Zhong Lun Partner Bisheng Shi Delivered Speech at China-U.K. Patent Practice Comparative Research Meeting 2019-08-30

On August 22, 2019, Mr. Bisheng SHI, partner of Zhong Lun Law Firm, was invited to attend the China-U.K Patent Practice Comparative Research Meeting, and spoke with Lord Justice Richard Arnold, justice of the United Kingdom Court of Appeal on intellectual property related issues.


Experts attending this meeting include Justice Arnold, Nishi Dholakia, Minister Counsellor in Economic and Trade Policy of British Embassy, Elizabeth Jones, International IP Enforcement Policy Advisor of the IP Office in United Kingdom, Cerian Foulkes, intellectual property attaché of British Embassy, Mr. Yongshun Cheng, director of Beijing Intellectual Property Institute, Ms. Yuying Guan from Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, etc.


Mr. Bisheng Shi, Justice Arnold and other experts had in-depth discussions on topics in relation to China and the UK’s intellectual property litigation. In his speech, Mr. Bisheng Shi pointed out: first, similar to the UK, some China’s intellectual property judges have rich experience in other areas of law as well. For instance, certain judges have experience in civil litigation, while others may have experience in criminal litigation. This would be conductive to broaden the judges’ view. Both China and the UK are confronting the challenge of properly balancing professionalism and generalism of the judges. Second, the part-time judge scheme adapted by the UK judiciary effectively alleviates the pressure due to lack of full-time judges, meanwhile, it plays a beneficial role in selection on full-time judges. China’s assessor system is different to the part-time judge system in the UK, however this might be an opportunity for China’s judiciary to take into consideration of another possibility. Third, apart from certain commonly adapted practice by both China and the UK in IP litigation procedure, for example, the court will comment on all issues between parties in the first instance judgement of IP cases, in order to avoid inefficient repetitiveness as a result of dissenting opinion made by the judges at the second instance; both China and the UK’s practices enhance the promotion on court trial efficiency.