Identify Non-Infringement Of Intellectual Property Litigation Research

In China, the intellectual property confirmed that the non-infringement litigationis a new type of litigation in the field of intellectual property litigation. It subverts therights holders in ordinary tort litigation, as the tradition of the plaintiff, the allegedinfringer of an active defense weapons, which reflects in the judicial practice in Chinahas been increasing emphasis on the obligation to protect people’s rights. However,due to intellectual property to confirm the late appearance of non-infringement lawsuitin China, the development of its system is not very mature, our laws and relevantjudicial interpretations of its provisions are not perfect. Confirm the nature ofnon-infringement litigation of intellectual property rights, the conditions ofadmissibility, the court of competent jurisdiction, joinder, and administrativeprocedures, the relationship between theory and the judiciary are quite controversial.In this paper, confirm the nature of the proceedings non-infringement of intellectualproperty, the analysis of civil law recognized complaints and the common law of thejudgment is pronounced on the confirmation of non-infringement lawsuit Suzhiliyiaccepted jurisdiction, joinder, counterclaim, shall be the expression of and problemswith administrative procedures, etc., and some suggestions of the author’s intellectualproperty rights trying to clear the whole picture to confirm the non-infringementlawsuit.In addition to the introduction and conclusion, full text is divided into five parts:The first part describes an overview of the intellectual property rights recognizednon-infringement lawsuits, mainly defined the concept of intellectual property rightsrecognized non-infringement lawsuit, clear intellectual property to confirm thenon-infringing nature, and introduced foreign theories, drawing on the confirmation ofthe civil law The judgment of the theoretical basis of the complaint and theAnglo-American legal systems, to further clarify the intellectual property to confirmthe practical significance of non-infringement lawsuit in China.The second part of the research to confirm the non-infringement lawsuit Suzhiliyi v.presupposes the existence of Suzhiliyi when clearly Suzhiliyi can help us tounderstand the intellectual property to confirm the non-infringement lawsuit. This partof the main draw on the procedural law of Jurists Professor Taniguchi Aeka,insurance fraud litigation discussed above in Suzhiliyi basic theory, physical sense Suzhiliyi and the procedures on Suzhiliyi views of, and with our theory and practiceof the criteria put forward relevant proposals.Third part mainly expounds the intellectual property to confirm the admissibility ofnon-infringement litigation and jurisdictional issues discussed mainly in terms of bothform and substance to confirm the conditions for prosecution of non-infringementlawsuit, is mainly discussed on the jurisdiction of the territorial jurisdiction of therelated issues, which focused on specific within the meaning of the infringement tookplace.The fourth section discusses the intellectual property rights recognizednon-infringement lawsuit v. consolidated with a counterclaim. Intellectual property toconfirm the existence of two different non-infringement lawsuit v.-NegativeConfirmation and payment claim of infringement, and is independent of action, civilaction two will be the principles and the judge can not refuse the principle of trial, thelaw does not prohibited in the same action to resolve the issues involved in thedifferent legal relationship, Negative Confirmation v. merger Payment infringementtrial, in line with the principle of judicial efficiency. To allow the right holder orinterested party to confirm the non-infringement lawsuit filed a counterclaim, the trialby the same judicial organization, you can save judicial resources, avoid duplicationreferee, the the contradiction referee, will help improve the efficiency of the trial, inline with civil litigation and two in the intellectual property will "principle. The articlesuggests that the introduction of the compulsory counterclaim system in the UnitedStates.Part V discusses the confirmation of proof of non-infringement of intellectualproperty litigation and judgment. Mainly from the prove with Suzhiliyi and proof thatthe perpetrator is not infringement to the two aspects of discourse. Briefly discussesthe confirmation of the judgment in the form of non-infringement of intellectualproperty litigation.Because of my limited ability to confirm the analysis and discussion ofnon-infringement of intellectual property litigation is not deep enough and needs tocontinue to strengthen.