专访 | 天同庄喆律师：综合性、法商性、全球性，提供全新知识产权服务交付方式

综合性、法商性、全球性：

提供全新的知识产权服务交付方式

庄喆律师：首先，多年在科技公司、互联网公司的从业经验让我能够帮助科技领域客户处理前沿性问题。例如，我在腾讯集团的法务工作，让我有机会参与产品从研发到上市的全生命周期法律服务。彼时互联网科技行业刚刚发端，参与行业规则建设让我对前沿问题有了深刻的把握。这对我们今天理解互联网公司客户的需求有很大的帮助。

其次，法总使命必达的“困境”让我一直在解决法律市场缺少供给的法律问题。我曾在全球液晶显示巨头视源股份管理法务和知识产权工作，当年跨境IP许可、知识产权反垄断及跨境IP争议等问题都让我们非常头疼，苦于法律市场没有供给，我只能自己下场解决问题。例如在某个涉及芯片软件开源代码的商业秘密案件中，虽然开源代码在近几年已经是全球程序员的共识，但中国法律界对此仍十分陌生，我为了说服法院和律师，一边逐行看代码一边写了专业文章，论述开源代码的非商业秘密属性，最后使案件取得了有利的结果，获得了研发工程师们的高度认可。

因此重回律师职业后，在天同律所事务所处理的全托管跨境电商平台责任、芯片技术商业秘密、车企标准必要专利和技术许可、游戏跨境IP版权许可等多个案件，都涉及行业模式下的新问题。正是对科技公司技术、业务的深度理解，让我在解决此类问题上具备很大优势。

其次，我倾向于为客户制定综合性解决方案，“黑猫白猫，能抓老鼠的才是好猫”。

我的客户曾遇到一起竞争对手在全国各地举报的反垄断、反不正当竞争案件，常规的做法肯定是逐个案件应对，但我觉得这样不够好，于是做了两件事：第一，请客户主动与属地政府沟通，汇报自身产业特色和业务背景，并对合法性有争议的部分寻求共识和解决方案；第二，在取得属地政府理解的基础上，案件报请总局、将竞争对手在全国各地举报的案件全部移送到企业所在地处理，利用程序法上的路径帮客户避免了各地处罚标准不一和疲于应对的问题。

如果只有常规的解决方案，那风险随着时间流逝就会越来越大，最终让客户陷入困境。合规的核心是帮企业与监管达成共识，我每次作业都争取帮客户多做一点，争取让这个共识早日达成。

庄喆律师：今天的企业家说“不出海、就出局”，但其实10年前我们的企业也是一样的，10年我跟着上市公司老板飞欧美日韩投资建厂，每年要管全球1200宗诉讼案件，还要追求95%以上的胜诉率。这段经历让我深刻认识到法域差异化可以给企业带来的价值，例如有的商业秘密在美国会被司法认可、但在中国可能就不构成“秘密”，例如把IP布局在重要的港口国发起海关查扣会比侵权诉讼要有效得多——尤其是在圣诞节、“黑五”等关键时点前的查扣。当然今天我也在帮客户沿用全球诉讼这个策略，例如去年我们就成功地运用民诉法的长臂管辖条款在中国法院处理境外的不正当竞争和侵权案件。哪里的诉讼成本更低、效果更好，我们就帮客户设计相应的诉讼方案。

其次，伴随全球贸易摩擦加剧，企业出海时面对的知识产权侵权风险不断增加，除了产品单体，甚至上游供应链、原材料都有可能侵权——最近发生的车企因为上游钢板原材料涉嫌侵权而在海外被诉就是最好的例子。为此，中国人民保险集团在粤港澳大湾区推出了知识产权海外侵权责任险，而我有幸担任了这一保险的专项顾问。目前有数百家头部企业购买了这一保险，我会参与前期风险系数的评估，也会协助引入全球顶尖律所共同给中国企业提供争议解决方案。对我本人而言，这也是绝佳的学习平台。

庄喆律师：知识产权律师可能要避免“过度精专”，单一的解决方案可能无法处理复杂的客户需求。目前律师行业的趋势是鼓励大家只关注某个业务领域，而法律服务的本质是用法律手段给客户解决问题，但律师不能和客户说自己只能用民诉法商标法版权法、但不会刑法行政法证券法——现实世界的问题并不是按学科划分的。

举例来说，我们遇到过不读上市公司财报的知识产权律师，TA在庭上陈述的内容和其客户IPO招股书中对技术的描述背道而驰，差点变成证券虚假陈述；我们在给头部车企做标准必要专利许可费研究时，必须理解费用背后的技术、经济和商业逻辑，将经济问题纳入考量；在有些争议中，企业管理者关心的股权纷争其实更适合用刑事职务侵占、反舞弊案件的调查思路。只懂某个门类的律师解决不了大多数的复杂问题，而天同律师团队重视理论和方法研究，极致深耕、精益求精的作业态度，就可以帮助客户更好地解决新问题、迎接新挑战。

现在，企业内部法务团队越来越专业，所以我们一定要有：1）比客户更强的研究能力、解决问题的能力；2）更多的横向经验。这样才可能把市场做大。

Comprehensive, business-oriented, global perspective: a new approach to IP service delivery: an interview with Zhuang Zhe

Zhuang Zhe: My years in tech and internet companies have equipped me to address pioneering issues for tech-sector clients. For instance, at Tencent, I handled legal matters throughout a product’s lifecycle. Participating in industry rule-making at a time when the internet was in its infancy provided me with deep insights into emerging challenges, which today help me meet the unique needs of internet-based clients.

Additionally, working in the field with a "must-succeed" corporate legal mindset pushed me to resolve unmet needs in the legal market. While overseeing IP at CVTE, a global LCD leader, I tackled issues like cross-border IP licensing and IP antitrust that had no market solutions at the time. In one trade secret case involving open-source code, despite its global consensus, I had to prove its non-proprietary status to the Chinese legal system, ultimately persuading the court and gaining high recognition from engineers.

Since returning to TianTong Law Firm, I have handled emerging cases involving cross-border e-commerce platform liability, trade secrets in chip technology, SEPs for automotive companies, and cross-border IP copyright licensing for games. My deep understanding of tech companies' technology and business operations gives me a unique advantage in resolving these issues.

My approach favors comprehensive solutions — “a good solution works.” In one case, a client faced multiple antitrust and unfair competition complaints. Instead of responding case-by-case, I advised them to proactively engage local governments and pursue mutual understanding, and also to transfer all cases to the client’s local jurisdiction - this procedural approach prevented inconsistent penalties and minimized disruptions for the client.

Zhuang: Today’s businesses face a "go global or out of the game" mindset. Ten years ago, I was managing 1,200 lawsuits annually while helping a public company build factories in the U.S., Japan, and Europe, aiming for over 95% win rates. I learned that differences in legal jurisdictions are invaluable; for example, some trade secrets are recognized in the U.S. but not in China, and strategically targeting IP enforcement at ports can be more effective than litigation, particularly around critical seasons like Black Friday. Currently, I’m applying this knowledge to support clients with cost-effective litigation solutions globally. For example, last year, we leveraged Chinese long-arm jurisdiction laws to address overseas IP issues through Chinese courts.

With rising global trade frictions, IP infringement risks are mounting across products, supply chains, and raw materials. I have had the privilege of serving as a consultant for China People’s Insurance’s IP infringement insurance, designed for companies in the Greater Bay Area. Hundreds of major companies have already adopted this insurance, and I participate in risk assessments and connect with global law firms to provide resolution strategies. Personally, this has been a tremendous learning platform.

Zhuang: An IP attorney must avoid over-specialization. One-dimensional solutions rarely meet complex client needs. While the legal industry encourages specialization, legal services are fundamentally about solving client problems. Attorneys cannot tell clients that they only know civil or IP law without understanding criminal or administrative law — real-world issues don’t fit into academic categories.

For example, some IP attorneys don’t review the financial statements of public companies and may inadvertently contradict statements in IPO prospectuses. In advising an automotive client on SEP licensing fees, we had to consider the economic, technical, and business logic behind the fees. In disputes, corporate leaders are sometimes more focused on shareholder conflicts, making it more effective to approach them as criminal investigations into fraud. Specialized attorneys can rarely address such multifaceted issues. TianTong’s commitment to research, precision, and excellence enables them to help clients address new problems and challenges effectively.

As in-house legal teams become increasingly specialized, we need: 1) stronger problem-solving and research skills than our clients, and 2) broader, cross-functional expertise. This is essential for expanding the market and enhancing the value of our services.