Three observations on China’s role in Global SEP strategies: the Chinese courts are likely fulfilling political mandates notwithstanding the best of intentions; FRAND should be best viewed as a process as much as a substantive outcome where multiple jurisdictions may have a role to play; and despite the attention several cases have gotten, the system overall appears to be working well.
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.
Programs Past and Present
For those who missed them, are the video recording to some recent events: On April 27, 2021 BCLT hosted our third annual “Tech Trade and China” program. The focus this year was […]
Three SPC Reports Document China’s Drive to Increase its Global Role on IP Adjudication
Three reports released during IP week at the end of April separately reflect Chinese judicial plans to issue Anti-suit injunctions, increase global influence, and play a role as a global IP norm setter.
Recent Recordings and Upcoming Programs
Here is a listing of recordings of some recent programs that are now available as well as a listing of upcoming events. The Third Berkeley-Tsinghua Conference on Transnational IP Litigation was held […]
China’s Evolving Case Law On ASI’s
Notwithstanding China’s civil law tradition, China’s use of anti-suit injunctions (ASI’s) in FRAND disputes has begun to be selected for adoption into the body of “typical cases” 典型案例 that may be referred […]
Unwired Planet and the Role of Chinese Courts: A Perspective from Shenzhen
This is the second article on recent research on Chinese IP law and practice. The focus of this blog is a widely read article of Judge Zhu Jianjun, Shenzhen Intermediate Court, Intellectual […]
China IPR - Intellectual Property Developments in China 