Shenzhen Qianhai Cooperation Zone People's Court White Paper on Judicial Protectionfor IPRs in Free Trade Zone (2016-2020)

Preface
General Secretary Xi Jinping emphasized the significance of strengthening the protection of Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) as the biggest incentive to boost China's economic competitiveness. Over the past forty years of Reform and Opening up, China has gradually become a major state with influence in terms of IPR. The protection of IPR has also been promoted as a national strategy. China is constantly showing the world a firm position and a clear attitude of strict IPR protection, and strives to optimize the environment for innovation and internationalized business based on the rule of law. The Development Plan for Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area proposes that Shenzhen should further implement innovation-driven development strategy and build an international technology innovation center. Shenzhen Qianhai, as a pilot area within the special economic zone, has always regarded the intellectual property strategy as one of the leading strategies for innovation and development since the establishment of the free trade area (FTZ). It has built a multi-level and comprehensive protection system for intellectual property (IP), striving to lead the development of national IP ecosystem and to function as a pioneer in the protection of IPR.

According to the reply of the Supreme People's Court, Qianhai Court, as a new type of court providing legal support for FTZ, has been granted the jurisdiction over general civil IPR cases in Qianhai Shekou FTZ since July 2016. Since its establishment, Qianhai Court has always adhered to the guidance of Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, firmly established the "Four Consciousnesses", strengthened "The Four Self-Confidences" and achieved the "Two Upholds". Located in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area, the pilot demonstration area of socialism with Chinese characteristics, and the Qianhai FTZ, the court closely follows the goals of being "fast, strict, professional, and collegiality". We strive to create a new high ground for fair and professional resolution of IP-related disputes, respect the value of knowledge and encourage a business environment for innovation, so as to promote the high-quality economic and social development within Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area and the FTZ.

1. Summary of IPR cases from 2016 to 2020 and the development of the FTZ in terms of innovation

From July, 2016 to March, 2020, Qianhai Court has accepted a total of 3,694 IPR cases, with a total value of the object of 345,781,134.7RMB. A total of 3,236 cases were concluded, with a total value of the object of 269,020,953.6 RMB, including 7 cases applying small claims procedures, 1,689 cases applying summary procedures, and 1,540 cases applying ordinary procedures. The IPR cases processed by Qianhai Court are found with the following characteristics:
(1) The growing caseload indicates the innovation-driven economy in the FTZ
In the year of 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and January-March 2020, there were 4, 59, 296, 2024, 973, and 342 IPR cases accepted respectively, among which 11, 238, 1865, 980, and 142 cases were concluded. Other than the excessively rapid growth of cases due to the acceptance of some serial claims in 2018, the numbers of IPR cases received and concluded in other years have maintained a stable and rapid growth. The number of cases with the value involved exceeding 1 million RMB was 2, 7, 17, 30, and 8 from 2016 to2020 respectively, showing an increasing trend. Under the guidance of FTZ innovation policy and the systematic development of IPR protection, the number of registered enterprises in FTZ continues to increase with innovative enterprises accounting for a large proportion. While business activities boom, IPR disputes increase accordingly.
(2) Major causes of action matches the fields of the innovative enterprises in the Qianhai FTZ
IPR cases mainly involve IPR contract disputes, IPR ownership, infringements, and unfair competition. The cases fall into 26 sub-causes of action in three categories. 3576 of these cases relate to IPR ownership, 81 IPR contracts, and 37 unfair competitions. In terms of IPR ownership and infringement disputes, there are 3,019 disputes over infringement of right to communicate works to the public over information networks, 85 trademark disputes, 42 disputes over infringements of right of recording and video producers, and 19 disputes over copyright ownership; as for IPR contract disputes, there are a total of 36 cases of dispute over a franchising contract, 30 copyright contract disputes over licensing and 3 technology contract disputes. Disputes over infringement of right to communicate works to the public over information networks accounted for 81.7% of all IPR cases accepted, the causes of which are mainly the result of rapid development of digital technology and the popularization of online communication. Online music platform, a new communication medium integrating the internet industry and the music industry, has great market potential and triggers fierce market competition, which has led to increasing disputes in copyright ownership.
(3) Increasing multi-plaintiff IPR lawsuits draws high social attention
The IPR cases accepted by Qianhai Court showed an overall upward trend in terms of serial claims and the numbers of parties involved. From 2016 to 2019 the batches of IPR dispute serial claims were 4, 17, 81 and 56 respectively, and the numbers of corresponding parties involved were 20, 49, 281 and 156. With the development of information technology and frequent market business activities, the subjects and methods of IPR infringement have diversified, while the infringed become more concentratedly distributed. With the consolidation of judicial protection methods, safeguarding IPR is more convenient, showing a trend of grouped claims. This is because such cases generally raise social concerns, and handling of these cases correctly has a demonstrative effect on the protection of holders’ legitimate rights.
(4) Fair and efficient resolution of IPR cases involving foreign, Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan factors (FHMT-related cases) creates an outstanding international innovation environment
From July, 2016 to March, 2020, Qianhai Court has accepted a total of 67FHMT-related cases, including 12 foreign-related IPR cases, 30 Hong Kong-related IPR cases and 25 Taiwan-related IPR cases. Major causes of action in FHMT-related cases are infringements of right of recording and video producers (21), infringements of copyrights (14), trademark infringement disputes (17), and copyright licensing contract disputes (5). With the “Belt and Road” initiative, the construction of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area and the pilot demonstration area of socialism with Chinese characteristics, there are increasing international commercial activities in the Qianhai area, and the number of FHMT-related cases is increasing correspondingly.
(5) The diversified dispute resolution mechanism brings public satisfaction
With regard to how the cases are concluded, 256 cases were settled through mediation, accounting for 7.9%; 877, plaintiffs to which withdrew, accounting for 27.1%. With the establishment of Qianhai Court's diversified dispute resolution center and the improvement of the diversified dispute resolution working mechanism, the rate of mediation settlement/withdrawal in Qianhai court has been steadily increasing. From 2016 to March, 2020, a total of 11, 99, 314, 649, and 61 IPR cases were withdrawn, with withdrawal rates of 100%, 41.5%, 16.9%, 66.2%, and 42.9%. The percentage of cases resolved without court judgments grew steadily despite the fluctuation in 2016 and 2018 due to acute changes in total numbers.
2. Main characteristics of various of IPR dispute cases
(1) Characteristics of copyright infringement cases
In recent years, as the subject of copyright grows extensively, the methods of IPR infringement are increasingly diversified. There have been some new developments in copyright infringement: First, online copyright infringements possess dominate position. With the development of information technology and means of communication, the number of online infringement disputes has increased drastically, accounting for 90% of copyright disputes. The works infringed mainly are music, arts, films and TV episodes. The most influential subjects of right involved in copyright infringement cases accepted by Qianhai Court in recent years include Tencent Music Entertainment (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., Shanghai Fine Arts Film Studio and some companies engaged in photograph business. Second, the quantity of serial claims is very large. In civil dispute cases involving copyright, due to the increasing range of infringement methods and subjects, the number of rights holders filing a series of rights protection lawsuits also goes up. The facts and ownership in such cases are usually clear and rarely contended. The parties are more inclined to accept settlement of disputes through mediation and other methods: the majority of cases of this type are concluded via mediation and withdrawal. Third, the widespread application of electronic evidence has led to increasing difficulty in fact-finding. Almost all copyright dispute cases are related to electronic evidence, covering digital photos, electronic manuscript, e-mails, SMS, and WeChat chat history, etc. Compared with other forms of evidence, electronic evidence is more technical, easily damaged and deleted due to  failure of software and hardware systems or human factors, and they can be easily forged and are difficult to identify. Such features make e-evidence the focal point of court arguments, which demands more efforts from the court to ascertain. Fourth, it is difficult to quantify economic losses, and determine the amount of compensation. It is often difficult for the right holder to prove the actual losses suffered from the infringing act and the infringer’s illegal income. Although the amount of compensation can be determined in accordance with the statutory compensation standard, which is somewhere below 500,000 RMB, but it is still not easy to give a definite amount.
(2) Characteristics of trademark rights infringement cases
Trademark owners, paying more attention to the value of trademarks, are putting more efforts in protecting their rights. At the same time, infringement methods are becoming more concealed than ever. The cases of trademark infringement are showing some new characteristics: First, the subjects and forms of infringements are diversified. Trademark infringers were originally individuals or individual business. In recent years, some companies, enterprises and even some influential large enterprises have become infringers. Regarding the forms of infringement, in addition to the typical counterfeiting behavior of “using the same trademark on the same kind of goods”, we are seeing more infringement such as using registered trademarks that are the same or similar to others in advertising, exhibitions, and contracts, and registering the same or similar texts of others’ registered trademarks, such as corporate names or Internet domain names. Second, infringement methods are more concealed. Trademark infringements are more often seen in the attachment and counterfeiting of registered trademarks such as ‘Brand Imitation’ and ‘Brand Hitchhiking’. In recent years, trademark infringement cases accepted by Qianhai Court involve LV, MK, PUMA, Xiaomi and other well-known brands both at home and abroad. Determination of similarities in trademarks is a relatively complicated issue. The concealment of infringement means has made it more difficult both for trademark owners to protect their rights and the courts to determine infringement. Third, trademark infringement emerges in indirect or even legal approaches. In such trademark infringement cases, the accused infringer obtains the rights of trade names and domain names through formal channels, but due to the lack of information exchange between different registration authorities, it may lead to conflicts with trademark rights. When dealing with the conflicts between trademark rights and trade names and domain names, prior rights are not the only issue to be considered, geographical location, actual usage and popularity should also be taken into account. Fourth, it is difficult to apply punitive damages. Regarding the standard of compensation for trademark infringement, although the law clearly stipulates that “in case of malicious infringement of the exclusive right to use the trademark, resulting in serious circumstances, the amount of compensation may be determined more than one time and less than five times the amount determined in accordance with the above method”, in judicial practice it is often difficult for plaintiffs to prove the actual loss suffered and the benefits obtained by the infringer, and the license fee for using registered trademarks. In the end, the compensation amount can only be determined according to the statutory compensation standard, the upper limit of which is five million yuan, leaving a large space for discretion. As a result, there are still certain difficulties in the determination of trademark infringement.
(3) Characteristics of unfair competition disputes
The advantageous location of Qianhai has attracted many high-tech enterprises. These enterprises value IPR as its core competitiveness. The turnover ofcore technical and management employees lead to the increase of counterfeiting, false propaganda, commercial slander and infringement. Trade secrets and other types of unfair competition disputes continue to increase, and such cases show the following new characteristics: First, the causes of action are distributed extensively yet concentratedly. The types of unfair competition disputes handled by Qianhai Court include unauthorized use of certain product names, packaging, and decoration disputes, unauthorized use of other companies’ names and personal names, false promotion disputes, and trade secret disputes. One of the most influential cases is that Shanghai Lujiazui International Financial Asset Trading Co., Ltd. sued Shenzhen Lufax Investment and Development Co., Ltd. on the grounds of unfair competition. Among the cases of unfair competition handled, trade secrets infringement accounted for about 50%. In the past two years, the number of such cases has grown rapidly. Second, the cases are usually complicated and time-consuming. The requirements for providing proof, difficulties of trial, and social impact of unfair competition cases are generally higher than other IPR cases. These cases often need to go through identification, evidence collection, preservation, investigation, and suspension for the results of other cases. The average trial period of such cases is relatively long. Third, most cases are controversial and parties are not willing to mediate. Due to the complexity of unfair competition disputes, parties argue more about the facts and evidence of the case, and have less enthusiasm to resolve disputes via mediation and other means, leaving litigation to be the only solution.
(4) Characteristics of franchising contract disputes
As a new business model, franchising as a package solution involves complicated legal relationships. In recent years, franchising has made great progress in China due to its advantages of rapid expansion, low cost, low risk, and high efficiency. At the same time, franchising contract disputes, as a new type of case, the proportion of which in IPR contract disputes is also increasing yearly. Such cases show the following new features: First, franchising contracts are used in a wide range of fields. It covers many industries and fields such as convenience stores, regional agents, clothing sales, jewelry sales, car rental and sales. Among them, the number of cases involving the retail industry is the largest, which has a profound impact on social economy, especially the retail industry. Second, the plaintiffs are mostly franchisees. Most of the franchisees are natural persons, and their purpose to start the litigation process is to get rid of the contractual restraint, requesting a decree to terminate the contract and the return of fees such as franchise fees and corresponding interest losses. Third, franchise terms involved are usually short. Among30 randomly selected cases of franchise contract disputes, 19 involved a business period of less than one year, accounting for 63%. Fourth, the rate of counterclaim is high. Such cases are usually filed by the franchisee first, and the franchiser will often file a counterclaim while responding to the pleadings, which increase the complexity of the case. At the same time, since the parties in such cases usually have communicated many times before litigation, and cases are filed upon failure of mediation, the withdrawal rate of such cases is low, and most are concluded by judgment.
3. Optimizing the IPR trial procedures so that judicial protection in Qianhai stands out
Qianhai Court responded proactively to the judicial needs of Shenzhen building a global innovation center for entrepreneurship and a creative capital, as well as the need of Qianhai FTZ for innovation and development. Reforms of the IPR trail procedures are conjunct with following national strategies such as creating a first-class international business environment and pursuing high-quality opening-up. These reforms help to foster social respect for knowledge and to incentivize the mass entrepreneurship and innovation.
Effectively improving the political positioning and enhancing the sense of responsibility and mission to serve the national innovation-driven development strategy
Qianhai Court will always adhere to the guidance of Xi Jinping's Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, always uphold the CCP’s leadership over the work of the court, firmly insist the “Four Consciousnesses”, “The Four Self-Confidences” and “Two Maintenances” to guarantee that IPR judicial protection remains on the correct political direction.
First, committed to providing judicial protection for the national strategy of innovation-driven development. We are to implement the five-sphere integrated plan and the four-pronged comprehensive strategy, firmly establish the concept that IPR is the essence of innovation, carry out the innovation-driven development strategy, the national IPR strategy and the Supreme People's Court’s IPR judicial protection policy of “judiciary-led, strict protection, classified implementation of the policy, and proportionality-based coordination ”, so as to deal with all types of IPR cases fairly and efficiently, optimize IPR trial mechanism, refine policy measures, strengthen collaborative protection, and promote the overall capabilities of protection.
Second, to systemize the regime of judicial protection for IPR. The Implementation Guidelines on Strengthening the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights has been formulated to uniformly deploy and standardize IPR judicial protection. These guidelines clarify the guiding principles and key measures. Two guidelines for disputes over music copyright Infringement and trademarks infringement have been formulated respectively in accordance with the characteristics of FTZ cases accepted. These help to clarify related legal issues and promote public compliance. Punitive damages has been introduced to IPR cases with the applicable conditions punitive damages clarified, rules for damages refined, and elements triggering punitive damages defined. An innovation-friendly environment has been cultivated with the costs for IPR infringement amplified.
Third, to align with globally-accepted rules. Under the fundamental premise of unswervingly taking the road of socialist rule of law with Chinese characteristics, with an open and inclusive attitude and an international perspective, Qianhai Court has always been adhering to a high position, absorbing the successful experience of judicial IPR safeguarding from abroad, and building a high ground with innovative system that connects to international rules and striving to improve the credibility and international influence of judicial IPR safeguarding. Qianhai Court has been cooperating with universities and research institutions both at home and abroad to carry out in-depth research on punitive damages of IPR, and to strengthen theoretical support while improving the professional level of trials.
(2) To enhance the efficiency and convenience of judicial protection by creating the fast track
IPR cases are often time-consuming, but Qianhai Court resorted to information technology to establish a convenient and intelligent litigation service mechanism, constantly improving the multi-level litigation system, exploring possibility of online trials for the entire process of IPR cases, and improving comprehensively the trial efficiency of IPR cases.
First, to improve the multi-level IPR litigation system. The diversified dispute resolution center makes full use of 5G technology to carry out online “mediation + court approval” for IPR cases, resolving disputes such as infringements of right of recording and video producers, and reducing the costs while improving the efficiency of IPR protection. The court sticks to separating the complex cases from the simple ones, extends the application of small claim procedures for cases with clear facts and little controversy, and improved fast-trial guidelines, thus expediting resolution for simple cases. Since the acceptance of IPR cases, a total of summary procedures and small claim procedures have been applied to 1696 cases, accounting for 52.41%.The average time consumed was 24.7 days, which enables the right holders to quickly obtain remedies in a timely manner and cracks down the problem of lengthiness.
Second, to promote the interim measures mechanism to better structure and higher efficacy
To balance efficiency and legality, Qianhai Court processes all interim measure applications timely and prudently. Decisions shall be enforced immediately in order to suppress infringements and contain losses. Qianhai Court has achieved rapid and effective suppression of infringements, and avoided the expansion of rights holders’ losses. In copyright infringement involving online music platforms, taking into account the speed of online communication and the operating characteristics of online music platforms, Qianhai Court approved interim measures in four cases, and the infringement was stopped immediately, and the right holder received timely and efficient relief as a result. Among these cases, the one that Tencent Music sued NetEase Cloud Music for infringement of right to communicate works to the public over information networks was selected as one of the top 10 IPR cases of Shenzhen courts in 2018.
Third, to make IPR litigations more accessible. Making full use of the smart court promotion campaign, including Guangdong litigation service network, Shenzhen Mobile Court, Shen Rong Diversified Platform, and e-case file system, litigation services in Qianhai Court have been updated with more accessibility and security.  With filing, service, and mediation transferred offline-to-online, the Court successfully improved the intelligence of litigation services, shortened the time consumed, alleviated litigation costs, and improved overall efficiency. Moreover, the above-mentioned litigation services have been proved to be safer in the ongoing Coronavirus and thus are well recognized by all involving parties. Qianhai Court gives out bilingual IPR filing and proof guidelines, which instruct parties from home and abroad to exercise their litigation rights, and provide convenience for parties to protect their rights. Qianhai Court has improved the pre-litigation assistances to provide risk analysis, litigation process notification, pre-litigation mediation advice and other professional consultation and counseling for IPR litigants. All these measures facilitate litigants to draw reasonable expectations out of the litigation outcomes, and to rationally choose the track to resolve disputes.

(3) To implement a stringent protection system and create a business environment that protects innovation-driven development
In response to the problem of low infringement compensation standards in China's IPR protection in the past, Qianhai Court formulated the Guidelines on the Application of IPR Punitive Damages, which was applied in some cases. Through the implementation of the most stringent IPR protection system, the demonstration effect of typical cases was fully revealed, creating a good environment respecting and protecting innovation.
First, to increase punitive damages in accordance with the law to effectively stop infringement.
Qianhai Court has refined the application protocols of the punitive damages, and clarified the definitions of being “malicious” and “serious circumstances”. Punitive damages system has already been applied in specific cases in accordance with the law, giving full play to the deterrent effect. By letting amplifying the infringement costs, it effectively curbs and deters IPRs violations, thus creating an environment in which potential infringers become reluctant to engage in infringements in the shadow of severe liabilities. In the case where Tencent Music sued NetEase Cloud Music over infringement of right to communicate works to the public over information networks, given the defendant’s subjective fault, business scale, and injury caused, etc., the court decided that the plaintiff is entitled to claim compensation at statutory cap. Introducing the spirit of punitive damages, this case was reported by the People’s Court Daily and China Youth Daily, and induces wide social influences.

Second, to issue legal cost orders for protecting IPRs.
Qianhai Court has improved the application of legal cost orders to compensate right holders’ reasonable expenses such as attorney fees, notarization fees, and appraisal fees. By separately calculating the reasonable expenses such as attorney fees, the infringer’s costs of breaking the law will be significantly increased, and the cost of rights protection will be reduced. At the same time, even when right holder fails to submit direct evidence such as invoices, to prove the expenditure, circumstantial evidence shall be admitted.. In the case of Tencent Music suing NetEase Cloud Music for the dispute over infringement of right to communicate works to the public over information networks, Qianhai Court supported Tencent Music's claim requesting reasonable attorney fees and rights protection expenditures, which has effectively reduced the costs of rights holders.
Third, to strengthen the demonstration effect of court judgments. Qianhai Court has implemented the strategy of Influential Cases, according to which new types of difficult IPR cases shall be early identified, well reasoned and proactively publicized in order to set examples for future cases. Qianhai Court released ten influential IPR cases, including the application of the preliminary injunction, the application of punitive damages, and the inclusion of Hong Kong-resident expert people’s assessors. Qianhai Court emphasized the demonstrative role of judgments in new types of disputes: in the copyright dispute of Tencent vs. TikTok Music, it is legally determined that TikTok’s “pai tong kuan” function constituted an infringement. This case served as a demonstrative and guiding case in regulating the legal operation of the emerging short video platform and was nominated as one of the ten typical IPR cases of Shenzhen courts in 2019.

(4) To improve the professionalism of the bench so as to enhance the compatibility of judicial protection and rights holders’ demands.
Qianhai Court established an IPR trial team of “professional judges + expert jurors from Hong Kong + IPR experts + professional technical investigators”. The mechanism enables all related professionals in IPR protection to contribute and consolidate the judicial protection as a whole.
First, to further the professionalism of the bench. Qianhai Court has established a professional IPR judge team nd continued to improve the training mechanism for high-quality judges. Systematic training are well placed to promote judges’ theoretical and professional capabilities. Qianhai Court is exploring the model of “3 judges + 4 expert people’s assessors” to hear major and difficult IPR cases. The 4 assessors only participate in the finding of facts, but not the application of law.
Second, to select expert people’s assessors from Hong Kong to participate in the trial. In order to serve the overall development of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area, Qianhai Court has selected Hong Kong regional experts with professional IPR background or experience in related industries to participate in trials of FHMT-related cases. Judicial exchanges and cooperation between Qianhai, Hong Kong and Macao enhance the international and interregional credibility of Qianhai’s judicial decisions. In two copyright infringement cases involving the protection of overseas animation works, two experts from Hong Kong, were invited to participate. One serves as the vice president of the Chinese Animation Society, director of the Asia-Pacific Animation Association, and the founder of the animation of “Pleasant Goat and Big Big Wolf”, and the other, an IPR expert, by virtue of their familiarity with trading habits, industry conditions, and professional advantages, assisted the judges in ascertaining the facts and conducting mediation, successfully settled both cases.
Third, to establish a technical fact-finding system.
Qianhai Court is exploring to establish a diversified technical fact-finding mechanism with technical investigators, technical appraisals, expert consultations, and expert assessors. The court formulated Measures for the Management of Technical Investigators for IPR cases. The adoption of technical review opinions has been standardized. The role of professional and technical personnel in the identification of technical facts has been emphasized. The neutrality, objectivity and scientificity of technical fact identification have been strengthened. And the level of professionalism in IPR trials has been improved significantly.
Fourth, to enhance research both theoretically and practically. Aiming at the newly emerged and difficult problems in connection with the characteristics of FTZ IPR cases, Qianhai Court has conducted further cooperation with universities and colleges for research purposes. In accordance with the requirements of the thematic education of “staying true to the founding mission”, Qianhai Court has carried out field study and researches regarding “IPR Judicial Protection” and completed the research report, including Origin and Solutions: Research on IPR Punitive damages Damages from the Perspective of Common Law, An Empirical Study on Trademark Rights, and two other studies cooperated with Shanghai University of Finance and Economics on punitive damages and parallel imports in FTZs. These researches summarize the bench experiences, and offer insightful perspectives for related business.
Fifth, to advance the specialization of IPR case trials involving Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan factors. Qianhai Court has concluded a series of trademark infringement cases. Emphasizing the diversification of resolutions including mediation and litigation, parties willing to mediate are facilitated to reach settlements, illustrating the advantages of Mainland courts’ promotion of mediation throughout the trial proceedings. If the parties refused to settle via mediation, the infringers have been ordered to stop the infringement, and fully compensate the right holder’s losses including reasonable legal costs for protecting the rights, so as to protect the legitimate interests of the right holders, effectively curb infringements, and actively create a fair, transparent, stable and predictable business environment.

(6) To build an overarching and integrated  protection model based on social co-governance and form a joint force of protecting innovation and development
Qianhai Court has continuously enhanced the early facilitation of dispute resolution, perfected the inter-conversion between litigation and mediation, and strengthened the cooperation with related governmental agencies, proactively integrated with other legal protection regimes for rights holders. Consequently, an overarching and integrated protection model emerges.
First, to enhanced the early facilitation of dispute resolution scheme for IPR disputes. Via appointing on-site mediators to resolving disputes involving key right holders in Qianhai Court’s jurisdiction, such as Tencent Music, the Court has managed to resolve disputes when and where they emerge. In 2019, on-site mediators successfully mediated more than 3,000 disputes, involving influential corporations such as Tencent, TikTok, Sing Bar, Fun Sing, Xiaomi, which furthered the methods for social co-governance.
Second, to optimize the inter-conversion mechanism between litigation and mediation in IPR disputes. Qianhai Court has promoted cooperation with China (Shenzhen) IPR Protection Center, Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Mediation Alliance, IPR Arbitration Center and other professional organizations to constantly enrich and expand diversified resolution platforms with professionalism for IPR disputes. Qianhai Court has established a working model featuring “case filtering – inter-conversion - professional services”. Appointing IPR-specialized mediators from Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan of China and foreign countries, Qianhai Court has assigned cases to “mainland mediator + foreign mediator” or “mediation judge + foreign mediator” to deal with. As of March 2020, there were 1,608 IPR cases successfully mediated pre-litigation, accounting for 17.8%. For those cases proceeded into trial proceedings, 17.6% were settled via mediation during trial.. Online mediation was carried out by taking the advantages of information technology. In a copyright infringement case, mediators located in Qianhai and Beijing conducted the mediation online, which improved the efficiency and convenience of IPR mediation.
Third, to strengthen the cooperation with IPR-related governmental agencies to obtain synergy.
Qianhai Court has promoted exchange and cooperation with the IPR-related authorities in order to jointly build the most stringent IPR protection scheme. The scheme stands out with efficient connection, rapid collaboration and quick assistance. Qianhai Court has established a regular cooperation mechanism with Shekou Customs and carried out extensive cooperation in terms of evidence preservation, property seizure, searching and evidence collection, especially for IPR infringements potentially harm right holders in countries along the Belt and Road and regions such as Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan of China. This cooperation has effectively curbed the intensification trend of cross-border infringements. Successes have been achieved in 6 IPR cases via this cooperation scheme.
Fourth, to strengthen the publicity and exchanges of judicial protection for IPRs and enhanced the international recognition.
Qianhai Court has extend cooperative relations with legal communities such as Qianhai Administration and Qianhai Procuratorate via Party building activities to jointly carry out researches and exchanges, including promotion of IPR knowledge to Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan companies in the FTZ. These companies thus can enhance their awareness of IPR risk prevention, and get their legal needs with respect to IPR understood. Qianhai Court has promoted judicial publicity by multiple measures, such as organizing IPR-themed publicity week, live broadcasting of court trials, releasing influential case summaries, etc. All these measures enhance the public's understanding, trust and supervision of the IPR protection carried out by Qianhai Court, and create a social atmosphere that respects and protects innovation. The court also made efforts to smooth the channels for external cooperation and exchanges, to encourage regional and international exchanges, and to demonstrate the IPR protection achievements. Consequently, Qianhai Court’s judicial protection for IPRs are increasingly recognized both home and abroad.

Conclusion
The year of 2020 is the 40th anniversary of the establishment of the Shenzhen Special Economic Zone, and a key year for the construction of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area and Shenzhen’s advancement of building a pilot demonstration area of socialism with Chinese characteristics. It is a year for China to secure a victory in the battle against poverty and to complete the building of "xiaokang", a moderately prosperous society in all respects. It is also the year for the country to achieve the strategic goal of innovation-driven development and being listed as one of the most innovative countries, for which IPR protection is an indispensable element. Qianhai Court will always adhere to the guidance of Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, bear in mind its mission and responsibilities, and make contributions to the construction of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area, and the construction of the Shenzhen Pilot Demonstration Area. In order to fulfill the above-mentioned mandates, Qianhai Court shall handle IPR cases fairly and effectively, enhance IPR protection constantly, and work even harder for more achievements with excellence.