On February 18, 2022, the EU filed a request for consultations at the WTO regarding China’s SEP practices as well as China’s failure to respond to the prior Article 63 transparency request […]
Translations and comments are made available on patent and trademark examination guidelines, Seed Law, Plant Variety JI, AUCL JI, and Oppo v Sharp. With regard to the SPC decision in Oppo v Sharp a question is raised concerning China’s efforts to regulate and take jurisdiction over global SEP royalty rate setting.
On September 7, 2020, China responded to the EU Article 63 request. The one-page Chinese response repeats the position taken by China in 2006, that Article 63 only affords an opportunity for a member to make a transparency request of another member. As China notes in its response, “there is no such obligation under the TRIPS Agreement for China to respond.” This position repeats the position taken by China that “the TRIPS Agreement only refers to a Member’s right to request information, but there is no mention of a corresponding obligation of the requested Member to actually follow the request.” (Para. 8, P/C/W/465, Jan. 23, 2006). As this prior Article 63 response appears to be the template for some elements of the current response, I have inserted it below. The Chinese responses might be understood as rejecting a teleological interpretation of the TRIPS Agreement to effectuate its purposes, or one based on the good faith of the parties, as it is difficult to conceive of the reason for a treaty provision that offers an opportunity to make an inquiry of another country, but does not require that country to respond. The response also ignores the significant developments in case law in China in recent years.