University of Macau / Faculty of Law

University of Macau / Faculty of Law

刑事訴訟法是確定國家刑罰權之程序法，刑事訴訟程序進行中，難免侵害人民之基本權。因此，刑事偵查應遵守程序正義，以保障人權。偵訊係將被告、犯罪嫌疑人拘束於特定之地點，即地檢署之偵查庭或司法警察機關之詢問室，且接受檢察官、司法警察人員之訊（詢）問。基於偵查不公開原則，當事人若未委任律師到場陪同，外界難以窺探了解偵訊之過程。為避免發生不當偵訊，刑事訴訟法第100條之1第1項前段規定，訊問被告，應全程連續錄音；必要時，並應全程連續錄影，即在擔保偵訊時當事人陳述之任意性及偵訊筆錄記錄之正確性。第2項規定，筆錄內所載之被告陳述與錄音或錄影之內容不符者，除有急迫情況且經記明筆錄者外，其不符之部分，不得作為證據。因此，被告之陳述若與錄音或錄影之內容不符，偵訊筆錄將受證據排除，而不具證據能力。 實務上偵訊筆錄之製作，並無法與當事人之陳述同步，且偵訊筆錄之記錄，係由訊（詢）問之檢察官、司法警察（官）於整理當事人陳述後，擇與案情有關部分記錄於偵訊筆錄，換言之，偵訊筆錄之記錄，並非逐字記載當事人之陳述，則偵訊筆錄之記錄是否為當事人陳述之真意，迭生爭議。 本研究以文獻分析法、歷史分析法，探討偵訊筆錄記錄完整性與證據能力之研究，並分析刑事訴訟法有關訊（詢）問之相關規定及司法實務上偵查筆錄記錄之現況，經綜合分析提出建議如下： 一、偵訊實務建議 在偵訊實務方面之建議，偵查機關應建立偵訊養成教育之完整計畫，偵訊工作需由專業之執法人員擔任；強化偵訊錄影音監督機制，俾加強對偵訊筆錄記錄正確性及任意性之監督。 二、偵訊教育之完整計畫 偵查機關應將偵訊工作相關法律規範，彙編成冊，並依據法律規定，訂定偵訊標準化、類型化作業程序，依據不同案件類型，編訂擬問問題之標準作業手冊。 三、偵訊錄影音監督機制 為避免證人、被告、犯罪嫌疑人，在檢察官、司法警察（官）泛談前即受到威嚇或脅迫，其到達司法機關後，應即進入詢問室，並立即進行全程錄影，避免在偵訊前即受到脅迫；證人、被告、犯罪嫌疑人到達訊（詢）問地點時間與真正開始製作偵訊筆錄之時間應記錄明確，俾供查核。 四、偵訊筆錄記錄 偵查筆錄之記錄，係經偵訊者整理當事人陳述後，記錄於偵查筆錄，偵訊者應客觀、中立，並以最大之可能性，完整記錄當事人陳述，始符合正當法律程序原則。 五、偵訊筆錄記錄人員 設置專責偵訊筆錄記錄制度，以專門職業訓練認證及考選，納入考選部之「專門職業及技術人員」考試類別，以解決筆錄製作須具公務員之身分問題。 六、偵訊筆錄記錄輔助系統 為提升偵查筆錄記錄之完整性及正確性，可利用電腦科技，建置常用之片語快捷，以減少筆錄編輯時間。 七、修正刑事訴訟法第40條規定 偵查筆錄以電腦記錄，最後列印之筆錄文書，並不會呈現增、刪過程紀錄，建議修正刑事訴訟法第40條規定：「公務員制作之文書，不得竄改或挖補；如有增加、刪除或附記者，應蓋章其上，並記明字數。以電磁記錄製作文書者，其刪除處應留存原字跡，俾得辨認。」 / A Study on the Completeness and Evidentiary Value of Written Interrogation Records The Code of Criminal Procedure is a procedural law for stipulating state power of punishment. In the process of judicial proceedings, it is inevitable that people’s rights might be violated. Therefore criminal investigation should abide by procedural justice in order to protect human rights. Interrogation is to detain defendant or criminal suspect at a certain place, namely investigation room of District Prosecutors Office or interrogation room of judicial police agencies, where the defendant or criminal suspect will be interrogated or questioned by prosecutor or judicial policeman. Based on the principle of secret investigation, the person in question, if not accompanied by a hired lawyer, the investigation process will not be known to the public. To prevent unjustified interrogation, the first part of sub-item 1 of Article 100-1 of The Code of Criminal Procedure stipulates that when interrogating a defendant, the whole process should be tape-recorded. When necessary, the whole process will be video recorded. This is meant to guarantee the willfulness of defendant’s statement of when being interrogated as well as the correctness of interrogation record. Sub-item 2 of Article 100-1 of The Code of Criminal Procedure stipulates that if defendant’s statement in interrogation record is not in accordance with contents of interrogation tape record or video record, the Inconsistent part shall not serve as evidence, with the exception of emergency which is especially marked in the said record. Therefore, if defendant’s statement is not in accordance with contents of tape record or video record, the interrogation record will be excluded as evidence，meanwhile losing the credibility of the evidence. In practice, the production of interrogation record is not possible to synchronize with defendant’s statement. The interrogation record is produced by selecting part of defendant’s statement that is related to the case after statement organizing by the prosecutor or judicial police officer who interrogated. In other words, interrogation record is not the word-for-word defendant’s statement. Disputes often happen on whether interrogation record agrees with the true meaning of the defendant’s statement. This research has explored completeness and evidential power of interrogation record through documentary analysis, historical analysis, and comparative analysis. It has also conducted analysis on relevant regulations regarding interrogation (questioning) and current status of actual interrogation record. The research offers the following suggestions after a comprehensive analysis: A. Suggestions on interrogation practice Regarding suggestion on interrogation practice, the investigation organ should draw a complete plan to cultivate qualified investigators, so that the interrogation could be handled by professional law enforcement officials. A supervising mechanism for interrogation tape and video record should be further strengthened in order to supervise the correctness and willfulness of interrogation record. B. Complete Plan for Investigators Cultivation The investigation organ should draw complete plan to cultivate investigators and compile laws and regulations relevant to the work of interrogation into books. Interrogation should be standardized and classified, with the establishment of operational procedure. Based on the nature of different cases, various standard operational manuals with prepared questions should be produced. C. Mechanism to Supervise Tape or Video Record of Interrogation To avoid the threat or intimidation happened before wide-ranging questioning of prosecutor and judicial police officer, the witness, defendant, and suspect will immediately be led into the interrogation room once arriving at the judicial office. Whole-process video recording will be conducted immediately to prevent him from being threatening before interrogation. The exact time and place that the witness, defendant, and suspect arrive at for interrogation (questioning) and the start time of interrogation record should be clearly recorded for checking. D. Interrogation Record Interrogation record, after being compiled by investigator, is being recorded. The investigator should be objective and neutral, and record the statement of the person in question as complete as possible, which conforms to the principle of due process of law. E. Stenographer of Interrogation Record Stenographers must obtain certification after receiving professional training and pass examination. Taiwan has special professional training programs for stenographer. Stenographer is listed in examination category of “professionals and technicians” of Ministry of Examination, which meets the requirement that stenographers have to be civil servants. F. Secondary System of Interrogation Record In order to improve the completeness and correctness of interrogation record, computer technology can be applied to create shortcuts for commonly used phrases，reducing time for recording and compiling. G. Revising Article 40 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Interrogation record is recorded by computer. The printed final written version of the record will not show previous processes of addendums and deletions. Suggestion is given to revise Article 40 of the Code of Criminal Procedure according to the following quoted text: “Documents made by public functionaries are forbidden to revise or edit. Should there are addendums, deletions, or notes added, chops should be placed where such amendment occurs, with the number of altered words noted. When documents are made with computer, original texts should be kept for identification purpose.

競爭者訴訟需具有競爭關係之存在與公行政介入此兩大要素，競爭者並據此提起行政救濟以維護自身利益。關於競爭關係之概念與競爭狀態應有所區別。競爭狀態是一種現象，是一動態過程，而競爭關係則是在個別法秩序規範下存有兩個或兩個以上之自然人或法人，其中一人對於所欲追求的目標或利益，會對另一方不利，彼此之間存在著此消彼長關係，而此種此消彼長關係是必然的。 其次，關於競爭者訴訟之類型，防禦型的競爭者訴訟可涵蓋競爭者防禦訴訟、國庫防禦訴訟、利益防禦訴訟。因為行政訴訟本來就是在保障實體與程序權利，仍然不排除未來在個別法規中設計出不同實體或程序權利，或因有不同競爭關係型態、不同結構，而發展出新的競爭者訴訟類型。 而在競爭者訴訟中，競爭者是否具備訴訟權能，而可以提起行政訴訟以維護自身權利，是最富爭議性之問題。是否具備訴訟權能需視所提之訴訟種類而定，撤銷訴訟與確認行政處分無效訴訟可援用相對人理論以取得訴訟權能。若非行政處分之相對人，且為利害關係相反之第三人，則是以保護規範理論予以判斷。在提起課予義務訴訟之案件，亦是以保護規範理論予以判斷。至於一般給付訴訟一般來說應和課予義務訴訟同樣是以保護規範理論予以判斷。惟基於基本權之防禦功能，若具有公法上結果除去請求權，則提起一般給付訴訟亦符合訴訟權能之要件。 此外，在涉及到多邊利益衝突之情況，傳統之保護規範理論的分析與探討，無法明確說明問何須保護第三人與說明私人利益衝突之間之關係，而衝突調和公式之建立則是有助於此些問題的解決。

在訴訟審理之過程中，鑑識會計輔助法官釐清複雜商業交易的角色，日趨重要。本研究以地方法院民事訴訟之判決書為研究樣本，探討我國司法體制下，當事人主動聲請鑑定、案件爭點涉及損害賠償、案件複雜程度以及當事人特徵是否為影響有權命行鑑定者命行會計鑑定決策之重要因素。本研究之實證結果顯示，在財務或會計相關之訴訟中，當事人主動聲請鑑定及案件爭點涉及損害賠償之判斷兩因素與命行會計鑑定之決策呈顯著正相關，表示此兩因素將使有權命行鑑定者命行會計鑑定之可能性增加。案件複雜程度(以原告聲明數量及是否有反訴衡量)與命行會計鑑定之決策呈現顯著正相關，表示當原告聲明數量愈多及有反訴之情形時，有權命行鑑定者命行會計鑑定之可能性較高。至於當事人特徵變數，研究結果發現，當事人為上市、櫃公司時，與命行會計鑑定之決策呈顯著負相關。亦即，當事人為上市、上櫃公司時，有權命行鑑定者決定命行會計鑑定之可能性較低。 / The legal supporting role of forensic accountant in litigation process via clarifying the complex business transactions has become increasing important in recent years. Based on a sample of civil litigation verdicts issued by district courts located in Taiwan, this study explores whether the presence of voluntary request for forensic accounting service by the plaintiff or the defendant, damage claim-related litigations, the complexity of litigations and the features of the litigation parties are associated with the decision made by the judge to request a forensic accounting service. The empirical results indicate that in financial or accounting related civil litigations, the presence of voluntary request for forensic accounting service and damage claim-related litigation issues are significantly and positively associated with judge’s decision to request forensic accounting service. This study also finds that the complexity of litigation cases (measured the number of plaintiff’s motions and a counter-claim made by defendant) are significantly and positively related to the use of forensic accounting service decision. With respect to the feature of litigation parties, the findings show that litigations with listed company as one of the parties are significantly but negatively associated with the use of forensic accounting service.

近代民事訴訟法史・オーストリア. 鈴木正裕著. -- 信山社, 2016. -- (学術選書 ; 134 . 民事訴訟法). / 京都大学 / 0048 / 新制・論文博士 / 博士(法学) / 乙第13123号 / 論法博第197号 / 新制||法||160(附属図書館) / 京都大学大学院法学研究科私法専攻 / (主査)教授 山本 克己, 教授 笠井 正俊, 教授 山田 文 / 学位規則第4条第2項該当 / Doctor of Laws / Kyoto University / DGAM

京都大学 / 新制・課程博士 / 博士(法学) / 甲第23653号 / 法博第273号 / 新制||法||174(附属図書館) / 京都大学大学院法学研究科法政理論専攻 / (主査)教授 笠井 正俊, 教授 山本 克己, 教授 山田 文 / 学位規則第4条第1項該当 / Doctor of Laws / Kyoto University / DGAM

隨知識經濟發展，有關智慧財產權之管理與對因智慧財產權所衍生之訴訟紛爭因應之道，對企業越來越重要。因大企業多利用我國民事訴訟保全程序中假處分程序較提起本案訴訟所需支出之程序費用較低，取得定暫時狀態假處分之時間較本案訴訟耗費冗長之審理時間迅速，加上我國法律准許原告得提供擔保金代替聲請假處分需提出之事實與理由，導致大企業可挾雄厚財力於提請侵權訴訟之前，提供高額擔保金向法院聲請對競爭對手核發定暫時狀態假處分之裁定，故我國現行智財訴訟定暫時狀態假處分制度遭批評成為大企業用來對付新興中小企業競爭對手之手段。 有鑒於智慧財產案件與一般訴訟案件性質不同，著重承審法官須具備法律以外專門知識與技術知識，且因我國司法採取公私法二元化審判權區分，始同一智慧財產權紛爭案件可提起民事、刑事及行政訴訟程序，產生訴訟程序遲滯、裁判矛盾等問題，加上現行假處分制度有上述缺失。我國研擬智慧財產法院組織法、智慧財產案件審理法，並決定明年3月成立智慧財產專責法院，統一審理智慧財產案件，因此新制實行後能否徹底解決現行諸多缺失，亦係企業十分關心之議題。 隨台灣企業於國際間代工獲利增長、面板產業、資訊科技產業快速成長發展，外國擁有相關技術智慧財產權之大廠，紛紛對台灣企業於美國涉嫌侵權行為提起訴訟，獲取洽談授權金或和解金、賠償金之利益。因國外大廠於提起智慧財產侵權訴訟之際，均會依假處分規定，聲請法院下裁定禁止涉嫌侵權之企業繼續為生產、銷售及進口等行為，使台灣企業無法繼續生產商品銷售至美國，受有商機、商譽等重大損失。且台灣企業於美國侵權訴訟程序需耗費巨額訴訟費用及冗長之訴訟程序進行，台灣現行並無訴訟保險制度，無法將面臨智慧財產侵權訴訟須支出之費用藉由保險制度分散風險，故台灣企業面臨智慧財產權利人提起假處分或侵權訴訟時，應採取何種因應措施與訴訟策略，平時對其所有之智慧財產權應為如何管理，均係相當重要之議題。 ＊關鍵字：定暫時狀態假處分、擔保金、智慧財產法院、訴訟保險、智慧財產權管理、訴訟策略 / In today's knowledge-based economy, management of intellectual property rights is more important and litigation arising out of disputes about intellectual property rights is more than ever among transnational companies. In light of the lengthy procedure of litigation, companies often take advantage of the preliminary injunction system in Taiwan before filing a lawsuit, especially in cases of disputes about intellectual property rights. An applicant of a preliminary injunction is allowed to provide a security bond in lieu of explaining in detail the merit of its lawsuit and can obtain a preliminary injunction issued by the court within a relatively short period of time before the final judgment has been rendered. Consequently, the preliminary-injunction system has been criticized for its shortage in protecting the counterparty's legitimate interest. Because the current preliminary-injunction system has the above-mentioned disadvantages, and the litigation in connection with intellectual property rights differs from the ordinary litigation, i.e. the judges must have certain engineering or scientific knowledge in addition to the understanding of the legal system. Furthermore, our country adopts the "dual system" in terms of jurisdiction, i.e. there might be criminal, administrative, and civil litigations simultaneously arising out of the same intellectual-property disputes, which results in delay and contradictions among the judgments in relation to the same disputes. In view of the above, the Judicial Yuan drafts the "The Act for Establishing the Specialized Intellectual Property Court" and "The Code for Hearing Procedures Concerning Intellectual Property Disputes", and plans to launch the Specialized Intellectual Property Court by March 2007 to be in sole charge of the hearing of intellectual-property cases. Therefore, whether the new system adopted by the Judicial Yuan can resolve the aforementioned shortcoming is the major source of concern for the industries. Owing to the increase in the profits sustained by Taiwan companies when performing their OEM services, and the rapid growth of Taiwan's TFT-LCD and IT industries, foreign companies owning the intellectual property rights in relevant technologies in droves file lawsuits against Taiwan companies in the United States, in order to gain advantages when negotiating royalties or compensation with Taiwan companies. When foreign companies file lawsuits, it is a trend to also apply for preliminary injunction with the court to forbid the infringing companies continuing manufacturing, selling, or importing the products. Thus Taiwan companies cannot proceed to sell the products to the United States and incur huge losses in commercial opportunities and reputation. In addition, litigation in the United States will cost Taiwan companies notable expenditure, and make Taiwan companies endure lengthy procedures. Nonetheless, as currently there is no litigation insurance in Taiwan, Taiwan companies cannot shift the risks in disbursing the litigation expenditure by means of insurance. Accordingly, the management of intellectual property rights in "peacetime", and the measures and litigation strategy for the lawsuits or preliminary injunction filed/applied by the owner of the intellectual property rights, are crucial to Taiwan companies. ＊Keywords：Preliminary injunction、Security Bond、The Specialized Intellectual Property Court、Litigation insurance、the management of intellectual property、the strategy of litigation

基於租稅法定主義及租稅事務具國家行使高權及大量行政之特性，依稽徵行政之本質，原以單方之行政處分為常態之行為方式，但亦有徵納雙方作成協議之情形。為解決複雜且為數衆多的租稅問題，稅捐機關必須面對與納稅義務人間之各項爭議，尤須加強溝通管道之暢通，經由租稅和解與稅務協談等協議行為來解決紛爭的方法，在稅捐稽徵實務上已益顯重要。惟以稅務協議方式解決紛爭是否違背租稅法律主義與課稅平等原則？又行政機關有依職權調查事實、探求真實之義務，為依法行政之重要原則，以稅務協談或和解等協議行為方式減輕稅捐機關職權調查之義務，兩者間界限如何劃分？均有探討之必要。 稅務協談在稽徵實務上行之多年，有其積極之作用，協談因無法律授權依據而不具法律拘束力，其性質雖僅為陳述意見或行政指導，但在稽徵實務運作上，對徵納雙方間就課稅事實認定歧見之排除，仍具有實質之功效。稅務協談在稽徵實務之運作狀況及今後應如何發展，方能使徵納雙方間建立公平的法律關係，為本文研究重點之一。另在訴訟實務上，行政法院針對特定狀況之稅務事件，會對徵納兩造試行和解，以終結訴訟程序，惟訴訟和解以當事人對爭訟標的有處分權為要件，本文即須探究稽徵機關對訴訟和解之爭訟標的有無處分權。 稅務協談或行政上之和解為課稅事實認定程序之協議行為，依據該協談或行政和解之結果，發生確定課稅事實之效力，稅捐稽徵機關再依據協議所確定之課稅事實作成課稅處分或復查決定，行政程序並不因協談或行政和解而終結。訴訟和解則係徵納雙方就已核定之稅捐發生爭執，行政法院試行和解成立則發生終結訴訟程序之效果。訴訟和解兼具確認實體法上法律關係之和解契約行為與終結訴訟程序之訴訟行為等雙重性質，且其適用標的範圍上與稅務行政上和解或協談有相似及融貫之處，本文爰予比較說明。 針對目前我國租稅訴訟和解之實務運作情形、其與現行稽徵實務上之稅務協談及稅務行政上和解契約間之關係如何？學說見解與稽徵實務上應如何調和方能使稅務協談符合法制並運作得宜？往後稽徵機關與納稅義務人間有關租稅爭議之協議行為又將如何發展？本文將逐一探討並研提可行性建議。

智慧財產案件審理法第16條揭示當事人抗辯智慧財產權有應撤銷、廢止之原因者，法院應就其主張或抗辯有無理由自為判斷，不適用相關法律停止訴訟程序之規定。前項情形，法院認有撤銷之原因時，智慧財產權人於該民事訴訟中不得對於他造主張權利。上開規定之意旨在於使同一智慧財產權所生之紛爭得於同一訴訟程序中一次解決，以對智慧財產權作有效保護。 依據上開規定，專利有效性之議題即可能為專利侵權訴訟程序及舉發程序所審理。兩程序審理之情形下，專利有效性之認定即可能會因對同一證據事實有不同見解而使認定結果產生歧異（嚴格定義下之判決歧異）或因證據/請求權基礎之不同而產生歧異（假性之判決歧異）。 民事法院和行政機關/法院於發明、新型及新式樣專利對專利有效性具兩歧認定之比例分別為所有抗辯專利有效性案件之6.8%、16%及12%。具歧異認定之案件中約有8%係因對同一證據之處理方式不同。約66%之案件係起因於呈送之證據有別及主張之撤銷理由不同，而此歧異認定或可於後續程序化解。另約有8%歧異認定之案件係因智慧局之見解受到先前經濟部對該見解之拘束，此分歧認定之結果或需藉由救濟程序才得化解。又約有16%具歧異認定之案件係因民事法院非以舉發程序中構成「舉發成立」之要件審酌系爭專利是否具撤銷事由，此歧異認定之結果尚需仰賴救濟程序始得化解。 民事法院倘非以舉發成立要件審酌專利有效性，則其審酌範疇可能涵蓋：得據以舉發事由、未達得據以舉發標準之事由、專利法及施行細則中得據以使申請案不予專利或不受理之事由。而有違誠信原則之事由亦可能受到審查，使系爭專利有不可執行之虞。倘民事訴訟有效性抗辯得涵蓋上開事由，則可預見本質不良但被智慧局誤准之專利將有去除之途徑，公眾利益即得以維護；專利申請人於申請過程中較可能考慮遵循誠信原則；且專利糾紛得以完全於一訴訟程序一併解決。專利環境或可能朝優質化、誠信化及效率化發展。於此架構下，侵權訴訟專利有效性抗辯機制及舉發程序之雙軌制審理即各有實質存在意義。 專利權人於台灣侵權訴訟具專利有效性抗辯案件之勝訴比約10%；敗訴案件中，發明、新型及新式樣專利被認定具無效事由之比例約為48%、65%及40%。審理法施行以來，舉發申請案之案件量約僅減少6%至7%，或隱含專利侵權訴訟不僅未於一定程度取代舉發制度更可能因而使當事人必需同時面對侵權訴訟與舉發程序雙軌戰場之處境。 審理法第16條之施行加快民事訴訟審結速度，達到迅速實現訴訟當事人權利保護之立法目的。而專利權所生之紛爭於同一訴訟程序中一次解決之目的，依檢驗角度之不同而有截然不同之結果，因此或可說未全然達到紛爭一次解決之立法目的。 / Article 16 of Intellectual Property Case Adjunction Act in Taiwan reveals that when a party claims or defends that an intellectual property right shall be cancelled, the court shall decide based on the merit of the case and the relevant laws concerning the stay of an action shall not apply.　Under the circumstances in the preceding paragraph, the holder of the intellectual property right shall not claim any rights during the civil action against the opposing party where the court has recognized the grounds for cancellation of the intellectual property right. The main purpose of the article is to solve the disputes over Intellectual Property Right in one litigation proceeding so as to protect the intellectual property right effectively. According to said article, the validity issue of a patent may be dealt with under civil litigation and invalidation proceedings. Under the circumstances, the decisions on the validity issue of a patent may be diverged due to different perceptions on the same evidence/fact (defined in this article as “actual decision divergence”) or different submitted evidences or instituted grounds (defined in this article as “fake decision divergence”). With respect to invention, utility model, and design patents, about 6.8%, 16% and 12% of cases with invalidity defense respectively had decision divergence between civil court and administrative organization/court. Among patents with decision divergence, around 8% of the patents were due to different perceptions of the same evidence. About 66% of the patents were deemed differently due to different evidences and instituted grounds. This discrepancy may be resolved in subsequent proceedings. Around 8% of the patents having divergent decisions were resulted from that the opinion of Taiwan Intellectual Property Office (TIPO) is confined by that in a previous administrative action issued by its superior organization, the Board of Appeal. This discrepancy may need to be resolved through a remedial procedure. Approximately 16% of the patents were determined differently because the civil court adopted different standards for initiating an invalidation action. This type of discrepancy may only be resolved through a remedial procedure. When the civil court uses its own standards in determining the validity issue of the patent in question, the scope of judicial review might include: the grounds of invalidation proceedings, the grounds of invalidation proceedings with loosened standards, the grounds attributed to a patent being rejected or an application to be inacceptable to TIPO based on Patent Act or the Enforcement Rules of Patent Act. In addition, inequitable conduct might also be reviewed. Under the circumstances, defective patents have a chance to be removed, a duty of candor and good faith would be more likely to be followed during prosecution; patent disputes are able to be reviewed entirely in one proceeding. It is expected that the quality of the patent system would be improved. Moreover, either the invalidity defense mechanism in infringement litigation, or the invalidation proceeding serves its own purpose. For patent infringement cases with invalidity defense, plaintiffs won about 10% of the cases. Among the cases lost by plaintiffs, the patent at issue deemed by civil court as invalid accounted for about 48%, 65% and 40% for invention, utility model and design patents respectively. Since the IP Case Adjudication Act took effect, the number of invalidation cases has decreased about 6-7%, which might indicate that the invalidity defense mechanism in infringement litigation does not replace the invalidation proceeding. The regulation of Article 16 of IP Case Adjudication Act speeds up civil proceedings indicating that the legislative purpose of providing effective protection to parties in IP litigation may be realized. However, the legislative purpose of solving patent disputes in one proceeding may not be achieved fully as the test results vary on the basis of different evaluation criteria.