Shenzhen courts accepted 503 new IPR disputes involving foreign countries, or Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan regions, in 2018, an increase of nearly 70 percent year on year, according to a white book on the Status Quo of Judicial Protection of IPR in Courts of Shenzhen in the Year 2018 released by Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court on Monday, ahead of World Intellectual Property Day, which falls on Friday.

Among them, 441 cases were concluded, up 30 percent year on year, while 324 first-instance IPR cases involving foreign countries, or Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan, were concluded, accounting for nearly 20 percent of the similar cases in Guangdong, according to the white book, which was released in both English and Chinese for the first time.

The courts throughout Shenzhen accepted a total of 27,717 new IPR cases in the past year, accounting for about 30 percent of the total number of newly accepted cases in Guangdong. They included 27,259 civil cases, 451 criminal cases and seven administrative cases, the white book said.

The number of cases of first instance and second instance were 22,985 and 4,546, respectively, and the closing rate of the cases reached 99.33 percent.

According to the white book, local courts gave prominence to the protection of core patented technologies and improved the environment for scientific and technological innovation, accepting 2,255 new first-instance patent cases and 224 cases of technology contracts.

The courts also strengthened the protection of network copyrights and well-known trademarks, and created an environment for the development of cultural industries and brand innovation.

Hu Zhiguang, vice president of Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court, said at a news conference that Shenzhen courts have taken a leading role in IPR judicial protection and the creation of a world-class business environment.

Bian Fei, head of Shenzhen Intellectual Property Court, released 10 typical IPR cases from 2018. The cases included the disputes of YLSK vs. Union Spring and other companies infringing on network domain ownership and unfair competition, the disputes of Ariston Thermo (China) Co. Ltd. vs. Guangzhou Alisidun Household Appliances Co. Ltd. and other companies infringing on trademark rights and unfair competition, and the dispute of Shenzhen’s DJI vs. Shenzhen Lifei Technology Co. Ltd. regarding infringing on a utility model patent.