Since its inception to the end of April 2018, Shanghai Intellectual Property Court (SIPC), has accepted 6,324 cases of intellectual property, of which 5,519 were concluded. A total of 2,664 are technological cases concerning intellectual property rights, software, know-how, technology contract, etc., accounting for 92.08% of all the first instancecases. The ascertainment of technical facts has always been a vexing problem for intellectual property trails. With the purpose of making technical fact-finding more scientific, professional and timely and hearing cases in a more just and efficient manner, SIPC, through exploration in institution innovation, has establisheda four-in-one technical fact-findingmechanism integratingtechnology investigation, technology consulting, expert jury and technology appraisal into a whole. This has provided strong support forsolving the technical issues in trials and increased the efficiency of trials. Main practices include:

I. Formulating rules, regulations and standard procedures to maketechnical fact-finding more scientific

In accordance with the Civil Procedure Lawand relevant working regulations of the SupremePeople’s Court of the PRC and in line with thespecific circumstances of the SIPC, the four-in-one mechanism has laid down standards for technicalinvestigation, technicalconsulting, expert jury and technical appraisal, and specified the professional qualifications, roles, duty and manners for technology investigators, consulting experts, expert jurors and technicalappraisersinvolved in the process. This practice has ensured the objectivity, accuracy and high efficiency of fact-finding from the very beginning, set up standards for starting procedure, operating process and probative effect, so as to ensure the standardization, transparency and justice of technical fact-finding from the perspective of procedure. By formulating Measures for the Administration of Technology Investigators, Rules for the Technology Investigators to Participate in Litigious Activities and Rules for the Technology Investigators' Appearance in Court, the procedures of Technology Investigators' participation in lawsuits and the administration of these investigators have been standardized, and on top of that, a number of regulations have been introduced, such as Code of Practice of Technology Investigators and seven types of forms and letters that are commonly used; Measures for InvitingScientific and Technology Consulting Experts, Operating Guidance for People's Jurors to Participate in Litigious Activities and Operating Guidance for Intellectual Property Civil Litigations Involving Judicial Appraisal of Technical Fact.Thus, the four-in-onestandardized institutional system has takenshapein an all-round manner.

II. Allocating resources reasonablyand coordinating organicallyto ensure the accuracy of technical fact-finding

1. Setting up a separationmechanism for technological cases.Appropriate technicalfact-findingmethods have beenadopted based on the complexity of technical issuesand the characteristicsof various methods. Less complexCases with less technicaldisputes can be concludedwith the assistance of technology investigators; those more complexcases with more technicaldisputes can be heard by inviting relevant technology experts and expert jurors to attend trials; those requiring equipment or tests in certain external environment can be conducted through forensic appraisal. As of now, technology investigators have been summoned to court 158 times, expert consulting has been conducted 53 times, and expert jurors have been invited to participate in the trials of 138 cases.Besides, 32 cases have adoptedtechnology appraisal. 2. Setting up a multi-tiere applicationmechanism for technical fact-finding. As for cases involving avant-gardeor complex technology issues in high-tech areas such as Internet, software, R& D of new drugs, a combination of varioustechnical fact-finding methods are utilized and the coordination and experts from related fields are invited to cooperated so as to bring into play the portfolio effect. For example, a "judge +executivestaff+technology expert+technology investigator" pattern has been established for the preservationof technology cases. For complex cases that may involve different technology fields, both technology investigators and expert jurorsare invited to cooperate with each other. They can make use oftheir respective expertise, and provide objective and professional opinions on technical issues, contributing to the all-round and accurate ascertainment of technical facts. 3. Launching strict technical appraisals. For high-costissues that take a long time for appraisal and may affect the efficiency of trial, the approach of technicalappraisal will not be readily adopted. It is highly emphasized that the technical appraisal procedure can only be resorted to when all the other approaches are to no avail. Technical appraisal shall not be adopted unless upon the application of the interested party and unless performed by the court ex officio, with a view to reducing unnecessary appraisals. Since theestablishment of SIPC, the cases involvingtechnology appraisal only accounts for 1.26% of the total, which indicates that the court has effectively heldthe number of appraisals in check and shortened the duration for trials.

III. Optimizing function and leveraging strengths to explore and improve the effective operation of technology investigator system

Compared with the other technical fact-finding methods, the technology investigator system boastshigher efficiency, lower cost and comprehensive participation in cases. In the trial practice, SIPC gives full play to the advantages of the technology investigator system and builds a technical-factfindingmechanism centeringaroundtechnology investigators. 1. Engaging technology investigators in technical fact-finding in a deeper and broader mannerso as to provide comprehensive support for technical fact-finding.Based on the job responsibilities of technology investigators and in combination with the needs of trial practice, the technology investigators not only participate in the trial to providetechnical advice, and issue technical review opinions and other necessary technical assistance for the collegian panel, but also engage themselves in evidence preservation and on-site investigation. The technical investigation officers of SIPChave accepted 124 cases involvingtechnical investigation, completed technical consultation and related affairs 569 times, participated in evidence preservation and on-site investigation22 times, and issued 36 technical review opinions. In 2017, the average number of trial periodwith the participation of the technology investigators in SIPCwas 117 days, which made the trial more efficient. 2. Giving full play to the role of the technology investigators as precursors in the process of technical fact-finding, and effectively combining technical investigations and other methods of identifying technical facts. In the cases beyond the technology investigators' professional field or other new-type and complex technical cases, the technology investigators can undertake the basic tasks in identifying technical facts and take one step aheadin getting involved in the investigation, assisting judges inclarifying the technical problems involved and fixing technical disputes. The basic investigationmaterials are then submitted to other technical experts or judicial experts to resolve specific technical disputes. 3. Exploiting the role of technology investigators as a bridge between judges and other technical experts.Technology investigator can assist judges in negotiatingwith other technical experts on professional issues so as to improve the effectiveness of technical fact-finding; assist judges in consultingtechnical experts from related fieldsor entrusting forensic identification so as to make technical fact-findingmore targeted.

IV. Specifyingpositioning, strengthening guidance, and constantly improving the effectiveness of technical fact-finding mechanism

The establishment of the technical fact-finding mechanism aimsto helpthe judges efficiently and accurately ascertain the facts of technical disputes and to serve the trial work. Therefore, the technical fact-findingmethod should obey to the rule of serving the case with judicial dominance instead oftechnology dominance. 1. Establishing judicial dominance in the processof technical fact-finding.It should be made clearthat the responsibility for technical fact-finding lies with the undertook judge; it is the judge that determines the scopeof technical fact-finding, what technical facts need to beidentified, how to identify, and how to use expert opinions, and all activities involving technical fact–finding should revolve around the trial work; as is stipulated in the provisions of theCivil Procedure Law, only the expert jurors have theright to participate in case evaluation, and voice opinions on identification and handling of factsas members of the collegian panel, and the opinions generated through technical consultation, technical investigation, and judicial appraisal are for the referenceof judges rather than decisive factors, thus to ensure the fairness and justice of trial.2. Enhancingthe awareness of judgesto proactively find out abouttechnical facts. The judges should be encouraged to take the initiative to learn scientific and technical knowledge. It is suggested that only when judges fail to identify the technical facts through their own knowledge and experiencecan theyresort totechnical fact-finding methods so as toprevent excessive relianceon the these auxiliary means. 3. Strengthening the training and guidance for technology investigators.SIPC has organized training in relevant laws and regulations such as the Patent Law, the Copyright Law, and the Civil Procedure Law to furtherthe technology investigators' understanding of relevant legal rules and procedures, to guide technical experts to identify technical facts under the legal context and legal rules system, and to ensure that the technical fact-finding mechanism truly meets the needs of case trial; meanwhile, SIPC has promoted the publicity and education of relevant regulations and codes of practice of the Supreme Court and itself to make sure technology investigators can better understandtheir role, master their work procedures, and work in a more efficient way.4. Making use of network technology for more efficient useand management of the technical fact-finding mechanism. Since the April of this year, the online application system for technical investigations developedindependently by SIPC has been officially launched, which has greatly improved the management of the technical investigation officer mechanism.