Three major court decisions involving SEPS, patents and foreign companies have been recently decided in China. In addition, the EU has recently released two of its submissions to the WTO regarding its dispute with China on antisuit injunctions. Nokia has also announced a global settlement with Oppo. What does the future hold for SEP litigation in China and the WTO dispute?
Australia, US, and EU Submissions at the WTO on China and Anti-Suit Injunctions
By assembling the briefs submitted by the EU, Australia and the United States in the WTO case DS611, a stark difference in approach emerges between the United States and the EU/Australia. It appears that the United States is allying itself more closely with China, perhaps with a goal of limiting WTO jurisdiction in certain areas. At the same time, however, the United States appears to be retreating on its long-held commitments to increasing transparency in China’s judicial and legal system.
Are Chinese Courts Out to “Nab” Western Technology: An Inconclusive WSJ Article
How accurate was a Feb. 20, 2023 article of the Wall Street Journal that reports on a new development in China’s efforts to nab Western technology? I discuss what the available data says and refute the notion that this development is new. It nonetheless remains concerning.
The Pushmi-Pullyu of Chinese Anti-Suit Injunctions and Antitrust in SEP Licensing
The sharp drop in granting of Antisuit Injunctions by Chinese judicial authorities and the recent amendments to China’s Antimonopoly Law and related rules, suggest that China may have begun to reprioritize the Antimonopoly Law in FRAND rate-setting disputes.
Three Countries Seek to Join the EU SEP Case
The United States, Japan, and Canada have now asked to join the EU consultation request with China at the WTO regarding Chinese practices in issuing anti-suit injunctions (“ASIs”) for standards-essential patents (SEPs). […]
Recent Translations and Comments on Laws and Cases
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.
China Responds to EU Article 63 Request
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.
Upcoming Berkeley Law Program on SEPs and Jurisdictional Competition
Registration is now open for the second in the “Towards a Deeper Understanding” series regarding SEPs in China. This next session will focus on “Concurrent Litigation and Jurisdictional Competition”, including the “hot” […]
EU Files Request at WTO for Chinese Disclosure of SEP Cases and Practices
On July 6, 2021, the European Union filed an “Article 63.3” request at the WTO requesting further information on four SEP cases in China. publication of these importance cases will benefit all parties through increased transparency and disclosure of how China has evolved its policy in this contentious area.
China’s New Blocking Statute Comes into Effect
The NPC passed China’s new blocking statute, the Anti-Foreign Sanctions Law 中华人民共和国反外国制裁法 on June 10, 2021. The Law provides support for the delegation of power to enable lower-level agencies to implement sanctions measures. As the Law is vaguely worded, State Council agencies are likely to have considerable discretion in implementing it. Of particular concern to multinational companies, the Law also covers spouses and immediate family members as well as officers of listed sanctioned entities.
China IPR - Intellectual Property Developments in China 