In recent years, as technology-related disputes have grown increasingly complex, the limitations of the traditional judicial appraisal model in ascertaining technical facts have become more apparent. Using the 2022 “Huachen BMW product liability case” heard by the Qingdao Intermediate People’s Court of Shandong Province as a starting point, this article examines the role of technical investigation officers in civil litigation and traces the development of the relevant system, with reference to legislative documents.

Core dispute

The Huachen BMW case is a representative example of a technical investigation officer overturning a judicial appraisal. The central issue in this case was whether the spontaneous combustion of the BMW vehicle in question was caused by a product quality defect. In the first instance, the court accepted the brief fire accident investigation report issued by the Licang district fire and rescue brigade of Qingdao, which determined that the fire was caused by an electrical wiring fault, thereby presuming a quality defect. After Huachen BMW appealed, the appellate court commissioned Nanjing Fazheng Testing Technology Company to conduct a judicial appraisal. The appraisal concluded that “the cause of the fire could not rule out external ignition sources and was unrelated to product quality”. However, the appellate court ultimately did not accept this appraisal opinion. Instead, it upheld the first-instance judgment based on the analysis and opinion of the technical investigation officer.

Legislative evolution

The development of China’s technical investigation officer system has progressed from local pilot projects to nationwide standardisation, with its legal status gradually clarified. The Interim Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on the Participation of Technical Investigation Officers in Litigation Activities of Intellectual Property Courts first introduced the technical investigation officer system, defining technical investigation officers as auxiliary personnel to the judiciary, with responsibilities including participation in inspections and providing technical opinions. At that stage, technical investigation officers primarily served the intellectual property courts in Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou.

The promulgation of the Several Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on the Participation of Technical Investigation Officers in Litigation Activities of Intellectual Property Cases Proceedings marked the system’s maturity:

Expanded responsibilities. Technical investigation officers may participate in inquiries, hearings and trials, and issue written opinions (article 6).

Procedural safeguards. The rules clarify recusal, signature rights and mechanisms for accountability (articles 3 to 4 and articles 12 to 13).

Scope of application. The system has expanded from patent cases to cover technology-intensive disputes such as new plant varieties and computer software.

Local legislation, such as the Beijing Intellectual Property Protection Regulations, 2022, and the Several Opinions of the Guangdong High People’s Court on Effectively Strengthening Judicial Protection of Intellectual Property, 2018, emphasises the integration of technical investigation officers with appraisal and expert assistant mechanisms, promoting the establishment of a diversified technical fact-finding system.

Response strategies

The deepened application of the technical investigation officer system presents new procedural challenges for lawyers and parties. Based on the provisions and recent judicial practice, parties should focus on the following strategies when responding to litigation:

1.Anticipate the likelihood of a technical investigation officer’s involvement. First, identify the type of case. Technical investigation officers are most often involved in technology-intensive disputes such as patent infringement, product quality and software cases. Lawyers should refer to article 2 of the provisions and assess, at the case-filing stage, whether it is necessary to prepare technical fact strategies in advance. Second, consider regional differences. Technical investigation officer resources are limited in the central and western regions. Parties may apply to higher courts for the assignment of technical investigation officers under article 14 or proactively suggest their involvement to enhance the credibility of fact-finding procedures.

2.Refine the preparation of technical evidence.

a. Construct a multi-dimensional evidence chain. Technical investigation officers tend to conduct a comprehensive review of documentary evidence, physical evidence, electronic data and expert assistant opinions. For example, in the Huachen BMW case, surveillance footage and abnormal vehicle data served as complementary evidence. Lawyers should focus on the relevance and completeness of technical evidence.

b. Design targeted defences. Where technical investigation officers may question logical flaws in appraisal conclusions (such as failure to rule out alternative possibilities), parties may engage third-party experts to provide supplementary reports in advance or cite industry standards and technical literature to strengthen their position.

3.Engage proactively in procedural participation.

a. Exercise rights of cross-examination flexibly. Under article 10 of the provisions, parties have the right to request the recusal of technical investigation officers or raise objections to their opinions. Lawyers should require technical investigation officers to explain their analytical reasoning in detail during hearings and highlight inconsistencies between appraisal opinions and other evidence.

b. Leverage the role of expert assistants. By invoking article 82 of the Civil Procedure Law, parties may introduce expert assistants to establish a “technical confrontation and supplementation” mechanism alongside technical investigation officers.

4.Anticipating the effect and judicial impact of technical investigation officer opinions.

a. Assessment of evidentiary weight. Although the opinions of technical investigation officers are formally for reference only, their continuous involvement throughout the litigation process often makes them highly persuasive. As a result, parties must conduct a more rigorous litigation risk assessment when technical investigation officers are involved.

b. Adjusting appeal strategies. If a trial court relies excessively on a technical investigation officer’s opinion without providing sufficient reasoning, parties may appeal on the grounds of “erroneous fact-finding” under article 170 of the Civil Procedure Law. In conjunction with article 40 of the Provisions by the Supreme People’s Court on Evidence in Civil Procedures, parties may also request the appellate court to re-examine the technical fact-finding process.

The rise of the technical investigation officer system is, in essence, a response to the push for judicial specialisation, challenging traditional litigation models. For parties, technical investigation officer opinions present both challenges and opportunities. These opinions may overturn existing expert conclusions or offer new avenues to resolve technical deadlocks.

Lawyers should incorporate the variable of technical investigation officers into their litigation strategies from the outset, refining evidence, engaging in procedural advocacy and anticipating judicial approaches, thereby transforming the “black box” of technical facts into a litigation leverage.

As the technical investigation officer system expands into more civil fields, its procedural significance is expected to grow. Only by proactively adapting to the rules and making effective use of institutional tools can parties gain an advantage in technology-driven judicial proceedings.