The Supreme People's Procuratorate innovated the comprehensive protection mechanism of intellectual property cases, steadily promoted the pilot of centralized and unified performance of intellectual property procuratorial functions, and established an intellectual property procuratorial office in the Supreme People's Procuratorate to integrate the centralized and unified performance of criminal, civil and administrative procuratorial functions of intellectual property, and carry out all-round judicial protection of intellectual property, so as to effectively solve this practical problem and significantly improve the quality and efficiency of handling cases. We should strengthen the overall planning of intellectual property procuratorial work, establish and improve the centralized and unified performance mechanism of intellectual property procuratorial functions, and constantly optimize the jurisdiction system of intellectual property cases of procuratorial organs at all levels. The Supreme People's Procuratorate conscientiously implemented the central decision-making and deployment, cherished the "great man of the country", deeply understood the great significance of intellectual property protection from the strategic and overall height, focused on key areas and prominent problems of intellectual property protection, coordinated criminal, civil and administrative procuratorial work of intellectual property, constantly innovated the intellectual property procuratorial work system, and continued to strengthen intellectual property protection, It has made positive contributions to promoting high-quality economic and social development. Intellectual property criminal cases are typical administrative crimes. Because of the dual illegality of criminal illegality and administrative illegality, administrative crimes should bear dual legal responsibilities of criminal responsibility and administrative responsibility. Even some administrative crimes form civil and criminal cross cases due to the simultaneous infringement of civil rights and interests, which makes it difficult to accurately identify and scientifically handle the cases. To this end, the Supreme People's Procuratorate innovated the comprehensive protection mechanism of intellectual property cases, steadily promoted the pilot of centralized and unified performance of intellectual property procuratorial functions, and established an intellectual property procuratorial office in the Supreme People's Procuratorate to integrate the criminal, civil and administrative procuratorial functions of intellectual property, perform centralized and unified performance, and carry out all-round judicial protection of intellectual property, so as to effectively solve this practical problem and significantly improve the quality and efficiency of handling cases. In 2021, the procuratorial organs across the country approved and arrested 4590 cases and 7835 people of IPR infringement crimes, an increase of 16.8% and 9.2% respectively year-on-year; A total of 6565 IPR infringement crimes and 14020 people were prosecuted, with a year-on-year increase of 12.3% and 15.4% respectively; Supervised 299 cases filed by public security organs, a year-on-year increase of 65.2%. At the same time, procuratorial organs have comprehensively deepened the work of intellectual property administrative procuratorial supervision, strengthened accurate supervision by building a diversified supervision pattern of litigation, promoted the unification of judgment ideas and standards, and achieved the effect of "one case of protest and one piece of governance", so as to promote the deepening and implementation of intellectual property administrative procuratorial work, strengthen the procuratorial supervision of administrative power confirmation cases such as trademarks, patents and new plant varieties, and promote administration according to law, In 2021, 544 intellectual property civil administrative litigation supervision cases were handled, 4.1 times that of 2020. At present, procuratorial organs actively perform their duties of intellectual property protection and have made historic achievements, which are generally recognized by all sectors of society. However, it should also be noted that due to various objective reasons, intellectual property procuratorial work still faces some problems, which need to be further studied and solved. First, the case handling structure is not reasonable enough. According to the case handling data released by the procuratorial organs, the criminal cases of intellectual property still account for the absolute majority, and the civil and administrative procuratorial supervision cases of intellectual property are still relatively weak, the number is small, the source is single, and most of them are applied by the parties. The strength and effect of supervision need to be further demonstrated. Second, the duty performance mode is not perfect. Nationwide, the handling mode of intellectual property cases of procuratorial organs at all levels is not unified. For example, although the comprehensive protection case handling mode is adopted, the personnel of different business departments are simply aggregated to handle cases. The deep integration case handling mode is not enough, and the institutional advantages of the comprehensive protection mechanism have not been brought into full play; Some rely on special procuratorates to implement comprehensive protection, but the front-end investigation and back-end trial have not realized the corresponding cross regional centralized jurisdiction, the significance of centralized jurisdiction is limited, and the work coordination is difficult. Third, the ability to perform duties needs to be further improved. Intellectual property cases are characterized by high technology, intelligence, industrialization and chain. They are highly secretive, organized and difficult to handle. In the application of law, criminal execution, criminal and civil execution are often intertwined, with strong professionalism and many cross fields, which puts forward high requirements for the professional ability of case handlers. However, due to the traditional way of performing duties and talent training mechanism, it is still difficult for case handlers to fully "get through" the legal barriers of criminal, civil, administrative and other departments, and then accurately apply different legal norms. The judicial ability to handle intellectual property cases does not meet the judicial needs of comprehensive protection of intellectual property. In view of the above problems, it is necessary to "work hard and make practical moves" from four aspects, actively perform their duties in accordance with the law, continuously improve the level of case handling ability, comprehensively improve the quality and efficiency of comprehensive intellectual property procuratorial protection, promote the optimization of the legal environment for intellectual property in the new era, better serve the high-quality development of economy and society, and provide a more powerful guarantee for building an innovative country and a modern socialist power. First, focus on handling cases and continuously improve the quality and efficiency of comprehensive intellectual property protection. The criminal law amendment (11) has systematically revised the provisions on intellectual property crimes, further improved the expression of counts, adjusted the threshold of incrimination, and raised the legal maximum punishment to 10-year fixed-term imprisonment, highlighting the legislative spirit and governance thinking of increasing the punishment of intellectual property crimes. In order to practice this legislative purpose, at the judicial level, first, we should create innovative cases, high-quality cases and typical cases. In terms of intellectual property procuratorial work, we need to focus on scientific and technological innovation, cultural prosperity, business environment and cutting-edge issues, and handle a number of cases with demonstration and leading significance, so as to refine law enforcement guidelines and unify law enforcement standards. Second, we should adhere to "supervision in handling cases and handling cases under supervision". Focus on supervising the illegal situations such as criminal clues of infringement of intellectual property rights that should be filed but not filed, should be transferred but not transferred, should not be filed but filed, and long-term "hanging cases", focus on strengthening the supervision of criminal filing and investigation activities, and continue to strengthen the protection of intellectual property rights. Third, we should accurately grasp the boundary between civil tort, administrative law violation and criminal crime. Accurately grasp the relationship between criminal strike and civil protection, and the relationship between the protection of private rights and the maintenance of public interests. We should not only prevent and correct the involvement of criminal means in civil disputes, but also avoid the weakening or even virtual existence of intellectual property procuratorial work, so as to achieve the best protection effect. Fourth, we should actively explore the reform of intellectual property litigation procedures. Solve the problems of criminal responsibility investigation and civil responsibility, reduce the litigation burden of obligees and save judicial resources; Actively and steadily handle public interest litigation cases in the field of intellectual property rights, further promote the pilot work of compliance reform of enterprises involved, and lay a practical foundation for the improvement of relevant legislation. Second, improve the "two-way transfer" mechanism and continuously improve the overall protection efficiency of intellectual property rights. The existing "two-way connection" mechanism mainly focuses on the administrative law enforcement organ transferring the clues involving criminal crimes to the judicial organ. However, for criminal cases directly filed by the public security organ and cases that have been revoked, not prosecuted, terminated or acquitted after judicial treatment, although they do not constitute a criminal crime, when the facts of administrative violation are established, It is difficult for the administrative law enforcement organs to grasp the clues of whether such cases have been subject to administrative punishment, which leads to the absence of some perpetrators who have not been subject to criminal punishment or administrative treatment after breaking the law. Therefore, on the basis of insisting that the administrative law enforcement organs transfer the suspected criminal cases to the judicial organs in time, we should strengthen the working mechanism for the judicial organs to transfer the clues of administrative punishment involved to the administrative law enforcement organs. Of course, when investigating the administrative responsibility and criminal responsibility of the perpetrator at the same time through the "two-way transfer" mechanism, it should be properly handled according to the nature of responsibility and the legal principle that the punishment with the same function should be offset and the punishment with different functions should be implemented separately. Specifically, for the administrative punishment and punishment with the same purpose, similar function and form of responsibility, if the perpetrator is investigated for criminal responsibility after administrative punishment, the administrative punishment previously imposed shall be offset; If the perpetrator is sentenced to criminal punishment first, the administrative organ shall no longer impose administrative punishment with the same or similar functions. For administrative punishment and punishment with different purposes, functions and forms of responsibility, if the perpetrator needs to be investigated for criminal responsibility after administrative punishment, both administrative punishment and criminal punishment shall be implemented; If the perpetrator is investigated for criminal responsibility first, he shall continue to be investigated for administrative responsibility. Third, strengthen basic capacity-building and continuously improve the specialization level of intellectual property protection. Specifically, first, we should strengthen coordination with the court, coordinate and promote the comprehensive protection system for the handling of intellectual property cases, actively explore a new mode of supervision over intellectual property trials, and properly solve the connection problems of various links such as case jurisdiction, prosecution, trial and supervision. Second, we should strengthen the overall planning of intellectual property procuratorial work, establish and improve the centralized and unified performance mechanism of intellectual property procuratorial functions, and constantly optimize the jurisdiction system of intellectual property cases of procuratorial organs at all levels. We should not only accumulate case handling experience and improve the level of professional case handling through appropriate centralized jurisdiction, but also prevent the possible adverse impact of excessive concentration, especially large-scale cross regional centralized jurisdiction, on the full play of procuratorial functions. At the same time, the procuratorial organs should step up their efforts to intervene in advance, put forward opinions and suggestions on evidence collection, fact determination and case characterization, standardize the investigation and evidence collection, and improve the case evidence system. Third, we should rely on the intelligent prosecution platform, strengthen cooperation with other law enforcement and judicial organs, open up the "data island", and give full play to the role of big data in broadening the source of supervision clues, punishing and preventing crimes, supervising and correcting violations, protecting public interests and improving national governance. Fourth, we should strengthen cooperation and exchange with relevant administrative organs, universities and courts, strengthen communication and exchange, strengthen case analysis and judgment, establish a system for the collection, compilation, selection and annual release of typical cases, improve the comprehensive ability to perform duties and handle cases, and promote the unification of law enforcement and judicial standards around the handling of difficult and complex intellectual property cases, the construction of enterprise intellectual property compliance system, the improvement of enterprise intellectual property compliance supervision and other cutting-edge hot issues. Fourth, improve the general guidelines and constantly improve the ability of intellectual property law application. The amendment to the criminal law (11) has made important amendments to the provisions on intellectual property crimes. The supreme judicial organ has paid close attention to formulating and improving a series of relevant judicial interpretations around issues such as trademarks, copyrights, patents and trade secrets, providing clear guidance for judicial case handling. However, although such technical interpretation can solve the general problems of law application, it is difficult to provide general guidance for the accurate identification of administrative crimes, including intellectual property crimes. In other words, the traditional judicial conviction and procedural application mechanism centered on civil crime can not meet the needs of handling cases in the era of expansion of administrative crime, and the legal application opinions of case and case type can not provide general rules for the legal application of all administrative crime cases, including intellectual property cases