Embedding in specific regional settings
Establishing a specialized IPC aims to enhance the professionalism of litigation proceedings and promote consistency across regional processes. Despite this, the number of cases accepted by the different IPCs varies across regions. Before the IPC reform in 2014, Shanghai and Beijing Intermediate Courts saw a higher volume of intellectual property cases. These numbers increased until 2018. However, the strongest increase is observed in Guangzhou. Previously, intellectual property cases in Guangzhou were distributed among intermediate courts in various cities. With the establishment of the Guangzhou IPC, cases from Guangdong Province (excluding Shenzhen) were centralized under its jurisdiction, leading to a rapid increase in case numbers (Fig. 3). Thus, the IPC serves an inter-regional centralizing function, streamlining the handling of intellectual property cases.
A comparison between Figs. 3 and 4 shows that the number of cases and judges has been increasing since the establishment of the IPCs in 2014 in China and the three regions being studied. Specifically, Beijing and Guangzhou showed a significantly stronger increase, whereas the growth in Shanghai mirrored the general trend observed across China. This indicates that the IPCs have intensified their investment in judicial resources to cope with the growing number of cases and facilitate quicker processing of these cases.
Why do some IPCs handle a significantly larger number of cases compared to others?
## Interview: Centralization of IP Cases in China
**Host:** Welcome back to the show. Today, we’re discussing the evolving landscape of intellectual property law in China, specifically focusing on the role of specialized Intellectual Property Courts (IPCs). Joining us today is Dr. [Guest Name], an expert on Chinese legal reform. Dr. [Guest Name], thank you for being here.
**Dr. [Guest Name]:** Thank you for having me.
**Host:** So, let’s talk about IPCs. I understand they were established to bring more consistency and professionalism to IP litigation. Can you tell us a bit more about how they operate?
**Dr. [Guest Name]:** Absolutely. The idea behind IPCs is to centralize expertise in intellectual property law. Prior to the 2014 reforms, cases were often handled by general courts, sometimes leading to inconsistent rulings. Specialized IPCs aim to address this by providing judges with dedicated training and experience in IP matters.
**Host:** That makes sense. However, the number of cases handled by different IPCs seems to vary significantly across regions. Why is that?
**Dr. [Guest Name]:** That’s correct. While the goal is consistency, regional factors play a role. For instance, historically, Beijing and Shanghai saw a heavier concentration of IP cases due to their economic prominence. Guangzhou, on the other hand, has witnessed a dramatic increase since the establishment of its IPC. This is partly due to the centralization of cases from Guangdong province, excluding Shenzhen, under its jurisdiction. [1]
**Host:** So, the Guangzhou IPC essentially funnels cases from a wider area, leading to a surge in numbers.
**Dr. [Guest Name]:** Exactly. It demonstrates the IPC’s role as a centralizing force in handling IP cases within a specific region. This streamlining process can ultimately lead to more efficient and consistent legal handling of intellectual property disputes.
**Host:** Very insightful, Dr. [Guest Name]. Thank you for sharing your expertise with us today.
**Dr. [Guest Name]:** My pleasure.