Category: WTO

CHINESE THREE DIMENSIONAL SEPS: RECENT CASES,  THE WTO, AND TRANSPARENCY

By on • ( Leave a comment )

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 on • ( Leave a comment )

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

By on • ( Leave a comment )

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?

Reviewing Recent Literature on the WTO and Antitrust in IP

By on • ( 1 Comment )

Two books, China and the WTO: Why Multilateralism Still Matter (Mavroidis and Sapir), and Chinese Antitrust Exceptionalism (Zhang) consider trade and competition law aspects of the U.S.-China trade dispute.  They discuss the treatment of state-owned enterprises under international trade and domestic competition law rules.  They also discuss IP-specific issues, particularly forced technology transfer by or for the state and the control of abusive technology licensing practices, including the licensing of standards essential patents and China’s discriminatory Administration of Technology Import/Export Regulations (“TIER”), which has since been amended.  The books and article are part of several academic and popular discourses on the disruptive and unpredictable policy agenda of the Trump administration, which also provide cautionary roadmaps for future engagement – or confrontation – with China.

The WTO IP Cases That Weren’t

By on • ( 1 Comment )

Does the WTO / TRIPS Agreement still have teeth on IP? This blog explores the possible claims that could be made involving TRIPS Agreement violations and China. The more important claims are complex, data-dependent, and would require a whole of government approach by the Biden adminisitration.

RCEP And Phase 1: Strange Bedfellows in IP

By on • ( 6 Comments )

RCEP and the Phase 1 Trade Agremeent are strange historical bedfellows, joined by common approaches to IP that diminish its role as a private right. The differences between the two agreements are also significant. The Phase 1 Agreement explicitly contemplated a Phase 2 Trade Agreement. It also only involved one country. RCEP intends to be comprehensive and regional, if not global. It is an alternative to the TPP. It will help China establish global IP norms.