Jurisdiction is the basis and prerequisite for the people's court to exercise jurisdiction, but also the inevitable demand of procedural justice theory. However, the right to determine the jurisdiction in some cases is quite complex and difficult, the different understanding of the facts of the case, the different understanding of the legal provisions, and even different grasp of procedural problems, will determine the effect of jurisdiction.
    This part against the prevailing practice of the seller as a joint defendant, improper combination of litigation, fictitious defendant, evasion of law and the choice of the jurisdiction of the court case, put forward a preliminary solution, and described in detail.
    The Seller issues as co defendants
    (a) the plaintiff applies for the withdrawal of prosecution cases of sellers
    In the vast majority of intellectual property cases of civil action, the plaintiff will be the seller as a co defendant to sellers domicile or behaviors of court proceedings. In accordance with the provisions of relevant laws, the seller in the legal source of circumstances can obtain compensation exemption, only need to assume stop infringement liability. In practice, the seller's domicile and behavior to court litigation is a litigation strategy adopted by the parties. Moreover, the seller often in domicile or behaviors of court cases, some consider to withdraw the prosecution based on the seller, in order to achieve the purpose of lawsuit in a specific location.
    The author thinks: the plaintiff by selecting the sellers of options during a trial court jurisdiction, objection to the jurisdiction of the trial, the plaintiff applies for the withdrawal of prosecution to the sellers, should first examine whether to approve the withdrawal. If you do not approve the withdrawal, should continue the trial jurisdiction objection; if to the withdrawal of the suit, the seller domicile and behavior is not regarded as a connection point to determine jurisdiction.
    (two) the seller of forgery
    The so-called counterfeit sellers, is refers to the deliberate as a joint defendant seller sales of the infringing products or false, malicious collusion with the seller, manufacturing connection point, in order to achieve the prosecution of specific locations in the objective behavior. Obviously, forged the behavior of sellers has obvious malicious, should be subject to negative evaluation.
    For the counterfeit sellers and list it as a co defendant in order to achieve under the jurisdiction of the site specific court cases, should take measures to stop it, but, in the legislation of jurisdiction dispute hearing no explicit provisions, but our country in terms of doctrine and the parties mutually cross coincidence transition case, still should be emphasized the defendant, court trial mode: the defendant has evidence to prove that the seller of the infringing products situation the plaintiff is forged, the seller domicile and behavior is not regarded as a connection point to determine the jurisdiction; for difficult cases, or the defendant to provide preliminary evidence that the plaintiff counterfeit sellers sales of the infringing products illusion, can be introduced into hearing procedure, to fully express their views by parties on the defendant's objection to the jurisdiction of the reason and the relevant evidence.
    (three) the autonomy of the parties
    In does not violate the mandatory norms, also without affecting the public order, the freedom of the parties shall be fully respected, in civil litigation, which is often referred to as the autonomy of the parties. In the general concept of the judicial unity, to determine the jurisdiction in civil litigation is not only the law clearly defined the content, also need to consider the parties own will, to implement the autonomy of the parties within the framework of the law.
    The author believes that: the defendant did not present within the statutory time limit, the jurisdiction objection, generally no longer because the plaintiff to withdraw the prosecution and the seller to transfer the case to another court of competent jurisdiction, but the parties evade the relevant provisions under the jurisdiction of the exception.
    Affect the legal relations between the defendant to the jurisdiction determination
    There will be no legal relationship of the column as a joint defendant filed a lawsuit to the people's court, to avoid the "improper combination of litigation" approach to the law of the relevant jurisdiction is malicious, it uses the separation system is implemented in the separating reception from defects and omissions, and filing status law officer on filing form review standards to grasp too loose the arbitrary choice, which is good for court proceedings. In practice, the improper with the defendant is not uncommon, also should cause the high concern.
    In view of the fuzzy procedure and substantive limits, regulation of "improper combination of litigation" behavior may eventually focus is to review the legal relationship between the defendant and to what extent. Investigation of foreign legislation, the "jurisdiction demurrer v." become a trial before the relatively independent procedure, can say, "jurisdiction demurrer v." involving the jurisdiction of any relevant evidence of substantial, jurisdiction has been rising for the relative independence and extremely prerequisite the trial of cases. Although our country does not lead such procedure, but still need a comprehensive examination of the legal relationship between the defendant.
    The author thinks: school district belongs to the defendant and not between the area of the defendant has no legal relationship, can the plaintiff. The plaintiff agreed to withdraw is not in the hospital area against the defendant, whether by the people's court for examination and approval; the plaintiff does not agree to withdraw is not in the school district against the defendant, the court rejected the plaintiff to the defendant's lawsuit.
    Effects of the legal relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant to the jurisdiction determination
    Fictitious defendant or the defendant is not suitable, refers to the plaintiff to malicious prosecution jurisdiction, in the virtual column a no interest relationship with a party to the case for the accused, so as to achieve from the jurisdiction of the court at the domicile of the defendant virtual column purpose.
    Generally, the defendant is the main qualification to record review questions, but due to the defendant on stage and in this case is a legal relationship is often difficult to accurately judge, so this problem may flow into the trial stage. However, in view of the defendant accordingly put forward the objection to the jurisdiction of the court, there may be to the case has not yet heard, the accused subject identity cannot be determined whether qualification is rejected, or that the defendant subject qualification content and not belonging to the entity trial, which will not be reviewed in jurisdiction dispute stage. Visible, this kind of problem solving in theory, although it seems relatively simple, but in practice is difficult to grasp.
    I think: in the circumstances, a defendant in a defendant in the case of no legal grounds of objection to the jurisdiction of the people's court shall subject to the defendant, identity is eligible for review. To determine the subject identified as the jurisdiction basis is not suitable, should the court rejected the plaintiff to the defendant's lawsuit, and the people's court has jurisdiction over the case to the other; to determine the subject can not be identified as the jurisdiction basis is not suitable, ruling rejected the defendant's objection to the jurisdiction.
    Jurisdictional problems caused by intellectual property licensing or transfer of infringement disputes
    According to the provisions of the civil procedure law, the defendant has his domicile jurisdiction of the court should belong to normal, only for the convenience of the case, to facilitate investigating the facts of the case, while the infringement as the connection point, therefore, should strictly define the scope of tort, can not understand the concept of expansion of tort, or do not meet the original intention of legislation, further hearing is not conducive to the case.
    Because of the need of public administration in China, the parties to declare the name of the drug, to apply for a patent or trademark registration, ownership registration, transfer of rights or license contract registration or filing, the relevant administrative authorities tend to be concentrated in Beijing, due to the administrative organ in general only the relevant application for review in accordance with the relevant laws and regulations, to avoid the case of highly concentrated, also taking into account the cost of litigation, jurisdiction over the case, shall take appropriate convergence, narrow understanding of tort.
    The author thinks: the plaintiff to the defendant to declare the name of the drug, to apply for a patent or trademark rights of ownership, registration, transfer of rights or license contract registration or filing behavior to a lawsuit, the behavior cannot be used as the basis of jurisdiction.
    The effect of behavior does not coincide with the jurisdiction
    In practice, based on the purpose of the trombone jurisdiction, may in the seller domicile or the behavior of court sellers sales of the infringing products, and will be made as a co defendant and the prosecution manufacturer production of the infringing products, at the same time, sued the makers manufacture other products act.
    The manufacturer or seller behavior is not coincidence, behavior and the seller that the makers manufacture seller of the infringing products products do not behave with related legal sense, on the part of behavior, manufacturers and marketers, and can not be regarded as the common behavior of implementation.
    The author thinks that: to the allegedly infringing product sellers the connection point for the jurisdiction, as manufacturing co defendants' behavior than the scope of the sales, the seller domicile and its behavior to the people's court has jurisdiction over the case. If the manufacturer only to the allegedly infringing products seller reply, the people's court trial of joint act of tort only manufacturer and seller; if the manufacturer all violations of the plaintiff accused of defense, the people's court may on the plaintiff's request to conduct a comprehensive trial.

Source: Beijing first intermediate people's Court of Chen Yong "intellectual property civil litigation cases, regional relations", the seventh edition in July 9, 2008 Chinese Intellectual Property News