Enthusiastic claimants, reluctant courts: The empirical and critical analysis of punitive damages in Chinese intellectual property law

IF 0.7 Q2 LAW
Baiyang Xiao
{"title":"Enthusiastic claimants, reluctant courts: The empirical and critical analysis of punitive damages in Chinese intellectual property law","authors":"Baiyang Xiao","doi":"10.1111/jwip.12297","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The availability of punitive awards varies across different common law jurisdictions. In recent years, China, as a civil law jurisdiction, has progressively introduced a comprehensive punitive damages system in Intellectual Property (IP) law in recent years. To investigate how this common law product functions in the civil law system, this paper scrutinizes the evolution and functions of punitive damages and depicts the map of punitive damages in Chinese IP law. Then this paper reports and analyses 657 IP judgments involving the application of punitive damages that were tried and decided in all parts of mainland China by all levels of courts from June 1, 2021, to May 31, 2022. Our empirical data shows that punitive damages are frequently sought by claimants, yet courts are reluctant to award them due to the complexities in determining the basis for calculation and judges' reluctance towards detailed legal reasoning. Furthermore, a critical analysis of the application of punitive damages in IP trials is provided, critiquing the court's preference for statutory damages, the complexity in determining the basis and multipliers for calculation, and the strict standard of proof, which accounted for the small portion of punitive damages awarded in judicial practices.</p>","PeriodicalId":54129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of World Intellectual Property","volume":"27 2","pages":"175-198"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jwip.12297","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of World Intellectual Property","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jwip.12297","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The availability of punitive awards varies across different common law jurisdictions. In recent years, China, as a civil law jurisdiction, has progressively introduced a comprehensive punitive damages system in Intellectual Property (IP) law in recent years. To investigate how this common law product functions in the civil law system, this paper scrutinizes the evolution and functions of punitive damages and depicts the map of punitive damages in Chinese IP law. Then this paper reports and analyses 657 IP judgments involving the application of punitive damages that were tried and decided in all parts of mainland China by all levels of courts from June 1, 2021, to May 31, 2022. Our empirical data shows that punitive damages are frequently sought by claimants, yet courts are reluctant to award them due to the complexities in determining the basis for calculation and judges' reluctance towards detailed legal reasoning. Furthermore, a critical analysis of the application of punitive damages in IP trials is provided, critiquing the court's preference for statutory damages, the complexity in determining the basis and multipliers for calculation, and the strict standard of proof, which accounted for the small portion of punitive damages awarded in judicial practices.

Abstract Image

热情的索赔人,不情愿的法院:中国知识产权法中惩罚性赔偿的实证与批判分析
在不同的英美法系司法管辖区,惩罚性赔偿的适用情况各不相同。中国作为大陆法系国家,近年来在知识产权法中逐步引入了全面的惩罚性赔偿制度。为了探究这一英美法系产物在大陆法系中如何发挥作用,本文对惩罚性赔偿的演变和功能进行了梳理,并描绘了惩罚性赔偿在中国知识产权法中的版图。随后,本文对 2021 年 6 月 1 日至 2022 年 5 月 31 日期间中国大陆各地各级法院审理和判决的 657 件涉及惩罚性赔偿适用的知识产权判决进行了报告和分析。我们的实证数据显示,惩罚性赔偿经常被索赔人要求,但由于计算依据的确定较为复杂,且法官不愿意进行详细的法律推理,法院不愿意判决惩罚性赔偿。此外,我们还对知识产权审判中惩罚性赔偿的适用情况进行了批判性分析,批评了法院对法定赔偿的偏好、确定计算依据和乘数的复杂性以及严格的举证标准,这些都是司法实践中惩罚性赔偿所占比例较小的原因。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
43
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信