专门的知识产权法庭是否表现出支持专利的倾向?来自中国的证据

IF 0.9 3区 社会学 Q3 ECONOMICS
Ya-Feng Zhang , Li-Ming Li , Ke Xu
{"title":"专门的知识产权法庭是否表现出支持专利的倾向?来自中国的证据","authors":"Ya-Feng Zhang ,&nbsp;Li-Ming Li ,&nbsp;Ke Xu","doi":"10.1016/j.irle.2022.106065","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Intellectual property (IP) is gaining increasing attention in various fields. However, its proper function relies on an effective judicial system. Thus, we compared the results of patent infringement litigations in China between specialized IP courts and general courts. We found that patent holders sue for higher damages at IP courts than in general courts, and IP courts grant higher damages. However, when we controlled the impacts of certain factors, we found that the IP courts do not demonstrate a pro-patent propensity in their judgments. Furthermore, IP courts have not shown significant advantages in their judgments in aspects of speed, the rate of appeals, and the avoidance of mistakes. We also found that litigious plaintiffs are, to some degree, disliked by the courts. This work provides an empirical understanding of the latest situation about patent protection in China and discusses its practical implications.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47202,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Law and Economics","volume":"70 ","pages":"Article 106065"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Do specialized intellectual property courts show a pro-patent propensity? Evidence from China\",\"authors\":\"Ya-Feng Zhang ,&nbsp;Li-Ming Li ,&nbsp;Ke Xu\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.irle.2022.106065\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Intellectual property (IP) is gaining increasing attention in various fields. However, its proper function relies on an effective judicial system. Thus, we compared the results of patent infringement litigations in China between specialized IP courts and general courts. We found that patent holders sue for higher damages at IP courts than in general courts, and IP courts grant higher damages. However, when we controlled the impacts of certain factors, we found that the IP courts do not demonstrate a pro-patent propensity in their judgments. Furthermore, IP courts have not shown significant advantages in their judgments in aspects of speed, the rate of appeals, and the avoidance of mistakes. We also found that litigious plaintiffs are, to some degree, disliked by the courts. This work provides an empirical understanding of the latest situation about patent protection in China and discusses its practical implications.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47202,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Review of Law and Economics\",\"volume\":\"70 \",\"pages\":\"Article 106065\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Review of Law and Economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0144818822000217\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Review of Law and Economics","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0144818822000217","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

知识产权在各个领域受到越来越多的关注。然而,它的正常运作依赖于有效的司法制度。因此,我们比较了中国知识产权专业法院和普通法院的专利侵权诉讼结果。我们发现,专利持有人在知识产权法院提起诉讼,要求的损害赔偿比在普通法院更高,知识产权法院给予的损害赔偿也更高。然而,当我们控制某些因素的影响时,我们发现知识产权法院在其判决中并未表现出支持专利的倾向。此外,知识产权法院在判决速度、上诉率和避免错误方面没有显示出明显的优势。我们还发现,诉讼原告在某种程度上不受法院欢迎。本文对中国专利保护的最新情况进行了实证分析,并探讨了其现实意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Do specialized intellectual property courts show a pro-patent propensity? Evidence from China

Intellectual property (IP) is gaining increasing attention in various fields. However, its proper function relies on an effective judicial system. Thus, we compared the results of patent infringement litigations in China between specialized IP courts and general courts. We found that patent holders sue for higher damages at IP courts than in general courts, and IP courts grant higher damages. However, when we controlled the impacts of certain factors, we found that the IP courts do not demonstrate a pro-patent propensity in their judgments. Furthermore, IP courts have not shown significant advantages in their judgments in aspects of speed, the rate of appeals, and the avoidance of mistakes. We also found that litigious plaintiffs are, to some degree, disliked by the courts. This work provides an empirical understanding of the latest situation about patent protection in China and discusses its practical implications.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
18.20%
发文量
38
审稿时长
48 days
期刊介绍: The International Review of Law and Economics provides a forum for interdisciplinary research at the interface of law and economics. IRLE is international in scope and audience and particularly welcomes both theoretical and empirical papers on comparative law and economics, globalization and legal harmonization, and the endogenous emergence of legal institutions, in addition to more traditional legal topics.
×
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