 32 名，

40、技术调查官参与案件审理 110 余人 15 次，涉及专利、技术秘密、集成电路布图、计算机软件等多类型案件，高质高效完成技术事实查明。当前，技术调查官制度运行规范、增补流转顺畅，在健全多元化技术事实查明机制，提高知识产权案件审判质效方面，形成了全国可借鉴的“天津模式”。3.3.司法改革创新举措有效运用。司法改革创新举措有效运用。探索专业化审判模式。组建技术类案件审判团队，精细化审理，精准化裁判。注重每一案件从庭审、文书到案例、调研的全流程挖掘培育，为打造出具有重大影响力的精品案件提供保障。用好法律手段解决举证困境。按照证据规则，及时向双方当事人明示基本证据清单；加大依申请调取证据力度，对于当事人

41、无法取得的或者取证遇阻风险较大的情形，及时调查收集证据；广泛使用律师调查令、协助调查函等形式，高效便捷查清案件重要事实，着力破解知识产权维权“举证难”问题，公证高效保护权利人合法权益。充分发挥多元解纷机制。积极加强与市知产保护中心、滨海知产保护中心的合作，委托两家保护中心作为特邀调解组织调解技术类案件。自建立合作机制以来，法庭先后委托调解技术类案件 200 余件，效果良好。深入推动智慧法院建设。坚持以创新的技术保护创新，充分利用智慧法院平台，深入推动在线庭审，制定在线庭审规程，为在线庭审提供规则支撑。针对疑难复杂的技术类案件，探索出一条线上分解、比对技术特征之路，视效客观真实，运行稳定可靠，极

42、大便利当事人诉讼，深受当事人好评。（三（三）聚焦创新发展需求聚焦创新发展需求，强化司法保障科技创新职能强化司法保障科技创新职能 16 1.1.注重调研成果转化，为科技创新发展大局建言献策注重调研成果转化，为科技创新发展大局建言献策。法庭始终聚焦关乎天津创新发展的战略性、现实性重大问题开展调研，并将调研成果转化为服务大局的实效，为天津市科技创新发展提供决策参考。向市委办公厅报送天津知识产权法庭服务保障天津知识产权强市建设的调研，从精品案件战略、营造创新环境、构建大保护格局等方面总结成果经验，并深入分析现存问题及解决建议。报送四方面问题制约天津市科技型企业发展，结合审理的技术类案件特点，深入分析案

43、件特点及成因建议。报送计算机软件四方面特点制约智能制造产业发展，围绕智能软件产业，从审理的案件入手，分析问题、查找原因，提出对策。充分发挥司法建议作用，向行政机关及科创企业发出司法建议 4 份，抓前端，治未病，促进社会治理水平提升。积极参与规章制度的制定完善。在天津知识产权保护条例制定过程中，我院承办全市法院系统座谈会，立足司法实践经验，提出了突出天津特色等 5 项原则性建议和深化多元解纷、加强侵犯商业秘密和重复侵权惩治等 24 项具体建议，均得到市人大常委会采纳。2.2.推进诉讼服务前移，精准回应科技型企业司法需求推进诉讼服务前移，精准回应科技型企业司法需求。滨海新区作为首批国家级高新区和国

44、家自主创新示范区，聚集了全市大量科创产业和高新技术资源。法庭主动将司法审判服务与滨海新区高质量发展、自贸区改革试验等重大政策衔接,深入广泛开展调查研究，不断增强司法服务保障的前瞻性、精准性、有效性。2022 年，在习近平总书记视察滨海 17-中关村科技园三周年之际，法庭赴滨海-中关村科技园开展走访调研，了解园内智能科技产业、生命健康产业、新能源、新材料产业等高新技术企业对知识产权保护的需求，针对性讲解专利申请步骤、注意事项、维权方式和技术秘密的保护等内容，解决重点产业及关键技术中对知识产权保护的需求。针对某些企业法律意识不强的问题，开展科研成果转化相关普法宣传，提高科研机构与科研工作者对相关法

45、律的认识水平，筑牢科研成果转化的权利基础，为企业提供知识产权风险预警，降低诉讼风险。法庭还组织赴医药企业康希诺公司、人工智能企业科大讯飞公司、新型制造业企业特变电工变压器有限公司等辖区重点科技型企业开展调研走访，主动听取企业对核心技术知识产权保护的司法需求，明确工作思路，为科技型企业发展提供更优质服务，服务保障滨海新区高质量发展示范引领。（四（四）拓展普法宣传阵地拓展普法宣传阵地，厚植保护知识产权舆论氛围厚植保护知识产权舆论氛围1.1.多领域司法宣传多领域司法宣传。四年来，法庭始终高度重视宣传工作，持续传播天津知识产权司法保护最强音。连续三年召开新闻发布会，发布 3 篇知识产权保护白皮书及 2

46、0 个典型案例，及时公开知识产权保护状况与服务科技创新成果。充分发挥新闻媒体优势，打造多媒体融合推进、线上线下协同发力宣传矩阵。积极开展普法宣传，受邀与天津电视台合作拍摄知识产权司法服务创新发展宣传片，多次在天津电视台新闻频道、科教频道、天津交通广播频道播出。广泛开展法律培训，受邀赴天津市知识产权局、国家专利局审查协作天津 18 中心、市场监管委、辖区企业、学校开展专利知识培训讲座，普及专利法律知识。高质量组织线上普法宣讲，定期在抖音、微信公众号等新媒体平台发布普法视频，以生动活泼的内容和形式，向群众充分汇报、展现知产保护成果。2.2.全方位司法公开全方位司法公开。法庭始终坚持司法者普法理念，

47、以司法公开为普法阵地，积极主动向人民群众汇报法庭审判工作。着力打造“津知风采”与“津知庭审”司法公开品牌，通过“津知风采”平台及时准确地公开法庭工作动态、典型案例、法律法规等，法治日报 人民法院报 天津日报等具有影响力的媒体报刊平台先后刊发数十篇法庭工作报道，知识产权司法保护高地效应凸显。利用“津知庭审”平台，选取典型案例组织系列庭审观摩，主动邀请人大代表、政协委员、特约监督员和媒体记者现场观摩，将每一起典型案件都办成生动的“法治公开课”，不断增强全民尊重创新、保护创新意识，着力营造一流创新生态。四、加强队伍建设，提升保护创新发展能力水平四、加强队伍建设，提升保护创新发展能力水平人才是兴国之大

48、计，队伍建设是建设全国一流知识产权法庭的基础和保障。四年来，法庭高度重视队伍建设，打造了一支政治信念坚定、专业素质过硬的知产审判队伍，培树了一批先进个人，法庭被评为天津法院系统先进集体，党建品牌“津知先锋”获评党员先锋团队。法庭 1 人获评“天津市政法系统人民满意的政法干警”，1 人获评“天津市最美家庭”，1 人荣立二等功，1 人荣立三等功，8 人获评优秀共产党员，1 人获评党员先锋岗，1 人获评党员业务标兵。19（一）固本强基，聚力政治能力建设（一）固本强基，聚力政治能力建设四年来，法庭始终坚持党对政法工作的绝对领导，深入学习领会党的十九大、十九届历次全会和党的二十大精神，坚定捍卫“两个确立

49、”、坚决做到“两个维护”。始终以习近平新时代中国特色社会主义思想为指导，认真落实习近平法治思想，深入贯彻习近平总书记对政法工作的重要指示批示和对知识产权保护的重要论述精神，围绕服务创新发展大局，扎实开展各项工作。全面准确贯彻落实中央、市委关于加强知识产权保护和科技创新的各项决策部署，不断将党的创新理论与知识产权审判深度融合。打造“津知先锋”“津知风采”“津知讲堂”“津知庭审”党建品牌矩阵，进一步强化党建引领、融合、服务的特色理念，培育特色鲜明、亮点突出的支部活动，积极引导青年干警在学思践悟、勇担重任、争创业绩上当先锋、做表率，持续提升青年干警的综合能力素质，不断增强支部的向心力和凝聚力。（二）

50、（二）提质增效，强化业务能力提升提质增效，强化业务能力提升知识产权审判具有高度技术性、复杂性、专业性和国际性，从事知产审判应具备精通法律、熟悉技术、立足国情、放眼世界的能力素质。四年来，法庭以“专家型法官”工程为载体，深入推进精品战略实施。依托“津知讲堂”平台，定期围绕政策法规、核心专利、优良植物新品种、高水平集成电路布图设计等知识产权前沿热点问题及司法实践难点问题开展讲座研讨，释放研学互动的强大势能。主动加强对外学习交流，委派审判人员与市场监管委开展商业秘密交流 20 研讨、与南开区知产局开展区块链数据存证平台交流研讨，参加最高院组织的开源软件涉诉难点问题研讨，不断提升对解决知识产权前沿难点

51、问题的参与度、贡献度。积极参与规范性文件的制定完善，为最高院关于知识产权民事诉讼证据的若干规定，天津高院关于知识产权侵权案件适用惩罚性赔偿的意见等规范性文件的制定提供修改意见建议，多项建议被上级法院采纳。调研成果丰硕，2 人获得第三十一届全国法院系统学术讨论会优秀奖，1 人在国家核心期刊法律适用上发表文章一篇，1 篇调研获评天津法院系统优秀重点调研课题，1 人获 2020 年度天津法院学术讨论会优秀奖，1 人获第三届京津冀司法论坛征文三等奖，2 人获第十一届京津沪渝司法论坛论文优秀奖，2 人获中国行为法学会“天大中国司法论坛”二等奖、1 人获三等奖、2 人获优秀奖。精品案例不断涌现，法庭多篇案

52、例分别获评最高人民法院 50 件知识产权保护典型案件、天津法院十大影响案例、天津法院服务保障“一带一路”建设典型案例、天津知识产权司法保护典型案例等。多个庭审获评天津市法院优秀庭审一等奖，多篇文书获评天津市全市法院精品文书成果、全市法院优秀文书一、二、三等奖，精品工程成效显著。21 结束语党的二十大指出，科技是第一生产力、人才是第一资源、创新是第一动力。当今世界正经历百年未有之大变局，我国正处于实现中华民族伟大复兴关键时期，创新驱动发展战略深入实施，服务保障创新发展与科技自立自强，是技术类知识产权审判工作突出的主题。知识产权创造力一日千里、发展力层出不穷，面对知识产权司法保护中的新业态、新领域

53、、新问题，天津知产法庭将始终坚持以习近平新时代中国特色社会主义思想为指导，紧盯国家战略需求和天津发展需要，紧紧围绕高质量发展主题，完整、准确、全面贯彻新发展理念，凝心聚力服务市委、市政府“十项行动”实施，提升司法质效，维护创新动能，以举措之新、机制之新、服务之新，有力保障天津创新驱动发展和全面建设社会主义现代化大都市。22 Tianjin Intellectual Property TribunalServing and Ensuring Scientific andTechnological Innovation(2019.4 2023.4)Sinceitsestablishment,Tia

54、njinIntellectualPropertyTribunal has concentrated on the jurisdiction of civil andadministrative cases of intellectual property of the first instanceaswellasotherintellectualpropertycaseswithinthejurisdiction in Tianjin,including patents,new plant varieties,designs of layout of integrated circuits,t

55、echnical secrets,computer software,disputes involving well-known trademarksand monopolies.Following the adjustment of jurisdictionalregulations in May 2022,the Tianjin Intellectual PropertyTribunalhasconcentrateditsjurisdictiononcivilandadministrative intellectual property cases of first instance as

56、 wellas other intellectual property cases within the jurisdiction inTianjin,including invention patents,utility model patents,newplant varieties,designs of layout of integrated circuits,technicalsecrets,computer software ownership,infringement disputesand monopoly disputes.Over the past four years,t

57、he Tribunalhas consistently adhered to the working framework of Based inTianjin,Oriented to the Country,and Open to the World,and hasalways planned its work in the overall context of servinginnovation and development,and has impartially and efficientlytried a large number of high-quality model cases

58、 in the city,the 23 country,and evenwithmultinational influence,and hassafeguarded the self-reliance and self-improvement of scienceand technology in the new era with high standard judicial trials.I.Trial of Technological Intellectual Property Cases(I)Acceptance of Cases1.Statistics by year:As of Ma

59、rch 31,2023,the Tribunalhas accepted a total of 1,102 technological cases;in particular,188 technological cases(185 cases of first instance and 3 casesof second instance)were accepted in 2019;269 technologicalcases(all cases of first instance)were accepted in 2020;407technological cases(404 cases of

60、 first instance and 3 cases ofsecond instance)were accepted in 2021;197 technological cases(196 cases of first instance and 1 case of second instance)wereaccepted in 2022;41 technological cases(40 cases of firstinstance and 1 case of second instance)were accepted in Q1 of2023.(For details,please ref

61、er to Figure 1)(Figure 1)24 2.Statistics by case:Among the technological casesaccepted,684 were patent cases,303 were computer softwarecases,73 were technology contract cases,17 were technologysecret cases,15 were cases involving recognition of well-knowntrademark,7 were monopoly dispute cases,2 wer

62、e new plantvariety rights cases,and 1 was an integrated circuit layoutdesign case.Among all the technological cases accepted,therewere 1,096 civil cases,5 administrative cases and 1 criminalcase.(For details,please refer to Figure 2)(Figure 2)3.Statistics by centralized jurisdiction:Among all the ca

63、sesaccepted,1,029(93.37%)were technological cases of firstinstance involving patents,new plant varieties,integrated circuit 25 layout designs,technical secrets,computer software,recognitionofwell-knowntrademarksandmonopolydisputesundercentralized jurisdiction,and 73(6.63%)were technologicalcases und

64、er non-centralized jurisdiction.(For details,pleaserefer to Figure 3)(Figure 3)Among the cases under centralized jurisdiction,387 wereinvention and utility model patent cases,303 were computersoftware cases,222 were design patent cases,75 were otherpatent cases,17 were technology secrets cases,15 we

65、re disputecases involving the recognition of well-known trademarks,7were monopoly dispute cases,2 were dispute cases of new plantvarieties,and 1 was an integrated circuit layout design case.(Fordetails,please refer to Figure 4)26(Figure 4)(II)Closed CasesGiven the severe situation of rapid growth in

66、 the number ofcases as well as the increasing difficulty of the cases,all theofficials of the Tribunal are determined to improve,study andcomplete the trial assignments with high quality.In 2019,a total of 111 technological cases were closed,with a closure rate of 59.04%;in 2020,266 technological ca

67、seswere closed,with a closure rate of 76.87%;in 2021,351technological cases were closed,with a closure rate of 72.07%;and in 2022,280 technological cases were closed,with a closurerate of 84.08%.The overall case closure rate has been steadilyimproving.(III)Case CharacteristicsFirst,the overall rise

68、in the number of cases.The number of 27 cases accepted in 2020 is 43.09%higher than that in 2019(theTribunal officially assumed its duties on April 1,2019),thenumber of cases accepted in 2021 is 51.3%higher than that in2020,and the total number of cases accepted in 2022 is 51.6%lower than that in 20

69、21 due to the pandemic and the adjustmentof the jurisdictional system,however,the number of cases withrelatively high professional difficulty such as ownership andinfringement was 46.58%higher than that in the previous year.Second,the types of cases are further enriched,with theemerging disputes ove

70、r bottlenecked key core technologiesandinnewfieldsandnewbusinessmodelsfeaturingProfessionalism,Refinement,Specialty and Novelty.From theperspective of the causes of cases,in addition to traditionalcases of patents,computer software and technology secrets,newcases such as disputes over layout designs

71、 of integrated circuitsand disputes over new plant varieties have emerged.From theperspective of litigation areas,many cases have involved coretechnology areas of high-grade,precision and advanced,inadditiontothetraditionalfieldssuchasmachinery,photoelectricity and chemistry,disputes in the technolo

72、gicalfields of microelectronic chips,nano,quantum dots,seeds,biopharmaceuticals,etc.have emerged in large numbers,and thefact of complex technology has posed greater challenges tojudicial trials.Third,the balance of interests is increasinglycomplicated.Intellectual property rights involve complicate

73、d 28 interests,in particular,with the development of scientific andtechnological innovation,in cases involving the field ofhigh-grade,precision and advanced such as patents andtechnology secrets,the delimitation of the boundary of rightsdirectly affects the balance between individual interests andpu

74、blic interests,so that the precise orientation of the boundaryof rights,accurate grasp of multi-level value orientations,andthen balanced relationship between individual interests andpublic interests,have imposed higher requirements on judicialtrials.Fourth,thenumberofforeign-relatedcaseshassignific

75、antly increased,and a number of high-quality cases withinternational influence have emerged.As of March 31,2023,atotal of 24 cases involving foreign technology have beenaccepted,accounting for 2.18%.The Tribunal has tried anumber of transnational intellectual property disputes withinternationalinflu

76、enceinvolvingNano,Samsung,Dyson,Maxxium,Babyzen,etc.,and equally protected the rights andinterests of Chinese and foreign market players,thereby creatinga fair and authoritative international judicial image.Fifth,thequality and efficiency of the trial has been continuouslyimproved,and a number of fi

77、rst cases in the country and the cityhave been tried.The Tribunal has made the first foreign patentinfringement verdict with punitive damages;issued the firstcustoms temporary injunction for foreign invention patent cases;tried the first criminal case of infringement of technical secrets 29 in Tianj

78、in with the amount of damages determined by license fee;tried the first case of new plant variety in Tianjin,and created anumber of model cases with remarkable high-quality results.II.Implementing high-quality projects and safeguardingthe national strategy of innovation-driven development(I)Enhance

79、the protection of key core technologies andsafeguard the development of strategic emerging industriesInnovation is the first driving force to lead development,aswell as the inevitable requirement for implementing the newdevelopment concept,building a new development pattern andpromoting high-quality

80、 development.The Tribunal has closelyfollowed the requirements of high-quality development ofTianjin,identified the starting point of judicial services toguarantee the development of innovation,strengthened theprotection of bottleneck key core technologies,new strategicindustries,technology-intensiv

81、e industries as well as originalinnovation achievements,and given play to the driving effect oftechnology cases on scientific and technological innovation.TheTribunal has strengthened the protection of intellectual propertyrights in the field of chips,and closed a dispute between adomestic cell phon

82、e baseband chip company and a technologycompany for infringement of invention patent rights.Theplaintiff in this case was a leading domestic cell phone basebandchip enterprise,with its production of 28nm cell phone basebandchip as the core technology in this field.The Tribunal accurately 30 identifi

83、ed the technical facts and made a timely judgment toefficiently protect the patent technology involved.The Tribunalhas reinforced the protection of intellectual property rights in thefieldofhigh-endequipmentmaterials,emphasizedthetransformation and application of technological achievements,and close

84、d the case of infringement of invention patents byNano and Samsung.In this case,Nano was one of the top threequantum dot material R&D enterprises in the world,and thepatent in question,nano particles,was the core patent ofquantum dot material.Both parties had parallel internationallitigations in the

85、 Federal District Court of the Eastern District ofTexas in the United States and the Court of Dsseldorf inGermany,andfinally,the Tribunal facilitatedNanoandSamsung in reaching a global settlement,which effectivelypromoted the transformation of technological achievements andapplication of innovation

86、in the global high-end electronicsindustry.TheTribunalhasintensifiedtheprotectionofintegrated circuit layout design and promoted the healthydevelopment of microelectronics technology industry,and triedthe dispute between a particular actuator company in Tianjin andan individual with the family name

87、of Zhang concerningintegrated circuit layout design.This case involved a layout ofintelligent valve electric device control IC,which involvedcomplex IC layout and difficult trial,and was typical in IClayout design cases,and the trial of this case actively responded 31 to the judicial demand in the f

88、ield of digital technologyinnovation.(II)Enhancetheprotectionofmanufacturingintellectual property rights and promote the transformationand upgrading of manufacturing industryTianjinadherestothestrategicdeploymentofamanufacturing-based city,and the development of high-end,intelligentandgreenmanufactu

89、ringindustrycannotbeseparated from innovation-driven and requires the protection ofintellectual property rights.The Tribunal has identified theintegration and focus points to serve and guarantee thehigh-quality development of the manufacturing industry,andassisted Tianjin in building a national adva

90、nced manufacturingR&D base through judicial trials.The Tribunal has reinforcedthe protection of innovation in smart manufacturing and digitalindustries and closed the technical contract dispute between atechnology company in Tianjin and a company in Tianjin.Thiscase involved R&D in the manufacture o

91、f automatic cleaningrobots for photovoltaic panels and automatic spraying robots forPV panels.The Tribunal sorted out the technical agreementsarticle by article,organized surveys in comparison,made quickand efficient judgments,settled disputes and stopped disputes,and effectively protected the techn

92、ical achievements in the fieldof high-end intelligent manufacturing such as industrial robotsand human-computer interaction.The Tribunal has enhanced the 32 protectionofthetechnicalachievementsofthemodernnumerical control electromechanical and precision equipmentmanufacturing industry,and closed the

93、 case of a mechanical andelectrical equipment company in Tianjin against a mechanicaland electrical company in Shandong for infringing its inventionpatent of high-pressure water rotary nozzle with axial thrustself-balancing function.This case was the first case in which atechnical investigator was a

94、ssigned by the Intellectual PropertyTribunal to engage in technical fact finding,to accuratelyidentify technical facts,timely suppress infringement andefficiently protect the legitimate rights and interests of the rightholder.The Tribunal has intensified the protection of intellectualproperty rights

95、 of automobile manufacturing industry and newenergy industry,and closed a number of cases related tocutting-edge fields of automobile manufacturing such as newenergy,automobileelectronicsandintelligentnetworkconnection for China FAW,CATARC(Tianjin)AutomotiveEngineering Research Institute,CATARC Test

96、ing Center,CNNENew Energy,Leopard Automobile,etc.,to serve the high-qualitydevelopment of automobile manufacturing industry and newenergy industry in Tianjin.In a patent infringement disputebetween a technology company in Tianjin and China FAWinvolving the use of the patent technology Hongqi HS5 in

97、thecrankcase ventilation pipe with disconnection detection devicebased on the conductive circuit mechanism of the pipeline 33 disconnection detection system,the Collegial Bench took thelegal source of the infringing product as a breakthrough,initiated contact with the infringing product manufacturer

98、,andsuccessfully organized mediation among the three parties,whichpromotedtheapplicationofscientificandtechnologicalachievements while protecting the patent technology.TheTribunal has applied the equivalent infringement decision exofficio to efficiently protect the legitimate rights and interests of

99、the right holders and closed the patent dispute case of anelectroniccompanyagainstatechnologycompanyforinfringement of a manual electric integrated actuator.TheTribunal has applied the equivalent infringement decision exofficio for the defendants infringement of the patent of othersby means of non-s

100、ubstantial alteration,and accurately delineatedand compared the technical features to effectively protect thelegitimate rights and interests of the innovation subject,whichhas achieved favorable social results.(III)Strengthen the protection of intellectual propertyrights in the seed industry,and ins

101、pire the research anddevelopment of new plant varietiesThe Report of the Twentieth CPC National Congressproposed to strengthen the foundation of food security on allfronts,and to further implement the revitalization of the seedindustry so as to guarantee the food safety for the Chinesepeople firmly.

102、Seeds are regarded as the chips of agriculture,34 and the protection of intellectual property rights in the seedindustryiscrucialtonationalfoodsecurityandtheimplementation of the rural revitalization strategy.Tianjin,as animportant base for seed source as well as a gathering place forresearch and br

103、eeding of new varieties,requires robust judicialprotection of intellectual property rights in the seed industry.The Tribunal has strengthened the protection of new plantvarieties and closed the first case of infringement of new plantvariety rights in Tianjin-Ji Mai 22 new plant varietyinfringement c

104、ase.In the trial of this case,the Collegiate Benchvisited the administrative law enforcement organs and retrievedthe administrative punishment case files associated with thiscase to restore the transaction process of the defendant and thethird party.Based on the full investigation of the facts of th

105、ecase,both parties reached a settlement and performed itimmediately upon the mediation hosted by the Tribunal,whichfully protected the rights and interests of the rights holders ofnew plant varieties and quickly and efficiently resolved theconflicts and disputes,thereby achieving favorable social ef

106、fects.The Tribunal tried a dispute between two seed companies inTianjin over the rights of a new cucumber plant variety.In thiscase,the Tribunal ex officio retrieved the variety samples fromthe Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development and the NewPlant Variety Conservation Center and transferred

107、 them foridentification,actively and steadily promoting the case process.35 The Tribunal has also engaged in research and discussion on theprotection of Xiaozhan Rice in Tianjin by means of judicialtrial and administrative law enforcement so as to providefavorable rules of law environment for the pr

108、omotion ofindependent innovation and healthy and orderly development ofthe seed industry and assist Tianjin in building an important basefor national seed industry science and technology innovation aswell as industrial development.(IV)Strengthentheprotectionofpharmaceuticalinnovation achievements an

109、d contribute to the revitalizationof the biomedical industryTraditional Chinese medicine is the splendid treasure oftraditional civilization in China,and the Chinese medicineindustry is a brilliant symbol of Tianjin.The Tribunal hasproactively dovetailed with the demands of TCM enterprises,visited a

110、nd researched the century-old TCM company in Tianjin-Tianjin Pharm DaRenTang Group Co.,Ltd.and explored thepath of assisting the construction of a competitive TCM city inTianjin by taking IPR protection as the entry point,and madejoint efforts in multiple fields such as trademark,brand name,technolo

111、gy secret and patent to safeguard the inheritance anddevelopmentofTCMindustryinTianjinandprovideintellectual property services for the establishment of a leadingdomestic and world-renowned strong TCM city.Biomedicine isclosely related to the survival and development of human beings 36 and the qualit

112、y of life,and the Tribunal has continued tostrengthen the protection of intellectual property rights in thebiomedicalindustry.IthasclosedadisputebetweenapharmaceuticalcompanyintheUnitedStatesandapharmaceutical company in Tianjin on infringement of patentrightofinvention.Thiscaseinvolvedthecutting-ed

113、gebiomedical technology field in the international context.TheTribunal innovated its working method by deploying technicalinvestigators across regions to accurately focus on technicalfactual disputes and quickly identify technical issues.Thetribunal concluded a dispute between a biotechnology compan

114、yin Hangzhou and a biotechnology company in Tianjin over akit for detecting liver fibrosis and cirrhosis.As the patentinvolved nucleic acid testing for local epidemic prevention andcontrol,the Tribunal strictly prevented the case from affectingthe severe situation of epidemic prevention and control

115、then,andadvanced the progress of the case in a steady and fast manner,and efficiently resolved the dispute with high quality withfavorable legal and social effects.(V)Equal protection of Chinese and foreign marketplayers to create a high-quality international businessenvironmentIntellectual property

116、 rights feature international attributes,and China is an important driving force in the internationalprotection of intellectual property rights.The Tribunal has been 37 adhering to the principle of equal protection of the legitimaterights and interests of Chinese and foreign high-tech enterprisesina

117、ccordancewiththelaw,safeguardingthecorecompetitivenessofscienceandtechnologyinnovationenterprises,and proactively integrating into the service offirst-class business environment and the construction of aninternational quality investment environment in Tianjin.Overthe past four years,the Tribunal has

118、 tried technological casesinvolving over ten countries,such as the United States,theUnited Kingdom,Germany,France and Japan,with disputesinvolvingmultiplefieldssuchashigh-endmaterials,biomedicine and sports equipment.The Tribunal has closed thedispute between Nano(UK)and Samsung(South Korea)overthe

119、patent rights of nano particles,and facilitated both partiesto reach a global settlement,thereby achieving the positiveeffect of judicial cases contributing to the transformation oftechnological achievements.The Tribunal has closed the case ofBabyzen(France)against a toy company in Hebei and a strol

120、lercompanyinHebei,whichwasthefirstforeignpatentinfringement case in China to apply punitive damages,and hassuccessfully taken the lead in applying the long-advocatedjudicial policy concept of punitive damages and academic viewstojudicial practices.Meanwhile,theruling on behaviorpreservation made in

121、this case was also the first case of behaviorpreservation ruling involving customs in a patent infringement 38 case in China,which fully leveraged temporary protectionmeasures to improve the timeliness and effectiveness of judicialremedies and achieve the effect of strict protection and fastprotecti

122、on in parallel.The Tribunal has closed the patentinfringement case of Prince Sports Group(US)and HoytArchery(US)against Huanyao Company,in which the patentinvolved was“archery bow with multi-tube structure”.The casewas a representative case in which the scope of protection ofmethod features and stru

123、ctural features of a product patent haddifferent standards of recognition.In the context of theprosperousdevelopmentofinternationaltradeandtheemergence of a large number of international sporting goods inthe domestic market,the case has established the rule that inpatent cases with both structural f

124、eatures and method features,the adjudication rule of limiting the structural features is to beappliedinpreference,therebyrealizingtheeffectofstrengthening the protection of patent rights while preventingthe right holder from improperly expanding the protection.(VI)Regulate the order of the technolog

125、y exchangemarket,and facilitate the transformation and application ofscientific and technological achievementsThe Report of the Twentieth CPC National Congressproposed to create a favourable environment for the growth ofscienceandtechnology-basedsmall,mediumandmicroenterprises,and to promote the in-

126、depth integration of the 39 innovation chain,industry chain,capital chain and talent chain.The overall chain system of intellectual property rights includesnot only strengthening the protection system,but also improvingthe operation system and optimizing the service system.Thetransactionservicemarke

127、tfortechnologicalachievementsserves as an important platform for technological achievementsto realize capacitytransformation,andthe regulation oftransaction order is directly associated with the application oftechnological achievements as well as the creation of innovationecological environment.The

128、Tribunal has actively played aleading judicial role in regulating,serving and safeguardinghigh-quality IP service providers by means of judicial decisions,and has promoted the effective allocation and circulation of IPresource elements to maximize the vigor of innovation andcreativity.In a case of p

129、atent agency contract dispute between ascience and technology company in Tianjin and an intellectualproperty agency in Tianjin,in response to the fact that thedefendant had completed patent drafting and filing with highquality,while the patent application was rejected only due to thenegligence of th

130、e plaintiff in paying the fees,the plaintiffsrequest for refund of patent fees was dismissed according to thelaw,thereby protecting the legitimate rights and interests ofhigh-qualityintellectualpropertyserviceinstitutions.TheTribunal has taken the lead in guiding the industry guidelines forintellect

131、ual property service institutions with the rules of case 40 adjudication,regulating the practices of patent agents,transferof licenses,and the transaction flow of technical achievements,and directing the healthy and orderly development of theintellectual property service industry.In the case of a pa

132、tentagency contract dispute between a science and technologycompany in Tianjin as well as between Wang and a patentagency in Tianjin,the patent agency was adjudicated to returnthe agency fees charged for the delayed patent application andthe poor quality of patent documents,thereby regulating thepat

133、ent agency market and promoting the improvement of thequality and efficiency of patent applications.(VII)Protect the legitimate rights and interests of theinnovation subjects,motivate the enthusiasm of all people ininvention and creationTechnology is the primary productive force,and talent isthe pri

134、mary resource.The Tribunal has fully leveraged theleading role of justice to protect the legitimate rights andinterests of innovation subjects,and has endeavored to create afavorable innovation atmosphere that respects knowledge andtalents,so as to contribute to building an important source ofindepe

135、ndent innovation and a source of original innovation inTianjin.The Tribunal has properly handled disputes involvingthe ownership of patents and rewards between enterprises anddeparting employees,and has adhered to the judicial philosophyof protecting both the technical achievements of high-tech 41 e

136、nterprises and the rights of departing employees to receiverewards,so as to fully inspire the innovation momentum ofmarket players.In the case of a dispute between Wu and ascienceandtechnologycompanyinTianjinovertheremuneration of the inventor of a job invention,the Tribunal,bymeans of repeated comm

137、unication,finally resolved the casethrough mediation,thereby protecting the right of the departingemployee as the inventor to receive remuneration rewards.Byjudicial adjudication,the disputes over the determination ofownership of scientific and technological achievements,transferof rights and distri

138、bution of benefits have been appropriatelyhandled in accordance with the law,so as to improve theutilization rate,realization rate and return rate of intellectualproperty rights and support the transformation and application ofscientificandtechnologicalachievementsaswellasindustrialization.In a seri

139、es of cases of disputes betweenIncocorr and a technology company over the ownership ofpatent rights,the Tribunal ruled that the patent rights andapplication rights were vested in the plaintiff,which effectivelyprotected the intellectual property rights of the enterprise andstimulated the innovation

140、power of the enterprises.In thedispute of Tianjin Automobile Mould Co.Ltd.against a scienceand technology company in Tianjin and a company in Hunan forinfringement of technical secrets,the Tribunal has penalized theillegal practices of departing employees stealing technical 42 secrets from the forme

141、r employer and protected the technicaladvantages of innovative subjects in the field of automobilemoulds.III.Innovative Mechanisms and Initiatives to UnleashNewMomentumfor QualityDevelopmentofJudicialServices(I)Construct a vertical and horizontal linkage platformto advance the protection of the over

142、all chain of intellectualproperty rights1.Construct the Beijing,Tianjin and Hebei intellectualproperty judicial protection collaboration mechanism.TheTianjin No.3 Intermediate Peoples Court has thoroughlyimplemented the strategic plan of the Twentieth CPC NationalCongress on promoting the coordinate

143、d development of Beijing,TianjinandHebeiaswellastherequirementsofcomprehensively strengthening the protection of intellectualproperty rights,and has signed the Framework Agreement onStrengthening Judicial Protection of Intellectual Property Rightsjointly with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court

144、and theXiongan Intermediate Peoples Court in Hebei,so as to create ajoint and collaborative platform for the protection of intellectualproperty rights in Beijing,Tianjin and Hebei,effectivelydevelop new channels and new paths for the coordinatedprotection of intellectual property rights in Beijing,T

145、ianjin andHebei,effectively promote the synergy and complementarity of 43 the courts of the three places in terms of talent training,judicialcoordination and joint research,and safeguard the high-qualitydevelopment of judicial protection of intellectual property rightsin Beijing,Tianjin and Hebei.2.

146、Construct a linkage mechanism between judicial andadministrativeenforcementofintellectualpropertyrights.Innovation driving is a systematic project,and the enhancementof the willingness of market players to innovate and invest ininnovation depends on a strict innovation protection system,which includ

147、es various aspects such as review and authorization,administrative enforcement and judicial protection.To furtherreinforce the overall chain protection of intellectual propertyrights,the Tianjin No.3 Intermediate Court,Tianjin Customs,the Municipal Bureau of Culture and Tourism,the MunicipalMarket S

148、upervision Commission and the Municipal IntellectualProperty Office have jointly signed the Linkage Mechanism ofJudicial and Administrative Law Enforcement of IntellectualProperty Rights,so as to build a linkage platform betweenjudicial and administrative law enforcement,coordinate the fourcollabora

149、tions of institutional mechanism,business field,talenttraining and Party building,and make concerted efforts to builda new pattern of collaborative protection of intellectual propertyrights.The Tianjin No.3 Central Court also established alinkage protection mechanism of justice and administration wi

150、ththe Tianjin Intellectual Property Protection Center,partnered 44 with the Binhai New Area Peoples Court and the Binhai NewArea Intellectual Property Office and the China(Binhai NewArea)Intellectual Property Protection Center in establishing acooperation mechanism of judicial protection and adminis

151、trativeprotection,and also established a collaboration mechanism withthe Tianjin Center for Patent Examination and Collaboration ofthe State Intellectual Property Office to improve the overallchain of creation,protection,application,management andservice,so as to provide robust support and strong pr

152、otection forinspiring innovation development,deepening the application ofintellectualpropertyrightsandbuildingahighlandofintellectual property protection.3.Construct a collaborative mechanism for intellectualproperty protection between the judicial authorities and highereducation institutions.The Mu

153、nicipal Party Committee andMunicipalGovernmenthaveexplicitlyproposedTenInitiatives to upgrade the city with education and talent.Tofullyunleashtheintellectualresourcesofcollegesanduniversities as well as the new momentum of judicial protection,Tianjin No.3 Intermediate Peoples Court has signed theCo

154、llaborative Mechanism of Intellectual Property Protectionwith Tianjin University of Science and Technology and BinhaiNewAreaPeoplesCourtforbuildingaplatformfortheoretical-practical innovation transformation of intellectualproperty protection as well as opening up the integration 45 channelbetweenint

155、ellectualresourcesofcollegesanduniversities and judicial protection of courts.Both parties willstrengthen the collaboration in fields such as selection andrecruitment of technical investigation officers,expert pool ofintellectual property,legal internship mechanism,academicseminars and exchanges,tra

156、ining of intellectual property talentsand joint construction of the Party,so as to solidly promotetheoretical research and transformation of achievements inintellectual property protection and jointly improve the level ofjudicial trial of intellectual property as well as the quality oftraining of ta

157、lents in colleges and universities.(II)Continue to improve the mechanism for handlingcases and optimize the quality and efficiency indicators ofintellectual property trials1.The three-in-one trial mechanism has been functioningeffectively.The Tribunal has intensified efforts in criminalcrackdown,and

158、 rigorously punished crimes with obviouscriminal deterrent effects The Tribunal has actively implementedthe criminal policy of balanced leniency and severity,fiercelycombatingcrimesagainstinnovationandcreativity,andachieving effective protection of key core technologies ofhigh-tech enterprises while

159、 combating crimes.The Tribunal haspublicly tried the case of infringement of trade secrets by Zhaoand pronounced the verdict in court,the defendant confessed tothe crime and expressed obedience to the verdict without appeal,46 the case was the first case to determine the amount of loss byreasonable

160、license fee following the implementation of theInterpretations of the Supreme Peoples Court and the SupremePeoples Procuratorate on the Specific Application of Law inCriminal Cases of Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights(III),andrespondedtothepracticalproblemsofthelong-standing judicial prac

161、tice of simple acquisition typeinfringement of trade secrets,and has provided an example forthe public,prosecution,law and other judicial organs to dealwith related criminal matters,and also provided a vivid teachingmaterial for the pioneering application of the law.The Tribunalhas properly tried ad

162、ministrative cases and promoted theunification of administrative and judicial standards.Over thepast four years,the Tribunal has closed a total of fivetechnology-based intellectual property administrative cases,involving specific administrative acts covering various aspectssuch as technology secrets

163、 and patent infringement.In the trialof administrative cases,the main responsible officials ofadministrative organs appeared in court,related administrativeorgans attended the trial,and the news media reported on thetrial activities.By trying administrative cases,the Tribunal hasactively performed i

164、ts judicial review function,supervised andregulated administrative law enforcement,and proactivelyguided the enforcement agencies of intellectual property rightsto harmonize their processing standards of investigation and 47 evidencecollection,evidencereview,infringementdetermination and liability a

165、ssumption with judicial standards.2.The system for identifying diversified technical facts hascontinued to improve.Tianjin Intellectual Property Tribunal,asthe centralized jurisdictional tribunal for technological cases inTianjin,accepts cases involving multiple scientific and technicaldisciplines,a

166、nd it has become a key and difficult task to identifythe technical facts in an objective,scientific and unbiasedmanner.TheTribunalhaspioneeredtheinter-domesticdeployment of technical investigation officials,and applied totheNationalCourt TechnicalInvestigationTalentPoolthrough the National Court Tec

167、hnical Investigation TalentSharing Mechanism for off-site deployment of technicalinvestigation officials from the Supreme Court.Tianjin No.3Intermediate Court has signed the Framework Agreement onCooperation in Intellectual Property Rights with the TianjinCenter for Patent Examination and Collaborat

168、ion of the StateIntellectual Property Office,and the Collaborative MechanismforIntellectualPropertyRightsProtectionwithTianjinUniversity of Science and Technology,to employ technicalinvestigation officers to participate in the identification oftechnical facts of the case.The Court has also formulate

169、d theRules for Participation of Technical Investigation Officers inLitigation Activities and participated in the compilation of theWork Manual for Technical Investigation Officers of the 48 Supreme Court to improve the rules and regulations.Up topresent,a total of 32 technical investigation official

170、s have beenselected and engaged,with over 110 person-time participation oftechnical investigation officials in cases involving patents,technology secrets,integrated circuit layout,computer software,etc.,to complete the identification of technical facts with highquality and efficiency.Currently,the t

171、echnical investigationofficial system has been operating in a standardized manner withsmooth flow of supplements,making it a Tianjin modelavailable nationwide in terms of improving the quality andefficiency of trials of intellectual property cases through a soundand diversified technical fact identi

172、fication mechanism.3.Effective application of innovative judicial reforminitiatives.Explore the professional trial model.The Court hasestablished a trial team for technological cases to refine the trialsand make precise decisions.It has focused on the overallprocess of each case from trial,paperwork

173、 to cases and researchso as to guarantee the availability of high-quality cases withsignificant impact.Address dilemma of proof with proper legalmeans.The Tribunal has adopted the rules of evidence to timelypresent the basic list of evidence to both parties;intensified theefforts to acquire evidence

174、 on application,and promptlyinvestigated and collected evidence in cases where the partiescould not obtain it or where the risk of obtaining the evidencewashigh.Furthermore,ithasextensivelyappliedthe 49 investigation orders of lawyers and assisted in the investigationletters to efficiently and conve

175、niently investigate the importantfacts of the cases,and endeavored to crack the problem ofdifficulty in providing evidence in intellectual property rightsprotection,andnotarizedtheefficientprotectionofthelegitimate rights and interests of the right holders.Make the bestuse of multi-discipline mechan

176、ism.The Tribunal has activelystrengthened the cooperation with the Municipal IntellectualProperty Protection Center and the Binhai Intellectual PropertyProtection Center,and commissioned the two Protection Centersto mediate technical cases as invited mediation organizations.Since the establishment o

177、f the cooperation mechanism,theTribunal has commissioned over 200 technological cases formediation,withsatisfactoryresults.Furtherpromotetheconstruction of intelligent court.The Tribunal has adhered toprotectinginnovationwithinnovativetechnology,fullyleveraged the Smart Court platform,further advanc

178、ed onlinecourt hearings,formulated online court trial protocols,andprovided rule support for online court trials.In view of thedifficult and complicated technological cases,the Tribunal hasexplored a path of online decomposition and comparison oftechnical features,with objective and realistic visual

179、 effects andstable and reliable operation,thereby greatly facilitating thelitigation of the parties,resulting in high praise from the parties.(III)Focus on innovation and development demands,50 strengthen the function of judicial protection of scientificand technological innovation1.Focus on the tra

180、nsformation of findings,and proposerecommendations for the general situation of science andtechnology innovation and development.The Tribunal hasconsistently focused on strategic and realistic major mattersconcerning the innovative development of Tianjin to launchresearch,and transformed the researc

181、h results into effectiveservices for the overall situation,and provided decision-makingreference for the development of science and technologyinnovation in Tianjin.The Tribunal has submitted the Researchon Serving and Ensuring the Construction of a CompetitiveIntellectual Property City in Tianjin by

182、 Tianjin IntellectualProperty Tribunal to the General Office of the Municipal PartyCommittee,whichsummarizedtheachievementsandexperiences in terms of the strategy of high-quality cases,creation of an innovative environment and construction of alarge protection pattern,analyzed in depth the existing

183、problemsand proposed solutions thereof.The Tribunal has submitted areport entitled Four Aspects of Problems Restricting theDevelopment of Science and Technology-based Enterprises inTianjin,which analyzed in depth the characteristics of the casesand their causes and recommendations,in conjunction wit

184、h thecharacteristics of the technology-based cases tried.It hassubmitted a report entitled Four Aspects of Problems Restricting 51 the Development of Intelligent Manufacturing Industry inComputer Software,which analyzed the problems,identified thecauses and proposed countermeasures from the cases tr

185、iedaround the intelligent software industry.Furthermore,theTribunal has fully leveraged the role of judicial advice anddelivered4judicialrecommendationstoadministrativeauthorities and science and innovation enterprises to seize thecutting-edge opportunities,cure the problems before they occurandprom

186、otetheimprovementofsocialgovernance.Participate actively in the development and improvement ofrules and regulations.In the formulation of the Regulations onthe Protection of Intellectual Property Rights in Tianjin,theCourt hosted a symposium on the court system in the city,andproposed five principle

187、 recommendations based on judicialpractice experience,such as highlighting the characteristics ofTianjin,as well as 24 specific recommendations,such asdeepening diversified dispute resolution and strengthening thepunishment for infringement of trade secrets and repeatedinfringement,all of which have

188、 been adopted by the StandingCommittee of the Municipal Peoples Congress.2.Advance the forward movement of litigation services,and precisely respond to the judicial demands of science andtechnology-based enterprises.The Binhai New Area,as one ofthe first national high-tech zones and the National Ind

189、ependentInnovation Demonstration Zone,has pooled a large number of 52 science and innovation industries and high-tech resources acrossthe city.The Tribunal has taken the initiative to the interfacingof the judicial trial services with major policies such as thehigh-quality development of the Binhai

190、New Area and thereform trials of the Free Trade Zone,to launch in-depth andextensive research and study,and to continuously improve theforesight,precision and effectiveness of judicial services.In2022,on the occasion of the third anniversary of GeneralSecretary Xi Jinpings visit to Binhai-Zhongguanc

191、un ScienceandTechnologyPark,theTribunalpaidavisittoBinhai-Zhongguancun Science and Technology Park to surveythe demands for intellectual property protection of high-techenterprises in the park,such as intelligent technology industry,life and health industry,new energy and new materials industry,and

192、to explain the procedures for patent application,precautions,ways to maintain rights and protection of technical secrets,so asto address the demands for intellectual property protection inkey industries and key technologies.In response to the problemsconcerning the lack of legal awareness of certain

193、 enterprises,theTribunal has launched a general publicity campaign related tothe transformation of scientific research results,raised theawareness level of scientific research institutions and scientificresearchers on related laws,consolidated the foundation of therights of the transformation of sci

194、entific research results,andprovided early warning of intellectual property risks for 53 enterprises to reduce the risks of litigation.The Tribunal has alsoorganized visits to pharmaceutical company CanSino BiologicsInc.,artificial intelligence company Iflytek,new manufacturingcompany TBEA Transform

195、er Co.,Ltd.as well as other keyscience and technology enterprises under the jurisdiction of theCourt to launch research visits,actively listen to the judicialdemands of enterprises on the protection of intellectual propertyrights of core technologies,clarify the working philosophy,provide better ser

196、vices for the development of science andtechnology-basedenterprises,andservetoprotectthehigh-quality development of Binhai New Area demonstrationleading.(IV)Expandthepopularizationoflawpublicitypositions,planting the atmosphere of public opinion toprotect intellectual property rights1.Multi-field ju

197、dicial publicity.Over the past four years,the Tribunal has always attached great importance to publicityefforts and continued to spread the strongest voice of judicialprotection of intellectual property rights in Tianjin.It hasconvened press conferences for three consecutive years,releasedthree whit

198、e papers on intellectual property protection and 20typical cases,and disclosed the status of intellectual propertyprotectionandtheachievementsofservingscienceandtechnology innovation in a timely manner.It has fully leveragedthe advantages of the news media in creating a multimedia 54 integration to

199、promote,online and offline synergy propagandamatrix.It has actively engaged in the promotion of law,and wasinvited to cooperate with Tianjin TV to produce a promotionalfilm on innovation and development of intellectual propertyjudicial services,which was broadcasted on News Channel,Science and Educa

200、tion Channel of Tianjin TV and TianjinTraffic Radio Channel for many times.It has extensivelylaunched training on laws,and has been invited to TianjinIntellectual Property Office,the Tianjin Center of the StatePatent Office Examination and Collaboration,the MarketSupervision Commission,enterprises a

201、nd schools in the districtto deliver training lectures on patent knowledge and popularizepatent laws.Furthermore,it has organized high quality onlinelegal literacy lectures and regularly published legal literacyvideos on new media platforms such as TikTok,WeChat officalaccount,etc.,with lively conte

202、nts and forms to fully inform andpresent the results of intellectual property protection to thepublic.2.Comprehensive judicial disclosure.The Tribunal hasalways adhered to the concept of legal literacy for the judiciary,taking judicial openness as a position for legal literacy andactively reporting

203、to the public on the trial activities of theTribunal.The Tribunal has made efforts to build the judicialdisclosure brands of“Tianjin Intellectual Property TribunalNewsletter”and“Tianjin Intellectual Property Tribunal Trials”,55 andmade efforts to build the judicial disclosure brands ofTianjin Intell

204、ectual Property Tribunal Newsletter and TianjinIntelligent Property Trials,and has made timely and accuratedisclosure of dynamics of tribunal operations,typical cases,lawsandregulationsthroughtheplatformofTianjinIntellectual Property Tribunal Newsletter.It has publisheddozens of reports on the work

205、of the tribunal on influentialmedia platforms such as the Legal Daily,the Peoples CourtNewspaper and the Tianjin Daily,highlighting the highlandeffect of judicial protection of intellectual property.The Tribunalhas employed the platform of Tianjin Intellectual PropertyTribunal Trials to organize a s

206、eries of trial observation byselecting typical cases and actively inviting NPC representatives,CPPCC members,special supervisors and media reporters toobserve on site,so as to turn each typical case into a vivid ruleof law public class and continuously enhance the nationalawareness of respecting and

207、 protecting innovation,and strive tocreate a first-class innovation ecology.IV.Strengthen team building,enhance the level ofprotection and innovation development capacitiesTalent is a major strategy for the development of thecountry,and team building is the foundation and guarantee forthe constructi

208、on of a national first-class intellectual propertytribunal.Over the past four years,the Tribunal has attachedgreat importance to team building,established a team of 56 intellectual property judges with strong political conviction andprofessional quality,and cultivated a number of advancedindividuals

209、.The Tribunal has been awarded as the ModelCollective of Tianjin Court System,and the Party building brandTianjin Intellectual Property Tribunal Pioneer has beenawarded as the Pioneering Team of Party Members.Onemember of the Tribunal has been awarded Satisfactory Politicaland Legal Officer of Tianj

210、in Political and Legal System by theGeneral Public,one member of the Tribunal has been awardedThe Most Beautiful Family of Tianjin,one member of theTribunal has been awarded Second-class Merit,one member ofthe Tribunal has been awarded Third-class Merit,eight membersof the Party have been awarded Ou

211、tstanding Communist PartyMember,one member of the Party has been awarded PioneerPost,and one member of the Party has been awarded ModelParty Member in Services(I)Strengthen the foundation and concentrate onpolitical capacity buildingOver the past four years,the Tribunal has always adheredto the abso

212、lute leadership of the Party in political and legalaffairs,thoroughly studied and understood the spirits of theNineteenthPartyCongress,thePlenarySessionsoftheNineteenth National Congress and the Twentieth Party Congress,firmly defended the Two Establishments and resolutelyrealized the Two Maintainme

213、nts.The Tribunal has been taking 57 Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristicsfor a New Era as the guidance,conscientiously implementing XiJinping Thought on Rule of Law,thoroughly implementing theimportant instructions and directions of General Secretary XiJinping on political and

214、 legal affairs as well as the spirit ofimportant discourse on intellectual property protection,andsolidly undertaking various tasks around the general situation ofservinginnovationanddevelopment.TheTribunalhascomprehensively and accurately implemented the decisions andplans of the Central Committee

215、and the Municipal Committeeon strengthening intellectual property protection and scientificand technological innovation,and has continuously incorporatedthe innovative theories of the Party with the intellectual propertytrials in an in-depth manner.The Tribunal has established theParty building bran

216、d matrix of“Tianjin Intellectual PropertyTribunalPioneer,TianjinIntellectualPropertyTribunalNewsletter,Tianjin Intellectual Property Tribunal Lecturesand Tianjin Intellectual Property Tribunal Trials,furtherstrengthened the characteristic concepts of Party buildingleading,integration and services,pr

217、omoted branch activitieswith distinctive features and highlights,actively guided youngpolice officials to be pioneers and exemplary in learning,practicing and understanding,taking up important tasks andstrivingforperformance,continuouslyimprovedthecomprehensive competence of young police officials,a

218、nd 58 continuously enhanced the centripetal force and cohesion of theParty branch.(II)Improve quality and efficiency,reinforce businesscapacity enhancementThe trial of intellectual property rights features a highdegreeoftechnicality,complexity,professionalismandinternationalism,and the trial of inte

219、llectual property rightsrequires proficiency in law,familiarity with technology,nationalconditions,and the global outlook.Over the past four years,the Tribunal has taken the Expert Judge program as a platformto further promote the implementation of the high-qualitystrategy.Based on the platform of T

220、ianjin Intellectual PropertyTribunal Lectures,the Tribunal has regularly launched lecturesand seminars on policies and regulations,core patents,newplant varieties,high-level integrated circuit layout designs andother hot topics at the forefront of intellectual property rightsand difficult issues in

221、judicial practice,so as to unleash thepowerful momentum of research and learning interaction.TheCompany has proactively reinforced external learning andexchanges,assigned trial officials to engage in exchangeseminarsontradesecretswiththeMarketSupervisionCommission,exchange seminars on blockchain dat

222、a depositionplatform with the Intellectual Property Office of Nankai District,and participated in seminars on difficult issues related to opensource software litigation organized by the Supreme Court,so as 59 to continuously enhance its participation and contribution tosolving the frontier and diffi

223、cult issues related to intellectualproperty.TheTribunalhasactivelyparticipatedintheformulation and improvement of normative documents,andprovided suggestions for the revision of normative documentssuch as the Several Provisions on Evidence in IntellectualProperty Civil Litigation of the Supreme Cour

224、t and the Opinionson the Application of Punitive Damages in Intellectual PropertyInfringement Cases of the Tianjin Supreme Court,with manysuggestions being adopted by higher courts.The Tribunal hasachieved fruitful research results,with two members awardedtheExcellentPrizeofthe31stNationalCourtSyste

225、mColloquium,one member publishing an article in the nationalcore journal Application of Law,one member awarded theExcellent Key Research Topic of Tianjin Court System,onemember receiving the Excellent Prize of the 2020 Tianjin CourtColloquium,one member receiving the Third Prize of the EssayoftheThi

226、rdBeijing-Tianjin-HebeiJudicialForum,twomembers awarded the Excellent Prize of the Essay of theEleventh Beijing-Tianjin-Shanghai-Chongqing Judicial Forum,two members awarded the Second Prize,one member awardedthe Third Prize and two members awarded the Excellent Prize ofthe Tianjin University-China

227、Judicial Forum of the ChineseSocietyofBehavioralLaw.Withhigh-qualitycasescontinuously emerging,a number of cases of the Tribunal have 60 beenawarded50 TypicalCasesofIntellectualPropertyProtection by the Supreme Peoples Court,Top Ten InfluentialCases of Tianjin Courts,Typical Cases of Tianjin Courts

228、Servingand Guaranteeing the Construction of One Belt and One Road,Typical Cases of Judicial Protection of Intellectual PropertyRights in Tianjin,etc.A number of court trials have beenawarded the First Prize of Excellent Court Trial of TianjinMunicipal Court,and a number of instruments have beenaward

229、ed the First,Second and Third Prizes of ExcellentInstrument Achievementof TianjinMunicipalCourtandExcellent Instrument of the Municipal Court,representing aremarkable performance of the Excellence Project.61 ConclusionIt was pointed out at the Twentieth CPC National Congressthat science and technolo

230、gy is the primary productive force,talent is the primary resource,and innovation is the primarydriving force.Nowadays,the world is undergoing a great changeunprecedented in a century,and China is in a critical period ofachieving the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.Theinnovation-driven devel

231、opment strategy is being implemented inan in-depth manner,and it is the prominent theme of technicalintellectual property trials to serve and ensure innovationdevelopment and scientific and technological self-reliance andself-improvement.The creativity of intellectual property rightsis developing by

232、 leaps and bounds.In the face of new industries,new fields and new problems in the judicial protection ofintellectual property rights,the Tianjin Intellectual PropertyTribunal will consistently adhere to the guidance of Xi JinpingsThought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a NewEra,focuso

233、nthenationalstrategicdemandsandthedevelopment needs of Tianjin,closely concentrate on the themeofhigh-qualitydevelopment,thoroughly,accuratelyandcomprehensively implement the new development concept,closely focus on the theme of high-quality development,implement the new development concept in a com

234、plete,accurateand comprehensive manner,concentrate on the implementation 62 of the Ten Initiatives of the Municipal Party Committee andthe Municipal Government,improve the quality and efficiencyof the judiciary,maintain the innovative power,with newinitiatives,newmechanisms,newservices,powerfullysaf

235、eguard the innovation-driven development of Tianjin and thecomprehensive construction of a socialist modern metropolis.63 技术类典型案例（2022.4-2023.4）贝比赞公司诉一达通公司、新速度公司、小贵族公司侵害发明专利权纠纷案【案情摘要】本案原告贝比赞公司（BABYZEN）系法国著名童车生产商，旗下拥有多项国际知名童车品牌，在业内享有很高知名度。其享有名称为“可折叠的婴儿车”发明专利。小贵族公司未经许可制造侵犯贝比赞公司上述专利权的童车产品，新速度公司通过一达通公司将

236、涉案被诉侵权产品售往境外。原告请求法院判令上述被告立即停止实施侵权行为；销毁库存及海关扣押的侵权产品；判令被告一达通公司、新速度公司赔偿原告贝比赞公司经济损失及合理费用共计 50 万元；判令被告小贵族公司赔偿原告贝比赞公司经济损失 150 万元，并对被告一达通公司、新速度公司的赔偿数额承担连带责任。【裁判结果】法院认为，本案被告小贵族公司在应知其所制造童车为侵权产品的情况下，仍未停止侵权，依然大量制造并销售侵权产品，侵权恶意明显。同时，其制造、销售侵权产品规模巨大，仅单笔交易多达近两千台，销售市场遍及国内外，侵权情节极其严重。综合考虑本案侵权情节及相关证据的基础 64 上，认定被告小贵族公司承

237、担原告损失三倍的惩罚性赔偿金额。新速度公司实施了许诺销售、销售侵犯原告贝比赞公司专利权的行为。故判决新速度公司立即停止许诺销售、销售侵犯贝比赞公司发明专利权的童车；小贵族公司立即停止制造、销售侵犯贝比赞公司发明专利权的童车；新速度公司赔偿贝比赞公司经济损失及合理开支 10 万元；小贵族公司赔偿贝比赞公司经济损失 150 万元。【典型意义】本案系全国首例适用惩罚性赔偿的涉外专利侵权案，将倡导已久的惩罚性赔偿司法政策率先成功运用到知识产权司法实践中，明确了惩罚性赔偿适用的裁判要旨，在惩罚性赔偿裁判规则适用条件和数额计算方面具有典型示范意义，参评天津市示范优案。党的二十大明确提出创新在我国现代化建设

238、全局中的核心地位。保护知识产权就是保护创新。本案的审理，既彰显了严厉打击恶意侵权的司法态度和加强知识产权司法保护的坚定决心，也是积极贯彻中央提出的“严大快同”知识产权司法保护理念的生动实践。“严”保护，作为首例适用惩罚性赔偿的涉外专利侵权知识产权案件，体现出严格保护创新的司法理念，同时对恶意侵权行为形成有力震慑。“大”保护，本案利用法院和国家专利局的合作机制，有专利审查员作为技术调查官参与技术事实查明，同时在事实认定当中充分考虑了知识产权行政执法机关行政处罚的预决效力。“快”保护，在极短时间内完成物证提取、现场勘验、组织听证等程序，作出全国首例在发明专利侵权 65 案件中涉及海关的行为保全裁定

239、。“同”保护，本案坚持依法平等保护中外高新技术企业合法权益，维护科技创新企业核心竞争力，营造良好的市场化法治化国际化营商环境和优质的跨国投资环境。66 鲁研公司诉金瑞丰公司侵害植物新品种权纠纷案【案情摘要】鲁研公司系“济麦 22”小麦品种权的独占被许可人。2020年天津市宝坻区农业农村委员会综合行政执法支队对天津市宝坻区某农资经营部以“济麦 22”麦种冒充“轮选 310”麦种进行销售假种子的行为作出行政处罚。鲁研农业公司认为该农资经营部（已注销）的经营者尚某某销售的种子实际为“济麦 22”，该批种子系尚某某从金瑞丰公司购进，故起诉金瑞丰公司未经许可擅自生产、销售“济麦 22”品种构成侵权。为充

240、分查明案件事实，法院走访有关行政执法机关，调取了相关卷宗，结合各方证据，还原了金瑞丰公司与尚某某的交易过程。涉案种子系金瑞丰公司生产、销售，经 DNA 指纹谱带数据检测，涉案种子与“济麦 22”品种构成相似，金瑞丰公司未提供相反证据证明被诉侵权种子与授权品种不同。【裁判结果】在充分查清案件事实的基础上，经过法院的调解，金瑞丰公司对其行为的性质和后果有了明确的认识，认可对鲁研公司所造成的损失。最终，鲁研公司与金瑞丰公司握手言和并就进一步的合作达成协议。本案以撤回起诉的方式结案。【典型意义】本案是我市首例侵害植物新品种权纠纷案。种子是农业的“芯片”，种业知识产权保护不仅事关国家粮食安全，也是全面推

241、行乡村振兴战略的要求。该案涉及种子套牌行为，67 是一起典型的侵犯品种权案件。法院准确查清案件事实，合理分配举证责任，促使侵权人认清其行为性质并认可给对方造成的损失。通过调解，法院快速高效化解了双方矛盾，充分保障了植物新品种权利人的合法权益。调解工作还促成了双方关于该植物新品种的进一步商业合作，使双方实现互利共赢，并规范了种业知识产权秩序，该案取得了良好的社会效果。68 潘某诉王某等侵害外观设计专利权纠纷案【案情摘要】原告潘某是“餐边柜（日式）”的外观设计专利权人。被告王某在淘宝网电商平台上销售涉嫌使用涉案外观设计方案制造的产品，原告对相关销售行为进行了公证取证。原告认为被告制造、销售、许诺销

242、售涉案产品构成专利侵权，要求停止侵权并赔偿损失。被告抗辩其生产家具的设计方案为现有设计，并对涉案专利向国家知识产权局提出了专利无效宣告请求。案件审理过程中，法院委托天津市知识产权保护中心人民调解委员会（以下简称调委会）对本案进行调解。调委会组成合议组，实地走访核实相关情况，就案件事实情况与双方当事人进行充分沟通，并为双方答疑解惑。【裁判结果】法院与调委会积极与双方当事人进行沟通，采取重点突破原则，提供多种调解方案，最终促成双方和解，原告撤回起诉。结案后，调委会及时回访双方当事人，为企业加强知识产权保护建言献策，有效提升了多元化解纠纷实效。【典型意义】本案是我市利用多元化纠纷解决机制化解知识产权

243、纠纷的典型案例。该案属于专利侵权纠纷，专业性较强。法院利用调委会所具有的专业优势，并充分运用多元解纷机制，促成双方和解。本案的快速调解畅通了诉调对接渠道，为专利权人提供了更加高效、便捷、低成本的保护途径，也为快速化解复杂技术纠纷提供了借鉴思路。69 斯瑞尔公司与凯英公司、齐信公司滥用市场支配地位纠纷案【案情摘要】斯瑞尔公司系生产三氯化铁溶液的公司，齐信公司受凯英公司委托，对某污泥处理厂三氯化铁采购项目进行招标，由于二次招标报名均不足三家，该项目采购方式转为竞争性谈判，斯瑞尔公司参与上述项目的招标及竞争性谈判但未中标。斯瑞尔公司主张凯英公司在天津污水污泥行业具有市场支配地位，凯英公司和齐信公司在

244、竞争性谈判文件中对本地企业和外地企业设置不同条件，要求外地企业提供三氯化铁场地房产证或场地租赁合同、天津市范围内设有办事处或分公司的有效证明以及提供至少两辆符合谈判文件要求的运输车辆等条件属于以不合理的条件限制或者排斥潜在投标人，构成滥用市场支配地位行为，斯瑞尔公司提起诉讼要求凯英公司、齐信公司停止侵权并赔偿斯瑞尔公司的相应损失。【裁判结果】法院认为，斯瑞尔公司主张凯英公司的行为构成滥用市场支配地位行为，需在界定本案相关市场的基础上，对凯英公司是否具有市场支配地位以及是否存在滥用行为等进行分析。关于相关市场的界定，本案中，结合双方发生争议的主要事实和原因以及凯英公司的经营行为，本案的相关市场应

245、界定为天津污水污泥处理行业。关于凯英公司是否具有本案相关市场支配地位，应结合经营者的市场份额、相关市场竞争状况、经营者控制市场上下游的能力、其他经营者的依 70 赖程度及其他经营者参与相关市场的难易程度等因素进行综合考虑，并且应由斯瑞尔公司对此负有举证责任，但斯瑞尔公司并未提交充足证据。关于凯英公司是否存在滥用市场支配地位的行为，涉案项目为三氯化铁采购，凯英公司针对三氯化铁系危险化学品的特殊性质、企业日常生产经营需要等因素，有权设置条件来满足项目需求，且设置的条件未违反相应法律、法规的规定，故法院经审理驳回斯瑞尔公司的诉讼请求。【典型意义】该案系涉及招投标领域滥用市场支配地位垄断纠纷的典型案例

246、，在进一步厘清滥用市场支配地位纠纷司法审查认定标准以及如何兼顾维护正常市场竞争秩序和保护市场主体自主经营权方面具有典型意义。近年来，国家出台了一系列法律、法规及相关行业规范，持续打击垄断经营行为，保护行业竞争秩序，但对于市场主体的自主经营权也要进行依法保护。本案中，法院一方面认为根据现有证据无法证明凯英公司在相关市场内具有支配地位，另一方面法院亦认为，市场主体在招投标或竞争性谈判中也有权根据项目特殊需求（本案涉及危险化学品采购）在法律法规规定的范围内设置相应条件，保护了企业的自主经营权。该案一审宣判后，当事人均未上诉，案件处理效果良好。71 佳洁斯公司与美心经营部,罗福门窗厂侵害实用新型专利权

247、纠纷案【案情摘要】原告佳洁斯公司拥有一项名为“平开推拉门窗转换装置”的实用新型专利，原告认为，由被告罗福门窗厂生产、美心经营部销售的涉案被诉侵权产品落入涉案专利保护范围。该案前期经过了行政裁决程序，知识产权行政执法部门经现场调查，根据“整体观察、综合判断”原则，作出行政裁决，认定涉案被诉侵权产品落入涉案专利权的保护范围，并责令涉案经营部停止销售涉案被诉侵权产品。原告以行政裁决书作为主要证据，提起本案民事诉讼。【裁判结果】法院向知识产权行政执法部门调取了涉案行政裁决的现场执法录像。涉案行政裁决书及相应的现场执法录像以及美心经营部销售现场照片，均不能完整体现涉案被诉侵权产品所包含的技术方案及具体的

248、技术特征，无法实现技术特征划分，并与涉案专利技术方案对比，无法判定被诉侵权产品所采用的技术方案是否落入涉案专利权的保护范围，故对原告诉请未予支持。【典型意义】本案系一起涉及知产侵权纠纷行政裁决程序与司法审判程序独立价值的典型案例，在如何取证及保存证据方面具有典型意义。该案反映了现有知产行政保护与司法保护体系中的共性问题，即已有行政裁决结论在民事审判程序中如何 72 定性。知识产权民事审判与行政裁决有各自独立的程序价值，民事审判中判定实用新型专利侵权的成立与否，应对涉案侵权行为进行全面审查，要将专利技术方案和被诉侵权技术方案进行分解，进而对比技术特征。已有的行政裁决结论应作为证据使用，而非直接依

249、据行政裁决结论作出定性。本案处理结果为此提供了司法审判路径，也为如何更好发挥行政、司法对于知识产权协同保护作用提供了思考与探索。73 欧卡姆公司与惠齐公司侵害外观设计专利权纠纷【案情摘要】原告欧卡姆公司为外观设计专利权人，该专利所应用的产品为电缆分线器产品。原告在本案中主张，曾与其商讨购买其电缆分线器产品的被告惠齐公司售卖的电缆分线器产品，与权利外观设计专利构成实质性相同。【裁判结果】法院认为，原告所主张的涉案专利权处于合法有效的状态。本案中被诉侵权产品与涉案专利均为电缆分支连接器，属于相同种类产品。从一般消费者的角度判断，被诉侵权产品与涉案专利在端部肋形状、端部形状存在较大差异，且端部肋形状

250、和端部形状的设计空间较大，故被诉侵权产品与涉案专利既不相同也不等同。因被诉侵权产品的外观设计未落入涉案专利保护范围，故原告的其他诉讼请求亦无法支持。综上，依法驳回原告西安欧卡姆电气有限公司的全部诉讼请求。【典型意义】本案系侵害外观设计专利权纠纷中，涉及“一般消费者”拟制的典型案例，明确了如何依照专利法及其司法解释的相关规定，在原告主张的外观设计专利与被诉侵权产品均为相关专业领域工作人员才具备观察条件的情形下，如何在案件中界定“一般消费者”，以及界定“一般消费者”的方式方法。具体为：在原告所主张的权利外观设计与被诉侵权设计的受众均为特定领域的从业者时，应将“一般消费者”进行 74 适当的界定。该

251、种界定不宜将其限定为“从事某某工作”或者“从事某某行业”的具体工作人员，而应当结合最高人民法院关于审理侵犯专利权纠纷案件应用法律若干问题的解释规定中的“知识水平”和“认知能力”两方面来进行界定，即权利外观设计与被诉侵权设计的受众对上述设计具备怎样的知识水平，其认知能力需达到何种程度，才足以使其能够辨别出权利设计与被诉侵权设计是否存在实质性区别。75 明谷公司与信茂公司计算机软件开发合同纠纷案【案情摘要】明谷公司与信茂公司订立软件开发合同约定，明谷公司为信茂公司开发涉案软件系统。信茂公司依约支付了预付款。后在合同履行中，双方对于交付的软件是否符合验收标准、能否上线运行产生争议。信茂公司未支付剩余

252、款项。明谷公司起诉要求信茂公司支付软件开发的剩余价款及违约金。诉讼中，信茂公司提起反诉，要求明谷公司返还预付款、支付违约金，并在反诉状中提出解除双方之间软件开发合同。【裁判结果】法院认为，涉案软件开发合同合法有效，对双方当事人均具有法律约束力，双方均应全面履行合同义务。鉴于双方当事人对软件“开发周期”存在不同理解，结合涉案合同其他条款、合同目的、交易习惯等因素，对计算机软件“开发周期”应解释为：自明谷公司收到合同约定的预付款起到软件验收合格。明谷公司虽交付软件产品及相关操作文档，但并未经验收合格，故不符合“开发周期”的约定。同时，信茂公司亦未按照涉案合同约定支付对应款项，也存在违约行为。考虑到

253、双方均构成违约，且继续履行合同已难以实现合同目的，认定涉案合同已解除。虽然明谷公司交付的软件不符合约定，但其已实际进行了软件开发并交付了初步成果，为履行合同投入了人力和资金，结合合同性质和履行情况，信茂公司向明谷公司支付的预付款不予返还。同时，因涉案 76 合同已被信茂公司解除，信茂公司要求明谷公司支付逾期履约违约金不符合合同法有关合同解除后果的规定。【典型意义】本案涉及对计算机软件开发合同中有关“开发周期”等术语的解释，在认定软件开发成果是否符合约定及软件开发合同解除标准方面具有典型意义。本案中，技术调查官参与诉讼，协助查明软件专业方面的技术事实，其提供的有关软件行业对术语的通常理解为案件审

254、理提供重要参考。在计算机软件开发合同纠纷中，涉案软件是否符合约定的验收标准是案件审理的关键。通常情况下，一方起诉认为未达到验收标准，继而要求解除合同，对于未达到验收标准是否构成合同解除的条件需综合考虑。本案结合当事人使用状况、陈述及法庭当庭勘验等方式认定涉案软件未经验收合格，且涉案软件开发目的在于应对疫情防控给餐饮业带来的冲击，迟延交付已错失商机，故合同目的不能实现。结合双方均存在违约行为的情形，认定涉案合同已解除。考虑到软件作为合同标的物的特殊性，无法适用恢复原状，且一方交付的软件虽不符合约定，但其已实际进行了软件开发并交付了初步成果，为履行合同投入了人力和资金，故损失由双方分担。77 达瑞

255、公司与创远公司侵害外观设计专利权纠纷案【案情摘要】达瑞公司被授予一种名称为“蛋糕装饰巧克力饰品（邻家女孩）”的外观设计专利权，该外观设计专利证书简要说明载明：本外观设计产品的用途为巧克力制品，蛋糕、甜品等食品装饰，或单独使用，并用于食用和观赏；设计要点在于产品的形状和图案的结合；最能表明设计要点的图片或照片为主视图。该专利处于有效期内。在相关展会举办期间，达瑞公司委托代理人在创远公司设置展台处公证购买了展品图册，并当场取得宣传页、纸袋和销售小票等。后在创远公司经营场所，达瑞公司委托代理人公证购买了被诉侵权产品（蛋糕模具）。达瑞公司认为创远公司制造、销售和许诺销售的被诉侵权产品（蛋糕模具）的设计

256、特征落入涉案外观设计专利权保护范围，要求创远公司停止侵权并予以赔偿。【裁判结果】法院认为，涉案外观设计专利处于有效期内，且权利稳定，创远公司有关涉案专利外观设计丧失新颖性的抗辩不能成立。涉案外观设计专利产品用途为蛋糕装饰巧克力饰品，可食用、可观赏。被诉侵权设计产品系置于蛋糕上的装饰品模型，不可食用。经综合考量，两者属于相近种类产品，可以进行比对。经比对，被诉侵权设计落入涉案外观设计专利权的保护范围。创远公司未经许可，为生产经营目的实施了制造、销售和许诺销售被诉侵权产品的行为，且其有关合法来源的抗辩因无相应证据证实不能成立。故判令创远公司停 78 止侵权并予以赔偿。【典型意义】本案系外观设计专利

257、侵权纠纷中“相同或相近种类”产品认定的典型案例。在外观设计专利侵权诉讼中，是否落入涉案外观设计专利权保护范围是专权侵权判断的重要环节。而能否进行比对则是前提，需审查被诉侵权产品与外观设计产品种类是否相同或者相近，应综合考量外观设计产品的功能、用途、使用环境、消费群体等作出判断。本案中，涉案外观设计专利产品与被诉侵权设计产品虽在具体功用上有差别，但在蛋糕经营领域均具有装饰、美化蛋糕，并作为蛋糕主题吸引消费者选购的作用，且均被蛋糕店铺经营者使用。在一般消费者看来，蛋糕饰品和饰品模型是相对应的，基于该商品的特性，在蛋糕店铺通过模型选购对应的蛋糕商品，是蛋糕店铺常用的经营模式，符合一般消费者的认知。故

258、从产品用途、经营领域和一般消费者认知看，两者属于相近种类产品，可以进行侵权比对。79 WEH 公司与朗安公司侵害发明专利权纠纷案【案情摘要】WEH 公司对涉案专利（用于新能源汽车流体管道的过滤部件）享有独占实施权。该公司发现，朗安公司官网存在对LA-HR1 型加氢口及 LA-HR5 型加氢口的产品介绍，并在上海举办的“第十五届上海国际汽车制造技术与装备及材料展览会”和在广东佛山举办的“第三届中国（佛山）国际氢能与燃料电池技术及产品展览会”展出上述型号加氢口。（加购买行为）。WEH 公司认为上述型号加氢口中的过滤部件落入涉案专利保护范围，朗安公司制造、销售、许诺销售被诉侵权过滤部件的行为严重侵犯

259、了 WEH 公司的涉案专利权，故请求判令朗安公司停止侵权、销毁制造工具、赔偿经济损失。【裁判结果】法院认为，通过技术特征的比对，涉案两种型号加氢口中的过滤部件的技术方案相同，该技术方案经分解对比技术特征，与涉案专利对应的技术特征构成相同，被诉侵权技术方案落入涉案专利的保护范围。现有证据可以认定朗安公司实施了销售行为，至于许诺销售，因涉案加氢口可与被诉侵权过滤部件分离，而现有证据无法证实朗安公司展出的加氢口中是否包含被诉侵权过滤部件，故对 WEH 公司主张的许诺销售未予认定。因涉案专利权已经到期，WEH 公司主张朗安公司停止侵权未予支持。在无初步证据证明存在专用模具、产品库存及其数量的情况下，不

260、宜直接进行推定，而应依照证据规则结合实际情况综合认定。最终法院判决朗安公司赔 80 偿 WEH 公司经济损失及合理开支。【典型意义】本案系一起涉及新能源汽车相关领域的涉外专利侵权案件，在展会知识产权保护方面具有典型意义。该案对可与终端产品分离的独立部件如何认定成立许诺销售，专利到期后权利人主张停止侵权应否支持以及权利人主张销毁制造被诉侵权产品的库存与制造工具时举证责任分配等方面具有参考意义。81 赫某与梅奥公司侵害外观设计专利权纠纷案【案情摘要】赫某被授予一种名称为“玉石坐垫”的外观设计专利，该外观设计专利证书简要说明载明：本外观设计产品的用途为用于理疗保健；设计要点在于产品的形状、图案和色彩

261、；主视图最能体现设计要点。该专利处于有效期内。赫某与梅奥公司签订委托加工合同书，约定由赫某经营的公司以上述专利技术为梅奥公司代加工相关产品。双方合作期间，梅奥公司另行委托案外人制造了相同的产品。对此，赫某向天津市河西区知识产权局进行投诉，天津市河西区知识产权局立案后在梅奥公司经营场所查封了涉嫌侵权产品，并裁决侵权成立，责令梅奥公司停止销售被诉侵权产品。赫某认为梅奥公司委托制造、销售和许诺销售的被诉侵权产品的设计特征落入涉案外观设计专利权保护范围，要求梅奥公司停止侵权并予以赔偿损失。【裁判结果】涉案外观设计专利处于有效期内，且权利稳定。根据天津市河西区市场监督管理局提供的现场检查照片、询问笔录、

262、被诉侵权产品手册、调取相关证据等，查明梅奥公司在接触涉案外观设计专利后，委托案外人为其定制产品进行加工，其中包含被诉侵权产品。被诉侵权产品与外观设计专利产品两者用途、功能以及消费群体基本相同，两者属于相同种类产品，可以进行侵权比对。经比对，被诉侵权外观设计与涉案专利外观设计构成相同设计。梅奥公司自认实施了委托制 82 造、销售、许诺销售被诉侵权产品的行为，该自认具有法律效力。梅奥公司委托案外人制造了被诉侵权产品，应当视为梅奥公司实施了制造被诉侵权产品的行为。故认定梅奥公司实施制造、销售、许诺销售被诉侵权产品的行为侵害了涉案外观设计专利权，在案证据无法证明在行政裁决作出后，梅奥公司已停止实施上述

263、侵权行为，故判决梅奥公司停止侵权、赔偿损失。【典型意义】本案为人民法院和知识产权行政机关协同惩处知识产权侵权行为提供借鉴。知识产权司法和行政“双轨制”是加强知识产权保护的一项重要机制。行政机关、司法机关职责不同，知识产权保护侧重点亦不同。强化协同保护，形成共治共管的“协同效应”，有利于提升保护效果、降低维权成本、提高维权效率。本案中，行政机关收到侵权投诉并立案受理后，及时对被诉侵权产品进行了封存、并依职权请求外地行政机关协助调查，既快速固定了证据，又节约了权利人的维权成本，提高了维权效率，为后续民事诉讼程序的展开打下了基础。另外，本案明晰了委托他人制造专利产品，应视为委托人自己实施了制造行为，

264、认定委托制造行为亦构成侵权。83 天汽模公司等与蓝晶公司、晓光公司侵害技术秘密纠纷案【案情摘要】原告天汽模公司于 2017 年至 2020 年开发完成“非标件柔性生产线智能控制系统”并享有该系统的相关全部知识产权。参与该系统研发的天汽模公司前员工未经许可将天汽模公司的非标件柔性生产线智能控制系统的源代码予以下载复制，并在离职后入职被告蓝晶公司，在经营过程中，蓝晶公司相关员工将该源代码用于相关智能控制系统研发并以公司名义出售予被告晓光公司获利。天汽模公司主张其研发的涉案系统中的技术内容构成技术秘密，二被告非法获取原告技术秘密并获利，故要求蓝晶公司、晓光公司停止侵权并赔偿经济损失及合理开支。【裁判

265、结果】法院认为,涉案技术秘密信息具有秘密性，原告已采取合理保密措施,并且涉案系统能够给原告带来经济利益，因此可以认定涉案技术信息符合技术秘密的构成要件。被告蓝晶公司相关员工参与过涉案系统的开发，其将原告公司的技术秘密源代码下载复制，将该代码用于为晓光公司研发的非标件柔性生产线智能控制系统，并在制作完成后以公司的名义出售给晓光公司获利，蓝晶公司的侵权行为成立。因无相关证据证明晓光公司参与了被诉侵权系统的开发以及对蓝晶公司相关员工擅自复制原告代码的行为构成应知或明知，故法院认为晓光公司不承担赔偿责任。最终，法院综合考虑 84 原告的投入以及就同一被诉侵权行为原告在相关刑事案件中已经获得相关赔偿等因

266、素，判令蓝晶公司、晓光公司立即停止侵害原告技术秘密的行为，并由蓝晶公司赔偿原告经济损失及合理开支。【典型意义】本案系法院保护国内领先核心技术秘密的典型案例，在合理分配技术秘密案件举证责任以及刑民交叉技术秘密侵权案件中如何合理确定赔偿数额方面具有典型意义。该案的审理中，法院合理分配举证责任，在天汽模公司已提供初步证据表明涉嫌侵权人有渠道或者机会获取商业秘密，且其使用的信息与该商业秘密实质上相同的情况下，将未侵犯技术秘密的举证责任分配给被告，减轻了原告的举证责任，解决了技术秘密案件中原告举证难的问题。同时，该案中及时引入技术调查官，运用第三方鉴定，解决案件涉及的代码、参数和算法等复杂技术问题。最终

267、，法院认定蓝晶公司的侵权行为成立，并在相关刑事案件天汽模公司已获得 150 万元赔偿的情况下，判令蓝晶公司继续赔偿 15 万元，加大知识产权保护力度。该案一审判决后，各方均服诉息判，蓝晶公司主动履行了赔偿义务，案件处理效果良好。85 航空设备公司与万维公司、航空科技公司、上品设计公司外观设计专利权属纠纷案【案情摘要】航空科技公司与上品设计公司签订设计服务合同书，委托上品设计公司设计自主行李托运系统创新产品即涉案外观设计，并且约定知识产权归属于航空科技公司。合同签订后，各方成立微信聊天群，就涉案外观设计的设计方案等进行沟通，该设计完成后，万维公司向国家知识产权局申请并获得外观设计专利授权。航空设

268、备公司认为，参与涉案外观设计创作的主要人员系其员工、其系实际委托上品设计公司开发涉案外观设计的主体以及相关会议纪要已经明确涉案外观设计归其所有，故其诉至法院，要求确认其享有涉案外观设计权属。【裁判结果】法院认为，与上品设计公司签订设计服务合同书进行涉案外观专利设计并支付相应报酬的主体系航空科技公司，上品设计公司亦出具说明认可其系受航空科技公司委托设计涉案外观设计且所设计产品的知识产权归航空科技公司所有，航空设备公司员工虽参与设计过程，但仅是在该外观设计开发过程中提供了相应需求、电器件模型以及部分参数，航空设备公司提交的证据不足以证明其对该外观设计进行了创造性贡献，故法院判决驳回航空设备公司的诉

269、讼请求。【典型意义】本案系一起因多方参与外观设计创作而产生的外观设 86 计专利权属纠纷的典型案例，在进一步明确专利法意义上的发明人、设计人的司法认定标准方面具有典型意义。中华人民共和国专利法实施细则第十三条规定，专利法所称发明人或者设计人，是指对发明创造的实质性特点作出创造性贡献的人，在完成发明创造过程中，只负责组织工作的人、为物质技术条件的利用提供方便的人或者从事其他辅助工作的人，不是发明人或者设计人。本案中，航空设备公司虽然参与了涉案外观设计的创作，但其提供的部分模型以及参数并非涉案外观设计的主要部分以及创新部分，故其并非对该外观设计作出创造性贡献的主体，其不构成涉案专利的设计人，无法确认涉案外观设计的权属归其所有。