In 2016, Shanghai Intellectual Property Court brought to full play judicature's dominant role in protecting intellectual property rights by conscientiously implementing the judicial policies of "judicial leadership, strict protection, type-based tactics and harmonious proportion" and 26 Opinions on Serving the Construction of Shanghai Technology Innovation Center issued in 2015, and deepening the mechanism innovation and system implementation. In this year, a total of 1,877 IPR cases were accepted, increased by 14.38% year-on-year, and 1,877 cases were concluded, increased by 79.27%. All these have provided sound judicial services and guarantee for deepening the implementation of innovation-driven development strategy and accelerating the establishment of a technology innovation center of global influence in Shanghai. Main initiatives include: 

1. Carry out intensive trials of FTZ-related cases. On the principles of "professional trial team, categorized cases accepted, intensive trial management and systematized trial extension", special collegial panel for FTZ-related cases was established based on two existing tribunals for centralized trials of FTZ-related civil and administrative intellectual property cases. In 2016, Shanghai Intellectual Property Court trialed 152 cases concerning patent, trademark, know-how, right of dissemination on information network and franchise contract, etc. in FTZ.

2. Strengthen the trials of cases involving scientific and technological innovation. Shanghai Intellectual Property Court gave full play to its function in centralized trial of technical cases by breaking down and implementing the 20 specific measures to serve the construction of a globally influential technology innovation center in Shanghai; actively responded to IPR project demand of Zhangjiang High-tech Industrial Development Zone (Zhangjiang National Innovation Demonstration Zone) through the Office of Judge Chen Huizhen, National Adjudication Expert; conducted field visits and investigations, IPR seminars and other activities in the parks to analyze problems found in IPR innovation, management, application and protection of technology enterprises during trials and interpret laws and cases, thereby improving the awareness of IPR protection andinfringement warning.

3. Increase infringement damages. Shanghai Intellectual Property Court took full account of the objectivity and uncertainty of the market value of intellectual property rights when determining the amount of compensation. It strove to reflect the market value of infringed intellectual property accurately with due consideration of the tortfeasor's subjective intention to realize the goal of "compensation first, punishment second". For repeated infringement and willful infringement, damages were increased appropriately above the market value. In disputes over trademark infringement and unfair competition filed by HUGO BOSS TRADE MARK MANAGEMENT GMBH & CO.KG, Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft and Concord Investment (China) Co., Ltd respectively, judgments of compensation more than 3,000,000 yuan were made according to law with consideration of the infringement scale and infringers' bad faith. In appeal of trademark infringement dispute filed by Honeywell International, the court increased the compensation in first-instance judgment from 80,000 yuan to 300,000 yuan taking into account the defendant's status, duration of the infringement, the fact that it had been subject to administrative penalties on several occasions, possible influence of infringement on consumer's life and property safety, and popularity of the obligee's trademark, etc.

4. Exert the effectiveness of interim measures. Shanghai Intellectual Property Court established a standardized and powerful interim judicial protection mechanism to rationally exert the effectiveness of act preservation, property preservation and evidence preservation and improve the promptness, convenience and effectiveness of judicial remedy for intellectual property. For cases meeting conditions of evidence preservation, property preservation or act preservation, measures were taken timely based on the new mode of "judge + enforcement personnel + technical expert + technical investigator" to preserve evidences efficiently. In 2016, Shanghai Intellectual Property Court dealt with 30 cases involving pre-trial act preservation and pre-trial evidence preservation, increased by 114.28% year-on-year, and made 186 rulings on property preservation, evidence preservation and act preservation during trials, increased by 77%.

5. Promote the standardization of administrative intellectual property acts. Shanghai Intellectual Property Court has strengthened the examination on legitimacy of administrative acts and legality of substantive standards, and put forward judicial suggestions to actively guide competent administrative authorities to investigate, collect evidences, examine evidences and determine infringement in accordance with judicial standards, thereby further promoting the standardization and legalization of administrative intellectual property acts. For example, in the appeal case filed by Shanghai Mouqian Advertising Co., Ltd against administrative penalty decision, the court held that the decision was made without examining whether the source code of computer software involved constituted a constitutive element of trade secret. The facts weren't clearly ascertained and evidence was insufficient in first-instance case. Therefore, it ruled to revoke the administrative penalty partially. As to defects of administrative acts, Shanghai Intellectual Property Court will give judicial suggestions timely. 

6. Vigorously promote the construction ofgood faith in lawsuits. On the principle of good faith, Shanghai Intellectual Property Court strengthened the honesty and cooperation obligation of the litigants appropriately and established a litigation system to encourage the parties to actively provide evidence. For example, the court ordered civil penalty according to the Civil Procedure Law of P.R.C in a a case where the appellant failed to submit evidence timely due to gross negligence and hindered the civil action.

7. Promote the effective operation ofdiversifiedtechnical fact-finding system. Shanghai Intellectual Property Court has been constantly improving a standardized"four-in-one"system (technical investigation, technical consultation, expert jury and technical appraisal) for ascertaining technical facts, and designated consultancy experts, technical investigators and expert jurors rationally according to the actual conditions of cases to further improve the objectivity, scientificity and efficiency of technical fact finding. In 2016, the court carried out 49 expert consultations, trialed 50 cases in the presence of expert jurors and had 14 cases subject to technical appraisal. Technical investigators have participated in the trials of 35 cases, appeared in 43 court sessions, issued 17 technical examination opinions and consultation comments, and handled more than 300 evidence preservations, crime scene investigations, technical consultations and related matters.

8. Establish a diversified dispute resolution mechanismin light of the characteristics of intellectual property cases.Shanghai Intellectual Property Court has signed cooperation agreements with 10 social mediation organizations and industry associations to expand the mediation team with social resources, thereby making mediation more specialized, professional and standardized. It also expands the scope of cases subject to pre-litigation mediation, strengthens internal coordination and invite mediators to court to realize direct linking of litigation and mediation. In 2016, there're 96 intellectual property cases subject to pre-litigation mediation, 23 of which were resolved with a settlement rate of 24%. 737 cases were subject to mediation during trial, with a settlement rate of 39%.

9. Clarify legal standards throughjudicial adjudication. With the aim to produce fine works, Shanghai Intellectual Property Court managed to sum up the trial experience and clarify judgment standards through judicial adjudication, so as to provide guidance and reference for the trial of similar cases in future. For example, China's video aggregation & hotlinking case made it clear that video aggregation & hotlinking constituted unfair competition; China's first e-Sports webcast case made it clear that live broadcasting of the event involved without authorization of the organizer constituted unfair competition. There have been 16 cases selected as 2016 Top 10 Civil and Administrative Cases of People's Courts, Case Published on the Gazette of the Supreme People's Court, 2015 Top 50 Typical IPR Cases in China and other typical cases in Shanghai and China.

10. Improve the mechanism of unified application of law. Shanghai Intellectual Property Court has laid down Guidelines for the Trial of Disputes over Design Patent Infringement, Key Points for the Trial of Computer Software Cases and other trial and adjudication rules successively to unify the standards for trials of cases and application of laws and to improve the predictability of IPR judicial protection. The court also carried out researches on new circumstances and new problems in judicial practice, and invited scholars fromhigher education institutions, lawyers and technical experts to attend the seminars on "comprehensive application of diversified technical fact-finding mechanism" and "trial practice of patent cases", etc. to improve the trial quality and efficiency.