Research On The System Of Technical Investigators In Intellectual Property Cases

Technical investigator system has been gradually introduced as one of the technology factfinding mechanisms due to the increasing number of intellectual property cases.It has been established in both the court and procuratorate systems with specified scope,legal positioning,responsibilities,rights and obligations,and the nature of technical investigation opinions.This system has been applied in practice and helps to clarify professional issues,unify adjudication scales,and coordinate adjudication procedures in criminal proceedings,which is in line with China’s trend of comprehensively strengthening intellectual property protection.The technical investigator system in criminal proceedings involving intellectual property still has many shortcomings.Firstly,the legislative level is low and not unified.Secondly,the applicable scope and types of criminal cases are unclear,and there are conflicts with civil and administrative jurisdiction in practice.Thirdly,there is a lack of connection with other technology fact-finding mechanisms.Fourthly,the positioning and responsibilities of technical investigators do not match.Fifthly,there are hidden risks of technical investigators exercising judicial adjudication power,causing cognitive biases in judges due to unequal professional technical abilities,difficulty in integrating technology and legal knowledge,and lack of accountability for technical investigators.Sixthly,it is difficult to select and manage technical investigators due to insufficient talent quantity,uneven distribution of talent,incomplete construction of technical investigator talent pool,and lack of communication or even conflicts between the technical investigator teams of courts and procuratorates.There are four models of technology fact-finding mechanisms in intellectual property cases outside the jurisdiction,represented by Germany and the United States’ technical judge model,Japan and Chinese Taiwan’s technical investigator model,South Korea’s technical examiner model,and the United Kingdom’s technical juror model.Each model has its advantages and disadvantages.To address the above issues,we can draw on the experience of different countries and regions and improve the technical investigator system in criminal proceedings involving intellectual property from the following perspectives: Firstly,unify and elevate the legal status of the technical investigator system through legislation and integrate existing relevant regulations.Secondly,clarify the scope of criminal cases applicable to the technical investigator system,include intellectual property cases and explore a centralized jurisdiction system.Thirdly,establish a "five-in-one" technical implementation investigation and identification system,distinguish different fact-finding mechanisms,and determine their application order.Fourthly,optimize the responsibilities of technical investigators.Fifthly,eliminate hidden risks of judicial adjudication power by clarifying the division of responsibilities between technical investigators and judges,establishing an integrity evaluation management system,and preparing for the establishment of a technical judge system.Sixthly,optimize the setting and management of technical investigators,improve the talent pool,explore methods for sharing technical investigator resources across regions,and explore multi-departmental and multi-party coconstruction and sharing linkage mechanisms.