China appears to have taken a meaningful step toward complying with the WTO’s DS611 ruling by stepping back from its controversial use of anti-suit injunctions in SEP disputes, with no new ASIs reported since the decision and indications—primarily through WTO statements—that the Supreme People’s Court withdrew the policy. However, implementation remains incomplete. The underlying doctrine has not been clearly repudiated, key judicial materials remain difficult to locate, and earlier decisions continue to be inconsistently published, often in anonymized or unstable form. The WTO arbitrators’ expansive interpretation of “decisions of general application” raises additional concerns, as it extends TRIPS transparency obligations beyond formal precedent in ways that may not align with how Chinese courts actually develop policy. At the same time, the United States’ attempt to narrow transparency obligations was rightly rejected. With parallel developments in Europe and the UK, anti-suit injunctions are no longer uniquely Chinese, but part of a broader global struggle over jurisdiction in SEP disputes. China’s response reflects a cautious retreat rather than a full policy reversal, leaving important questions about transparency, judicial signaling, and future practice unresolved.
Post-Filing Data in Chinese Pharma Patents: Why It Took So Long — and What Finally Worked
Recently, the Supreme People’s Court of China (SPC) upheld a decision of the Beijing Intellectual Property Court reversing a China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) invalidation decision and confirming the validity of Novo Nordisk’s semaglutide compound patent. Although the final written decision has not yet been publicly released, official summaries indicate that the court accepted post-filing experimental data where “the technical effect can be derived from the original specification” (技术效果可由原说明书得出), reversing an administrative invalidation decision. Public reporting further indicates that the dispute turned on whether CNIPA would accept post-filing experimental data demonstrating semaglutide’s surprising pharmacokinetic effects in animal models, where the application as filed contained no experimental data.
Insights on the China/EU TRIPS Dispute: DS/611
I will be a discussant on the recent WTO arbitral decision in DS/611 before a virtual meeting Friends of the Multilateralism Group (FMG). The FMG brings together WTO Ambassadors (past and present), retirees […]
Implications of the Recent WTO Ruling on China’s SEP Practices
The WTO recently released its decision in DS 611, the IP enforcement case involving China’s SEP practices and transparency of China’s judicial decision making. The case makes some progress on China’s important transparency obligations.
The Revised US-China Science and Technology Agreement – A Narrow Bridge To Drive Further Cooperation
The State Department has recently posted the revised US-China Science and Technology Agreement. The revised agreement was concluded in the waning months of the Biden Administration. The revised STA is more narrowly focused on government to government cooperation. It only partially addresses the range of IP-related issues. Nonetheless, it provides a framework for future cooperation.
Some Observations on SAMR’s New Antimonopoly Guidelines for SEPs
SAMR’s new Antimonopoly Guideline for SEPS suggests possible new enforcement pathways for the agency, including areas that may be of concern to foreign licensors.
CHINESE THREE DIMENSIONAL SEPS: RECENT CASES, THE WTO, AND TRANSPARENCY
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?
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). […]
China IPR - Intellectual Property Developments in China 