Category Archives: inter-ministerial joint conferences

court reforms, inter-ministerial joint conferences, Petitioning

Petitioning and the Supreme People’s Court

Leave a comment

As one of my research assistants, Liu Yanmu (刘严木), discovered, each activity of the President of the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) made public illustrates his unique role and the institution’s multiple roles. One recent example is the July 21 (2026) forum on substantively resolving disputes, focusing on petitioning (标本兼治 综合治理 深入推进人民法院涉诉信访工作法治化).  It also signals that one part of the SPC’s work is responsibility for “litigation-related”   petitioning (涉诉信访), petitioning related to the work of the courts. The SPC’s responsibility (accountability) and that of its leaders link to related accountability regulations.  That means the institution is responsible in two ways. If petitioners petition the SPC headquarters or, more often, one of the circuit courts, the SPC is responsible for properly handling the matter, including possibly resolving the underlying problem.  Additionally, the SPC is responsible for guiding lower courts in dealing with petitioners. The forum participants, forum content, and repeated appearance of petitioning in recent judicial reform programs are significant.

Participants

Although I cannot decode the significance of all participants in this forum, the identities of the two senior SPC judges and two commentators are important.   The two SPC judges are Qian Xiaochen (钱晓晨), the Director of the SPC’s Case Filing Division and Chen Xueyong (陈学勇),  Deputy Director of the Second Circuit, in Shenyang.  Among the many duties of the SPC’s Case Filing Division, according to the Chinese version of the official website, is guiding litigation-related petitioning work (涉诉信访) of the courts.  Multiple official documents also so require.   Chen Xueyong, as the deputy director of the #2 Circuit Court, is stationed in Shenyang and is responsible for overseeing the appropriate handling of petitioners in that circuit.  It is understood that the #2 Circuit Court still receives a relatively large number of petitioners, particularly compared to the wealthier First and Third Circuits.  In June (2026), the #2 Circuit Court hosted a national conference entitled “‘Disputes End with Me’: The Unity of Front-End and Back-End, Explicit and Implicit Achievements (“纠纷止于我”：末端与前端、显绩与潜绩的统一), much of which related to handling petitions.

The July 21 forum also included two commentators from two institutions that coordinate or are concerned about petitioning policy nationally: Ms. Jin Yanli (金艳丽), deputy head of the Office of the Central Petitioning Joint Conference (中央信访联席办副主任) and deputy director/Party group member of the State Letters and Visits Bureau (家信访局党组成员副局长) and Mr. Ji Tao (吉涛),  bureau chief within the Central Political-Legal Commission (中央政法委八局局长). The Joint Conference (see my earlier posts for information about joint conferences) is mentioned in the 2022 Petitioning Regulations.  Under the 2023 institutional reforms, the State Letters and Visits Bureau became an institution directly under the State Council, under the unified leadership of the Central Social [Society] Work Department (see this article for one view of the Department’s work).

Timing

It is unclear whether the timing was linked to the July (2026)  issuance of a Party and State policy document on social (society) work in the New Era (关于加强新时代社会工作的意见), or whether the forum was long-planned.  The full text of the document is not available, but the detailed summary includes  phrases on “deepening the reform of the petitioning system, promoting the rule of law in petitioning work, and continuously advancing the root-cause governance of petitioning issues and the resolution of long-standing cases.”

Judicial Reform and Petitioning

Petitioning has appeared in at least the last three judicial reform plan outlines.  The current judicial reform plan, which draws on similar provisions in the last two plans and is far more detailed, provides:

(15) Deepening the prevention and resolution of petitioning related to litigation. In light of the work of the people’s courts, institutions and mechanisms for comprehensively promoting the legal footing for work related to petitioning shall be improved. The combination of visits and investigations, with mediation given priority, shall be upheld, and coordination and linkage between mediation and work related to petitioning shall be promoted. The working mechanism for substantially resolving petitioning involving litigation shall be improved. Introduction procedures, public hearings, assistance and relief, and other methods shall be comprehensively utilized, and the mechanism for the participation of NPC deputies, CPPCC members, lawyers, and others in handling public complaints shall be enhanced. Responses to each petition shall be deepened, and the efficiency and quality of responses shall be improved. The separation between litigation and petitioning shall be further promoted. The reviewers, standards, and procedures for recording the termination of petitions involving litigation shall be refined, and the mechanisms for termination and transfer shall be improved. The organic integration of receiving petitions and incorporating petitions into case handling, supervision through the judicial hierarchy, judicial aid, and other work shall be promoted to facilitate case resolution and dispute settlement, thereby strengthening the source control of petitions related to litigation. Inappropriate acts such as persistent complaint visits, disruptive complaint visits, and profit-seeking through public complaints shall be dealt with in accordance with the law, and guidance shall be provided to ensure lawful and reasonable presentation of demands.

I surmise that the June 2026 forum in Shenyang was intended to develop related measures.

Content

Although detailed guidance for judges was not set out in the press release on the July forum, the June 2026 report signalled how petitions should be handled.  It is consistent with policies directed at preventing and reducing disputes:

  • examine and resolve deep-seated issues reflected in petitions and complaints, thereby improving the quality and efficiency of first and second instance trials [and avoiding petitions from arising];
  • link higher and lower courts and court divisions handling substantive matters (业务部门) as well as SPC circuit courts and the courts within their circuits;
  • implement mechanisms for analyzing the underlying issues and liaising with court divisions handling substantive matters;
  • improve the linkage with comprehensive governance centers and other relevant institutions,  and form a joint force for the prevention and resolution of conflicts and disputes;
  • deploy trial management indicators to spur judges to resolve petitioning disputes.

For those interested in a more detailed analysis of issues related to petitioning at the #2 Circuit Court, I recommend (retired) Justice Hu Yunteng’s 2019 article.

_______________________________________

Many thanks to one of my former students for her thoughtful comments on an earlier draft of this post.

intellectual property, inter-ministerial joint conferences

 The Supreme People’s Court and the 2025 plan for Promoting the Building of a Powerful Intellectual Property Nation

Leave a comment
Meeting of the Inter-Ministerial Joint Committee at which the Plan was approved

On 7 May 2025, the  Office of the Inter-Ministerial Joint Conference for the Building of a Powerful Intellectual Property Nation ( Inter-Ministerial IP Office) issued this year’s plan (Chinese /English) for promoting the building of a powerful intellectual property nation. (Many thanks to Adam Wininger and his colleagues affiliated with the China IP Law blog for the English translation of the plan itself.) The Inter-Ministerial IP Office circulated the plan with the following notice:

Notice of the Office of the Inter-Ministerial Joint Conference for the Building of a Powerful Intellectual Property Nationon the Issuance of the 2025 Plan for Promoting the Building of a Powerful Intellectual Property Nation
(National Intellectual Property Joint Office [2025] No. 5)

To all member units of the Inter-Ministerial Joint Conference for the Building of a Powerful Intellectual Property Nation, the Central Political and Legal Affairs Commission, the Cyberspace Administration of China, the State Administration of Taxation, the Financial Regulatory Administration, the China Securities Regulatory Commission, the National International Development Cooperation Agency, the State Administration of State Administration of State Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine, the National Medical Products Administration, the China Association for Science and Technology, and the National Natural Science Foundation of China:
With the approval of the Inter-Ministerial Joint Conference on Building a Powerful Intellectual Property Nation, the ” 2025 Intellectual Property Rights Promotion Plan ” is now issued. Please organize its implementation conscientiously.

Office of the Inter-Ministerial Joint Conference on Building an a Powerful Intellectual Property Nation
April 29, 2025

The issuance of this plan gives me an opportunity to revisit one aspect of formal interactions between the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) and other institutions that I discussed in this blog post in 2021–inter-ministerial joint conferences.  As I mentioned in the post, the intellectual property inter-ministerial joint conference system is quite transparent.  In contrast to other inter-ministerial joint conferences, it has its own website.  This brief post will highlight a few recent developments before analyzing what the plan means for the SPC.

Development #1–Since 2021, the membership of the joint conference has expanded and its name has changed, linked with the issuance of the Outline for Building a Powerful Intellectual Property Nation (2021-2035).  The Party Center and State Council approved the expansion of the joint conference to 29 members.  Previously, the State Council had approved the expansion of joint conference members.  Perhaps the Party Center (党中央) and State Council approved the notice together because several Party institutions are involved.  This notice on the establishment of the expanded joint conference is likely derived from the official approval, specifying that the joint conference’s responsibilities are to :

coordinate the national efforts to build a strong country in intellectual property rights, and organize the implementation of the strategy of building a strong country in intellectual property rights. Strengthen macro-guidance on the work of building a strong country in intellectual property rights; study major policies and guidelines for strengthening the building of a strong country in intellectual property rights, and formulate an annual promotion plan for the building of a strong country in intellectual property rights; guide, supervise, and inspect the implementation of relevant policies and measures, monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of work; coordinate and resolve major issues in the building of a strong country in intellectual property rights; and complete other matters assigned by the CPC Central Committee and the State Council.

The SPC is a member of the joint conference, which is convened by the head of the National Intellectual Property Administration and the person in charge of copyright work at the Central Propaganda (Publicity) Department. The approval provides that the joint conference has an office located in the National Intellectual Property Administration to administer the work of the Joint Conference.  The head of the National Intellectual Property Administration directs the office, with two deputies, one from that administration and the other from the Central Publicity Department.   Justice Tao Kaiyuan is the designated liaison person from the SPC.   My understanding is that normal liaison work occurs at the staff level, with some staff members of the SPC’s #3 Civil Division meeting with their counterparts at other member institutions to coordinate and promote policies as well as to establish related mechanisms, subject to relevant leadership approval. The plan provides insights into near-term developments in intellectual property law.

Implications for the SPC

The plan allocates 13 specific tasks to the SPC, among which are:

9. Promote the revision of relevant judicial interpretations of the Trademark Law and Copyright Law. (Supreme People’s Court is responsible);…

23. Explore and improve the intellectual property protection rules for new fields and new formats such as big data, artificial intelligence, and blockchain. Improve the intellectual property protection rules in the Internet field. (The Central Propaganda Department, the Central Cyberspace Affairs Commission, the Supreme People’s Court, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, the State Administration for Market Regulation, and the National Intellectual Property Administration are responsible for their respective duties)
24. Accelerate the improvement of judicial judgment rules for intellectual property rights in new technologies, new fields, and new formats, and judgment rules for e-commerce platform competition cases, and explore judicial rules for big data competition protection. (Supreme People’s Court is responsible)…

II. Strengthen intellectual property protection
(I) Strengthen judicial protection of intellectual property
30. Issue the “Opinions of the Supreme People’s Court on Serving and Safeguarding Scientific and Technological Innovation with High-quality Trials” and publish typical cases. (The Supreme People’s Court is responsible) [mentioned in this post]
31. Improve the national level intellectual property case appeal mechanism and strengthen the construction of a professional trial system. (The Supreme People’s Court is responsible)
32. Adhere to strict protection, improve and fully implement the punitive compensation system for infringement. Strengthen the overall coordination of batch litigation and increase the crackdown on manufacturers and other sources of infringement. (The Supreme People’s Court is responsible)
33. Formulate the “Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Laws in Handling Criminal Cases of Intellectual Property Rights Infringement”. (The Supreme People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate are responsible)….

I understand this document to have multiple implications for the SPC.  First, the matters for which the SPC listed are targets that the SPC has agreed with the other constituent institutions, after inter-institutional discussions and coordination at a staff level and related approval within the SPC.  Second, I surmise that the targets are binding on the SPC through inter-institutional agreement, as reported here.  Therefore, the ones that are listed in this document are on the work plan of the SPC for this year and will involve multiple institutions within the SPC.   Third, it can be seen that for some matters, the SPC is solely responsible, while for others, the SPC works with the SPP or multiple institutions.  Third, it is likely that the SPC will be involved in other matters in which the SPC is not listed as a responsible institution. One of many examples is item 45, “continue to strengthen the protection of seed industry intellectual property rights,” for which the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs is responsible. As I wrote in a recent post, the SPC has a memorandum of understanding with that ministry to improve the protection of seed intellectual property rights.  Finally, this document provides insights into the complex and poorly understood topic of inter-institutional arrangements in China, their operation, and the role of the SPC in them.  As the introductory notice flags, multiple non-members of the inter-ministerial joint committee are notified so that their work can be harmonized with this plan.

_______________________________________________

Many thanks to a knowledgeable person for his comments on an earlier draft of this post.