Cassation Proceedings in Intellectual Property Cases: the Criminal Procedure Reform

The article highlights the main problems associated with changing the general procedure for the consideration of criminal cases, describes qualitatively useful results that can be achieved by expanding the competence of the Intellectual Property Rights Court in the course of cassation proceedings. The author considers the criminal procedural aspect of the need to change the norms of the cassation instance in criminal cases related to intellectual property. Such an approach can serve as the beginning of an active consideration of the need to change the norms of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. The author suggests the main directions for implementation in the work on changing the cassation procedure for appealing decisions of courts of general jurisdiction that have entered into force in criminal cases related to copyright and intellectual property law. The actualization of this issue contributes today to a multiple increase in intellectual flows in the criminal legal space of modern domestic justice. The problem of the cassation procedure for appealing decisions of courts of general jurisdiction that have entered into force on specific categories of criminal cases is new for historical and legal courses, since the idea of reforming by changing the norms of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation is caused on the basis of analogy with the norms of arbitration proceedings and the Intellectual Property Court formation. The scientific basis for all these amendments is the normative regulation of legal relations of subjects directly related to intellectual and creative activity. The question is raised about the organization on the basis of the Intellectual Property Rights Court, within the cassation instance, of a collegial composition of judges considering criminal cases within the framework of checking the legality of decisions (sentences, definitions) of courts of general jurisdiction that have entered into force according to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.

1. Atazhanov A, Ismailov B. Zarubezhnyy opyt vnedreniya sovremennykh tekhnologiy v sistemu pravosudiya [Foreign experience in implementing modern technologies in the justice system]. Society and Innovation. 2020;2:269-284. (In Russ.).

2. Gavrilov BYa. Ugolovno-protsessualnoe zakonodatelstvo: sovremennoe sostoyanie i mery po sovershenstvovaniyu [Criminal procedure legislation: current state and measures for improvement]. Legal Science and Law Enforcement Practice. 2021;1(55):115-124. (In Russ.).

3. Zheludkov MA, Chernyshov VN, Kochetkova MN. Ugolovno-pravovye problemy pri opredelenii obekta prestupleniy v sfere intellektualnoy sobstvennosti [Criminal law problems in determining the object of intellectual property crimes]. Actual Problems of Russian Law. 2019;2(99):110-118. (In Russ.).

4. Kuzmicheva RA. Sravnitelnyy analiz zashchity prav intellektualnoy sobstvennosti v Rossii i SShA [Comparative Analysis of Protection of Intellectual Property Rights In Russia and the United States]. Skif. 2019;5:543-548. (In Russ.).

5. Naumova EA, Petrov VS. Rol Radishcheva A. N. v politiko-pravovoy mysli v sudebnom pretsedente [The role of Radishchev A. N. in political and legal thought in judicial precedent]. Interdisciplinary Research: Experience of the Past, Possibilities of the Present, Strategies of the Future. 2021;4:71-76. (In Russ.).

6. Pupysheva LA. Fenomen podsudnosti v rossiyskom ugolovnom protsesse: problemy teorii i zakonodatelnogo regulirovaniya [The phenomenon of jurisdiction in the Russian criminal procedure: problems of the theory and legislative regulation]. Philosophy of Law. 2021;1(96):100-108. (In Russ.).

7. Yumashev YuM, Postnikova EV. Sovremennoe sostoyanie avtorskogo prava Germanii [Contemporary State of German Copyright Law]. Journal of Foreign Legislation and Comparative Law. 2017;3(64):59. (In Russ.).