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.
SAMR’s “Choreography” of SEP AML Rulemaking
How should one understand the overlapping rules enacted by SAMR on IP, SEPS and antitrust? Is a new wave of legislation under way? Is China planning on ramping up antitrust enforcement in SEPs? What do these legislative experiments portend in terms of China’s commitments to rule of law and the challenges faced by high tech companies – whether implementer or licensor in China?
SEP Year in Review at BCLT
From 1:00 to 2:30 Pacific Time today (May 10, 2022), BCLT will be hosting a “SEP Year in Review” as part of our “IP + Tech Month”, with Professors Jorge Contreras and […]
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). […]
EU Files Request for Consultations on Chinese Judicial SEP Practices
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 […]
Counting and Discounting Patents – The USPTO Study on Patenting Activity in 5G
USPTO released a study on February 15, 2022 entitled “Patenting Activity among 5G Technology Developers”.
The Report uniquely “examines overall patenting trends as well as trends in patent filings and value indicators in the four most-patented 5G-related technologies. The Report does not fully consider China’s role as a major patent office in evaluating the quality of filings.
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.
IP Enforcement is the Focus of This Year’s China IP Series
Beginning October 6, 2021, Berkeley Law begins a four-part series on IP enforcement in China. The highly successful four-part SEP series of Prof Hao Yuan continues on October 15 with a discussion of the role of antitrust in SEP licensing and litigation.
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.
China IPR - Intellectual Property Developments in China 