In the practice of intellectual property litigation, confirming the jurisdictional court is the first issue that parties and agents need to consider. Especially when multiple courts have jurisdiction, how to choose the jurisdictional court will affect the parties’ response to the lawsuit to a certain extent. , cross-examination and post-judgment execution. When the intellectual property rights owner and the infringer are not in the same jurisdiction, and the rights owner usually prefers to be under the jurisdiction of the local court, the rights owner can purchase directly from the infringer in the local area or purchase from the infringer's agent and then purchase based on Jurisdiction will be based on the "place where the infringement occurred", or the infringer may initiate a lawsuit by issuing a warning letter or other reminder procedures to the infringer. In addition, according to our country’s “Judicial Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China” and the “Strict Implementation of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China on Economic Trial Work” by the Supreme People’s Court "Several Provisions of "" on "If two or more people's courts have jurisdiction over the same case and have filed the case separately, the people's court that filed the case later shall make a decision within seven days to transfer the case to the court that filed the case first after learning that the case was filed first by the relevant court. "People's Court", the parties may also determine the jurisdictional court through this "retreat in order to advance" method. Wang Hongtao, partner and lawyer at Beijing Luojie Law Firm: The focus of the dispute in this case mainly involves the jurisdictional issues of transfer jurisdiction and confirmation of non-infringement litigation. The essence of transfer jurisdiction is to transfer the case, not to transfer jurisdiction over the case. It is a corrective measure taken when a jurisdictional error occurs. Since Article 154 of my country's Civil Procedure Law only stipulates that parties may appeal against three types of rulings: inadmissibility, jurisdictional objection and dismissal of prosecution. This situation does not include the situation where the court transfers jurisdiction ex officio. Therefore, Henkel The appeal reason that "the court of first instance transferred the case to the Intermediate People's Court of Loudi City, Hunan Province in accordance with its authority was an error in the application of law" was without legal basis. The court of second instance did not support Henkel's appeal reason. In response to the jurisdictional issue of litigation to confirm non-infringement, the Supreme People's Court has repeatedly issued relevant regulations and guidelines through judicial replies, judicial interpretations, guiding cases and other judicial policies. It has also pointed out that litigation to confirm non-infringement is an infringement dispute and should be governed by civil laws. The provisions of Article 29 of the Procedural Law determine the geographical jurisdiction; actions to confirm non-infringement and infringement actions involving the same fact are independent litigations; disputes to confirm non-infringement should have unique acceptance conditions; actions to confirm non-infringement are currently the only litigation in our country. The unique civil litigation system in the field of intellectual property disputes is essentially an infringement lawsuit. Accordingly, the second-instance court's review of this case in accordance with the aforementioned judicial rules is in line with relevant judicial logic and judicial policies. It should be pointed out that, in view of the fact that litigation cases concerning confirmation of non-infringement are new types of cases, the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court has also exercised the judge’s power to release names ex officio in relation to the parties involved in the case when they exercised their litigation rights in related disputes over confirmation of non-infringement. The plaintiff is required to submit relevant evidence. Specific to this case, given that the current law and relevant judicial interpretations do not limit the plaintiff who files a lawsuit to confirm non-infringement to be a civil subject who independently committed the accused act, but clearly and clearly stipulates the actor of the act involved ( The person who has been warned) or any interested party has the right to file a lawsuit to confirm non-infringement. The first-instance court and the second-instance court in this case strictly limited the subjects with litigation rights and directly excluded interested parties. This judicial discretion deserves further discussion.