Cheng Deli
Intellectual property litigation in China is relatively effi cient as compared to most jurisdictions worldwide. However, there are still challenges posed by protracted proceedings in complicated civil cases. Time-consuming lawsuits may slow down rights holders’ access to substantive reliefs. Such delayed procedures per se are meanwhile detrimental to judicial efficiency. To deal with these predicaments, several courts have started invoking article 156 of the Chinese Civil Procedure Law, a provision previously overlooked in intellectual property litigation, delivering partial judgments upon already-clear facts promptly. Step-by-step proceedings not only enable rights holders to achieve part of their claims in advance but also off er opportunities for courts to facilitate settlements. Currently, the popularization of this adjudicative model still needs more specific rules. This article first disambiguates the concept of partial judgment under Chinese laws. Then, based on the summarized status quo of the application of partial judgments in intellectual property cases, this article clarifi es the main application issues upon discussing the reasonableness of this model by comparison with related German practices: prerequisites for issuing partial judgments, comparisons with interim injunctions in overlapping fields, and the optimal way to ensuring the effectiveness of partial judgments’ execution.
内容提要：因案情普遍较为复杂，知识产权司法实践中案件审理“周期长”问题突 出。《民事诉讼法》第 156 条规定的部分判决制度以就部分事实所涉诉请先行判决的方 式，为破解知识产权案件审理周期长问题提供了法律依据。我国一些法院也已开始援引 此条款来处理知识产权侵权纠纷。对已经明确的事实作出部分判决，不仅使权利人能够 提前实现部分司法诉求，而且为法院提供了便利解决纠纷的途径。然而，目前这种裁决 模式的普及仍然受到缺少具体规则的制约。本文对我国法律关于部分判决的概念进行了 辨析，通过与德国相关实践的比较，探讨了部分判决模式的合理性，并就部分判决适用 的前提条件、执行的有效性等问题提出了具体建议。