On The Standardization Of Intellectual Property Judicial Authentication

Today, the tremendous economic benefits of intellectual property makes it takes a more and more important position not only in current world trade pattern, but also in China's future economic development strategy. With intellectual property disputes becomes more frequent and complicate, as an extremely important type of evidence in intellectual property litigation, IP judicial authentication opinion naturally become the focus of controversy, which its due procedures and fair results can not only promotes the smooth conduct of the suit, but also enhances the credibility of IP judicial authentication. In all, China's IP judicial authentication services started late, and its development was slow, while its has many problems to solve. The paper analyzes the status of China's IP judicial authentication services, and proposed some recommendation to improve it.The first chapter introduces the concept of IP judicial authentication, analyzed its characteristics and types accordingly. This article defined the IP judicial authentication as: An activity, which in order to ascertain the facts, during the process of intellectual property litigation, entrusted by the judiciary or the parties, operated by the certified intellectual property authentic institutions and experts, using science and technology or expertise to identify problems and determine and provide expert opinion on technical issues of the case. Compared with other types of Forensic Sciences, it stresses the technical and legal integration, involving extensive and highly specialized field, the contents differs dramatically, and is difficult to make unified appraisal standards, takes longer time than ordinary judicial authentications. IP judicial authentications can be classified into many types, such as technical appraisal and appraisal works contrast, judicial identification of patent infringement, trademark infringement forensic, forensic sciences on copyright infringement, trade secrets constitute judicial appraisal, trade secrets and infringement of Forensic Sciences Forensic Sciences and other technical contracts.IP authentication, in general, are mainly an activity which analyze and determine the value of IP from a technical, legal and market perspective. IP judicial authentication is important judicial activities involving intellectual property litigation, which occurs during the proceedings, must also be carried out in the proceedings, and has a judicial characteristics. Compared to its broader concept of IP authentication, their commissioned reason, commissioned body, the effectiveness of the authentication results are different.The second chapter summarizes the current situation of IP judicial authentication development in recent years, comparing the development in the litigation and use of IP judicial authentication in foreign countries, points out that in the judicial practice, IP judicial authentication expert opinion found plays a key role in affirming the facts of the case, thus the need to upgrade the IP judicial authentication system is urgent.The third chapter analyzes the main problems existing in the current IP judicial authentication. First, the lack of good monitoring mechanisms. Administrative management of the industry did not implement dual management mechanisms identified in the field of IP judicial authentication, and there is no relevant industry associations to accreditation and supervision institutions and personnel within the industry, while the professional of IP field limits the public, the judiciary and medias to understanding of the industry, let alone supervising; second, the right and condition to start IP judicial authentication is not clearly regulated, thus the program runs subjectivity; and third, experts' profession levels are uneven, vocational barriers to entry is low, which cannot meet the requirements of highly specialized IP judicial authentication; fourth, easy to cause a transferring jurisdiction, such as the judges not to review the conclusion or review a mere formality, to identify issues technical problems and legal issues be given to the identification of bodies were identified and so confusing; fifth, duplicate authentication rates are too high. Above all, these matters undermined the authority of the IP judicial authentication industry, and also restricted its development.The fourth chapter presents solution to improve the current IP judicial authentication system. After discussion over last several chapters, we found that the credibility and public confidence in the IP judicial authentication system in our country is not high, thus strengthening the normative study of IP judicial authentication issues related becomes very urgent. In addition learn from overseas IP judicial authentication system, we can also draw on other types of judicial systems design qualification, to strengthen the IP judicial authentication system's own standard management practice through the establishment of standards and quality assessment and examination system, increase research investment etc., and gradually improve the reliability of IP judicial authentication system, making it a more effective services in litigation and assist in the development of the Forensic Sciences in China. First, we must strengthen supervision and management of IP judicial authentication industry and establishing appropriate industry supervision and management mechanism, strengthen professional standards and quality assessment evaluation system; secondly, learn the common law and civil law cases for advanced legislation, introduce reasonably requirement for procedures and review criteria; thirdly, includes IP judicial authentication industry into the unified management of Forensic Sciences; and finally, give full play to the role of technical evaluation experts and other experts,such as expert witnesses, expert advisors, the Ombudsman and other technology in the proceedings, which the balances the Forensic Sciences with other fact identifying means in judicial activities.