In the European Union2022yearlyWTOProsecution of China's "Intellectual Property Enforcement Case" (DS611), the EU accused the Chinese court of "standard essential patents" (referred to asSEPFrequently in disputes“prohibition order”(abbreviationASI), hindering the legitimate rights and interests of foreign patentees.2025yearly7month21st of the WTOMultiple Interim Appeal Arbitration (MPIAThe arbitrator makes a decision and requestsChina has corrected the relevant practice, and the media disclosure arbitration court has asked China to2025yearly10month19Day before (within 90 days) to bring its measures in line withWTOObligations. This date is approaching, and it is necessary for us to provide a brief follow-up and analysis of the case.
The time line for this case is as follows:
China and the West's "standard necessary patents" ban order dispute
(1) What is“prohibition order”？An injunction is an injunction issued by a court in a country under certain conditions, prohibiting the parties from filing or continuing relevant litigation in a court in another country. In other words, if a China court considers a certainSEPDisputes issuedASIThe prohibited party (usually the foreign patent holder) will not be able to advance parallel lawsuits in foreign courts, otherwise it will face penalties such as high daily fines.“The prohibition order.”（Anti-anti-suit Injunction, AASI(a) measures taken by a court of another country to counter the prohibition order: a court of one country may order a party to a domestic proceedings to withdraw the prohibition order obtained in a foreign court or to prohibit it from enforcing a prohibition order issued by a foreign court.“prohibition order—The prohibition order.”offensive and defensive measures have become the currentSEPThe parties to global litigation compete for jurisdiction and negotiate legal tools.
(2) Why Chinese courts are keen to issue restraining orders？With Huawei, ZTE and Xiaomi,OPPOWith the rise of Chinese science and technology enterprises, the global scope of patent litigation around wireless communication and other technical standards has increased significantly.In the past, courts and patent holders in countries such as Europe and the United States often occupy an advantageous position, but in recent years, Chinese courts have actively applied prohibition lawsuits to seek the initiative to negotiate for local enterprises.“litigation shelter”。 According to statistics, since2020yearly8After the Supreme People's Court of China issued its first injunction in Huawei v. Convincent in March, the Chinese court filed a lawsuit in Xiaomi v.InterDigitalAppeal to Conrad,OPPOFour injunctions have been issued in the short and medium term in cases such as Sharp and Samsung Ericsson.The ban orders are mostly aimed at parallel lawsuits filed by foreign patent holders overseas, aimed at preventing them from obtaining ban remedies in foreign courts, thus leaving the main battlefield of the dispute in China.。 In practice, Chinese courts often attach high daily accumulated fines to the injunction order to ensure that the parties dare not disobey. For example inOPPOIn the Sharp case, the Shenzhen court ruled that if Sharp violated the prohibition order, prosecution in foreign countries, a daily fine of RMB100Ten thousand and short.7The German court in Munich.OPPOIssue an anti-suit injunction, requiringOPPOThe Shenzhen ban order was withdrawn. But the Shenzhen Chamber did not concession, but further investigated and found that Sharp violated the Chinese court ruling and disclosed its legal consequences. Eventually, Sharp chose to withdraw unconditionally the application for a ban order in German courts, expressing respect and compliance with the Chinese court ruling. This case was seen as a successful example of China’s ban order strategy: not only issued a global ban order, but also effectively resolved countermeasures abroad.
Other cases also reflect similar“Anti-suit game”Pattern: In the Huawei v. Konvenson case, after the German court found Huawei infringed and issued an injunction, the Intellectual Property Tribunal of the Supreme Court of China urgently issued an injunction (injunction), adopting a daily penalty measure for the first time in intellectual property cases. In Xiaomi lawsuitInterDigitalIn the case, the Wuhan Senate issued a ban order.InterDigitalAdvance litigation in India and other countries, and soonInterDigitalConvincing Delhi High Court of India and German courts to issue anti-prohibition orders against Xiaomi. Like the Samsung v. Ericsson case, Wuhan Senate ruled that Ericsson was prohibited from prosecuting or enforcing the ban abroad, while Ericsson sought U.S. courts to issue prohibitions to restrict Samsung’s enforcement of the Chinese court ruling.ASIsexist2020-2022The number reached a peak in 2001, with not only at least five cases in terms of number, but also the intensity of the accompanying penalties also reaching record highs (daily fines often hundreds of thousands of dollars).The Supreme People's Court of China also publicly stated that it would“Establishment of a prohibition order system with Chinese characteristics”Raise it to the level of serving national interestsAt the same time, some injunction cases were selected as annual guiding cases, showing that this approach is policy-oriented.
(3) Why did the EU sue ChinaWTO？From the EU’s perspective, the Chinese court’s ban order seriously damages the legitimate rights and interests of European companies.2020yearly8Since September, China courts have frequently issued injunctions against high-tech patent disputes, imposing huge penalties on people.Fines deter European companies, making it difficult for them to take courts at home and in other countries“Be confident”The European Commission believes that China’s practice puts European patent holders in a significant disadvantage in negotiations with Chinese manufacturers who could force EU companies to accept lower licensing fees and even give up charges by means of a ban order.。2022yearly2month18On the 20th, the European Union officially submittedWTOSubmit a complaint alleging that China's measures violate the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) and China promised to join the WTO and requested the China government to conduct consultations but failed to resolve differences.2022yearly12month27On July, the European Union requested the establishment of an expert group, and the dispute formally escalated.WTODisputedDS611from this case.2023yearly1month27Day,WTODispute Resolution Body (DSBApproved the establishment of a panel of experts to consider the case. For more than a year, the panel of experts extensively consulted both parties and third parties (including the United States, Japan, the United Kingdom, etc.)13Member)'s comments, focusing on whether China's prohibition order policy is violatedWTOThe Intellectual Property Rules.
2nd ,WTOExpert Group Decision: Partly Supported, Partly Rejected
The legal arguments of the European Union.existWTOIn the dispute, the EU raised challenges around three major points: First, the anti-suit policy of China courts restrictsSEPThe patentee exercises its rights in another country and is suspected of violatingTRIPSSeveral provisions of the Agreement, including28Article (Patent Rights) and44Articles (injunctive relief) and1.1General requirements for contractual obligations.EU believes patents are geographical, but China cannot pass domestic court proceedings“Defeat”The patent holder has the opportunity to legally exercise rights in another country, otherwise it is right.TRIPSInterference with the rights conferred。 Second, the EU accuses China of violatingTRIPSThird63The transparency obligation of Article 10 is due to China's failure to publish some important injunction rulings in a timely manner. For example, in Xiaomi v.InterDigitalIn the case, the Wuhan Intermediate People's Court's judgment established a new principle for the application of the injunction, but it was not disclosed to the public for a time. The EU maintains that this prevents other members and rights holders from knowing about China's new policy trends. Third, the EU invokes paragraph 1 of China's Protocol of Accession2.A.2Duan said that China should ensure the transparency, uniformity and fair application of laws, but China's practice of encouraging injunctions has taken shape“Unwritten policy”Suspicion may have violated this promise.
(2) China's defensive position.In response, the Chinese government stressed that the ban order is a legal safeguard under the Chinese Civil Procedure Law and belongs to the means adopted by judges on the basis of individual cases and is not an administrative-led fixed policy. China claims that such a decision only binds the parties within China and does not directly interfere with the judicial activities of foreign courts, and China has not deprived the courts of jurisdiction of other countries. In order to prove that there is no bias against domestic enterprises, China specifically referred to Lenovo in the Nokia case, the court has refused to issue the ban order to show that the judicial practice is neutral rather than unbiasant.“down one side.”In response to the transparency issue, China explained that the vast majority of judicial trials have been public, and that individual cases that have not been published do not mean intent to hide policy direction.“Oral policy”Every ban order is an independent decision based on the circumstances of the case.
The Expert Group (PanelSummary of conclusions.2025yearly4month24Day,WTOThe panel of experts released a report on the ruling on the case.In general, a comparisoncompromise result.
On the one hand, the expert group supported the EU's proposal“Existence of PRC injunction policy”The report noted that in many cases the reasons, times and grounds for the ruling of Chinese courts were highly similar, and that the daily fines were often applied far higher than in the past, showing that this is not an isolated case, but a practice that is generally applicable.SEPIn fact, it has created an incentive to prohibit.“Unwritten measures”。
On the other hand, the expert group did not fully support the EU.TRIPSInterpretation of entity obligations to address the most core disputes——China's ban order violatedTRIPSProtection of patent rights——The expert group adopted most of China's views and believed thatTRIPSThe agreement does not regulate the extraterritorial impact of member countries' domestic measures on judicial procedures in other countries. The report emphasizes that patent rights are regional,TRIPSThird28Article 10 grants exclusive use and licensing rights in the country and does not involve cross-border enforcement; China's anti-suit measures do not fall within the scope ofTRIPSRelevant enforcement measures or injunctive relief (Section41Article, Article44Article) the scope regulated. Accordingly, the expert group rejected the EU based onTRIPSThird28Article, Article44Most of the allegations are violations.
However, on that issue of transparency, the panel supported the EU position and found that China had failed to comply withTRIPSThird63Article 11Published in time“The PetitionInterDigital”The first-instance ruling in the case violates the obligation to disclose information.The expert group also believes that the ruling in the Xiaomi case“has universal applicability”（general application), establishes new principles, so it should be made public. As for the EU's allegations based on China's WTO accession protocol, the expert group said that the evidence was insufficient: it could not be concluded that China's abuse of the injunction order systematically discriminated against foreign companies or treated them unfairly, so it did not support this claim.
In general, the expert group's ruling allowed both parties to take what they needed and had their own dissatisfaction. The EU has proved that China has an anti-suit policy and won a game on the issue of transparency; but at the coreTRIPSIn the compulsory dispute, the expert group has taken a relatively conservative interpretation and has not found that China is substantially illegal.Although China avoided being found guilty of violating key provisions, it was pointed out that there were unwritten measures and information disclosure violations. This situation has laid the foundation for appeals by both parties: the EU's response to the expert group's responseTRIPSThe scope of application“too narrow”Understanding is deeply dissatisfied, while China is“Unwritten policy”and“The case is not public.”Being convicted of violating the rules and having doubts.2025yearly5Both sides said they would appeal, butWTOThe Appellate Body is suspended, and they agree to rely onMPIAThe mechanism will submit the dispute to interim arbitration.
Third,MPIAArbitration award: China's substantial loss
and a)MPIADescription of appeal proceedings.asWTOAn alternative after the appeal agency’s function was suspended (because the United States has been obstructingWTOappointment of the judge of the appeal body, and thereforeWTOThe European Union and China have joined the Multiple Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement (IPCA).MPIA）。China and the EU2023yearly7month4The signing of the arbitration agreement willDS611Three cases submittedMPIAArbitrator hearings.
The Arbitration CourtPenelope Ridings(New Zealand) serves as chairman,Claudia OrozcoColombia and Mateo Diego-Fernández AndradeMexico is a member.2025yearly6month4-5On the 20th, the arbitral tribunal held an offline hearing, and the appeal focused on the interpretation of legal issues in the expert group's report rather than the finding of facts. The dispute attracted members including the United States, Japan and Britain13Several third parties participated, most of whom were concerned about the impact of this case on the worldSEPThe potential impact of the rules of proceedings.MPIAExpedited procedures require that the arbitral tribunal be required90Complete the ruling within days.2025yearly7month21On the 20th, the arbitrator issued a long-term report on time59Decision of the Court of Justice (WT/DS611/ARB25), drawing an end to this transnational legal contest。
The full text of the arbitration award can be found atWTODownload it on the official website, and the website is as follows:
https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/SS/directdoc.aspx?filename=Q:/WT/DS/611ARB25.pdf&Open=True
(B) Overview of the main points of the arbitration decision.On the one hand，MPIAThe arbitration ruling overturned the expert group’s conclusions on several key legal issues, sought a more favourable legal interpretation for the EU, and made a substantially unfavorable ruling for China:
1About aboutTRIPSThird1.1Article (General Provisions).The expert group believesTRIPSThe impact of member measures on the enforcement of intellectual property laws in another country was not concerned, while the arbitrators held the opposite view.TRIPSThere is no unified supranational intellectual property enforcement system, but members must not defeat others in fulfilling their obligations.WTOProper functioning of intellectual property systems within member territories. In other words, even if the measures taken by a country are legal in its own country, they cannot excessively interfere with the exercise of the rights that patentees in other countries should enjoy. This interpretation givesTRIPSThird1.1The first sentence, in a broader sense, emphasizes that states should leave room for the legitimate rights of the rightholders of other countries.TRIPSCross-border effects are not expressly stipulated, but article 1 is ignored.1.1The basic good meaning expressed in the article.According to arbitral awards, China courts frequently issue anti-suit orders, with the objective effect of weakening the ability of other member judicial systems to protect domestic patent owners.TRIPSSpiritual inconsistency。
2About aboutTRIPSThird28Article (Patent Rights).Third28.1Article 1 grants the patentee exclusive rights to manufacture, use, sell and other patent implementation.28.2Article 10 grants the patentee the right to license others to use the patent. In the view of the expert group, these rights are strictly limited to the territory of the country where the patent is located. China's measures have not directly deprived foreign patentees of these rights in China, so there is no violation. But the arbitrator adopted the EU's“Overall coherence”Explanation: It should be28Article and Section1.1The arbitration ruling noted that China’s prohibition order policy interfered.SEPThe patent holder’s ability to exercise patent rights in another country and negotiate licensing contracts. For example, the patent holder has the right to claim rights, seek prohibition remedies, or consult with the enforcer in any country that is protected by the patent.FRANDPermission rates, but in ChinaASIsForce them to abandon these actions or face huge fines. This interference essentially limits the patentee's right to exclusive exercise and license in other countries, violating theTRIPSThird28the interests to be guaranteed. therefore,The arbitral tribunal found that China's anti-suit policy is consistent withTRIPSThird1.1The first sentence is not compatible with the interpretation.TRIPSThird28.1and article28.2Requirements of Article。This conclusion overturns the expert group's previous“not involveTRIPSJurisdiction”The judgment,Confirm that China's measures constitute substantial interference in patent rights。
3About aboutTRIPSThird63Article (Transparency). The arbitrator maintained the expert group's opinion on this point, but provided further explanation. The expert group determined that China had not announced it“The PetitionInterDigital”The injunction ruled that a violation of section 1063.1Article, the arbitrator agrees to this.The arbitration report emphasizes that this isWTOFirst interpretation in disputeTRIPSThird63.1The meaning of the article should refer toGATTThirdXArticle on the spirit of transparency.Arbitrators agree with the judgment of the panel of experts: Although there is no case law system in China, any final judgment establishing or revising a general applicable principle or standard in a judgment instrument falls within the jurisdiction.“Judicial Decisions of Universal Application”should be based on the63.1Articles will be disclosed in a timely manner. The Wuhan Intermediate People's Court's decision in the Xiaomi case is the first time that it confirms that China courts can ruleSEPGlobal tariffs and issued global ban orders, whose effects go beyond the individual case, should fall within the scope that must be published.The arbitrator therefore rejected China's proposal“The judgment is not generally applicable.”The appeal is based on the fact that China has violated the law.TRIPSThird63.1Article Information Disclosure ObligationIt should be noted that China also challenged the panel of experts in its appeal.63Explanation of terms (such as“universally applicable”The judgment criteria), but the arbitrators did not support China's view, basically continued the expert group's strict understanding of transparency obligations.This means that China in the future will not only publish the judgment in the Xiaomi case, but also need to review the publicity of similar important judicial decisions to avoid repetition.
On the other hand, China did not fail in the arbitration, and the arbitration rulingined a number of expert group conclusions in favor of China:
1The arbitrator agrees that China’s prohibition order policy does not belongTRIPSThird44Article on the scope of adjustment of judicial injunctive relief. They agree with the panel's analysis that although the injunction will make the patentee“Dare not”Applying for an injunction abroad does not deprive the foreign court of its power to issue an injunction itself. In other words, the preservation of conduct by a Chinese court does not directly interfere with the competence of a foreign court to make a ruling, and therefore does not yet constitute a violation ofTRIPSThird44.1Violation of Article.
2, the arbitrators also supported the panel's opinionTRIPSThird41Article (Intellectual Property Enforcement Procedure) concludes that the prohibition order policy is not an intellectual property“Law Enforcement Procedures”, therefore not applicableTRIPSRelated law enforcement measures require fair and reasonable requirements.The prohibition order is more like a temporary protection order, rather than an entity law enforcement measure aimed at infringement, so it is not the case.41.1List of regulations.
3Furthermore, the EU has not appealed against China's allegations of the Agreement, so the expert group rejected the conclusion that China violated its obligations to unify and fairness automatically entered into force in the arbitration phase.
(3) Summary of arbitration results.In summary,MPIAArbitration has won a crucial legal victory for the EU (especially in the case of“Extraterritorial defeat of other countries' rights”In principle), although it retains China's winning points on some terms, it has confirmed that China lost the case on substantive issues.The arbitral tribunal finally recommended that China align its injunction policy withTRIPSThe agreement is consistent with adjusting domestic judicial practices to meet multilateral obligations.on account ofMPIAThe award has andWTOThe Appellate Body report has the same effect and takes effect immediately. China needs to complete compliance within a reasonable period of time. accordance withDSUThird21Parties shall, after the decision30Agreed within a day“Reasonable performance period”If an agreement cannot be reached, an arbitration ruling period may be passed. According to Reuters disclosure on July 22, the current timetable hinted by all parties is90In the meantime, it requires China to2025yearly10The change will be implemented by the end of the month (i.e. October 19).
China's response: official position and compliance path
(1) The public position of the Chinese government.After the announcement of the arbitration award, the person in charge of the Department of Treaty and Law of the Ministry of Commerce of7month22He made a cautious and reserved assessment of the outcome, noting that the arbitral tribunalined a panel of experts on“The Chinese prohibition order does not affect the patent protection of other countries.WTOregulationIPEnforcement measures”The Chinese side welcomed the conclusion, which is equivalent to confirming that China isTRIPSThird44and article41The victory points on issues such as the article, however, the Chinese side immediately followed the conversation,Criticize the arbitral tribunal“In the absence of rules.”Making a new assertion in the disadvantage of China, the mistake expanded the obligations of members.。 This refers to the arbitrator's statement about“Should not affect the exercise of rights by patentees in other countries”Principle judgment. China believes this move belongs to“Improper expansion”WTOMember obligations and expressed dissatisfaction. Finally, China stated that it will“consideration of relevant decisions, according toWTOAppropriate rulesRice”。 This statement is intriguing: it does not explicitly promise immediate rectification, and it also implies that it will not simply ignore it, but willWTOSeek an appropriate response plan under the framework of rules.
Thereafter,China in8month20HinataWTOOfDSBsubmitted a written statement stating that it will comply with the arbitral decision in this case and respect itsWTOObligations.
This shows that China will not publicly refuse to enforce the WTO decision (in contrast, the United States is part of the WTO).WTOIt is foreseeable that China will try to meet the arbitration requirements through certain measures while safeguarding its own interests as much as possible.
Analysis of China’s possible compliance options.The Chinese government will need to take a series of domestic legal measures to complete the requirements of the arbitration award, otherwise the EU willWTOUnder the mechanism, there is the right to take retaliatory measures.
Option 1: Comprehensive rectification, cancellation or strict restriction of the injunction.This is the result the EU wants most and a safe way to ensure compliance with legal obligations. Specific measures may include: the Supreme People's Court issuing judicial interpretations or guidance opinions to clearly restrict the people's courts 'rights inSEPFor instance, prohibition orders may not be issued in foreign-related proceedings unless there are special extreme circumstances affecting China’s jurisdiction; or any foreign-related proceedings must be issued with the approval of the Supreme Court.“Zero tolerance”The prohibition order can undoubtedly be abolished andTRIPSConflict of obligations. The difficulty of this plan lies in the political and industrial impact:Chinese courts are equivalent to abandoning a powerful weapon to defend domestic enterprises (especially in5GThose who are in the position of the defendant may lose the negotiating code.However, in the long run, avoidingWTOThe credibility of sanctions and upholding the rules may be more important.If China chooses to make a comprehensive change, the EU will almost welcome,DS611The case will also be successfully concluded, and China can avoid the risk of trade retaliation.
Option 2: Partial rectification and technical compliance.China may favor a compromise: superficial satisfactionWTOThe ruling requires, but retains certain policy flexibility as much as possible. one possibility is“softening”Applicable conditions of the prohibition order. For example, the previous“Unwritten policy”As a set of public guidelines, high threshold conditions listed for application for prohibition orders (such as having to prove that the other party's lawsuits abroad seriously endanger the jurisdiction of Chinese courts, etc.) reduce external concerns about China's abuse of prohibition orders.WTODisplay policies have changed. In addition, China can strengthen rectification in terms of transparency: immediately disclose the texts of all historical injunction rulings, and promise to publish such rulings in official databases for public inquiry in the future. This way, at least inTRIPSThird63Be compliant with regulations. Through these adjustments, China may be able to claim that it has“be actually implemented”isWTORuling: Injunction no longer serves as a regular strategy, and most concerns have been eliminated. However, it is doubtful whether this partial rectification can satisfy the EU. The EU may demand that such measures be completely abolished, otherwise it can still apply for authorization to retaliate. China also needs to weigh whether it will damage its international image and leave future troubles if it only makes technical concessions.
Option 3: Delay and wait and see, and seek negotiations.The third path is to delay the actual execution as much as possible while expressing acceptance of the ruling on the surface, and use time to exchange chips.WTOThe rules allow implementation to be completed within a certain reasonable period, and China may want to struggle for a longer implementation period in order to observe the international situation and find alternatives. For example, if China judges that the EU will not take immediate retaliatory measures in the short term, or hopes to reach some kind of reconciliation through bilateral consultations with the EU (such as other concessions in exchange for the EU's temporary non-execution), then delay may be considered a strategy.“not executed”, but may just not introduce new clear measures, and at the same time continue to issue limited injunctions in China (but deal with them in a low profile). Of course, this approach is extremely risky: once the EU believes that China has not fulfilled the ruling within a reasonable time, it has the right to applyWTOAuthorizing the suspension of trade concessions to China (i.e. imposing retaliatory tariffs, etc.) would escalate legal disputes into trade sanctions, which is not the result of China’s pleasure.“procrastination without decision”It may be used in the short term as a negotiating strategy to force the EU to make concessions in other areas or to achieve more flexible implementation through diplomatic dialogue (e.g. replaced by judicial exchangesWTOPublic execution).
Weighing the above options, China is the bestcan take or have.Modification of conditions: inWTOAnnounce necessary policy adjustments within the allowed deadline to circumvent direct sanctions pressureIn terms of specific measures, the Supreme Court of China is expected to issue new judicial policy documents, for example, a number of provisions on the processing of standard patent prohibition cases, which specifies:1Strengthen the criteria for reviewing applications for prohibition orders and respect the basic jurisdiction of foreign courts;2Require the courts at all levels to file or even request the case to the higher level before making a decision on an order for an interdiction of foreign affairs;3Establish a mechanism for public disclosure of prohibition rulings to ensure transparency.Through these measures, China can bothWTOPass the job, say it has“corrective action”In addition, China may also strengthen international dialogue to ease opposition, such as China Europe can through annual high-level economic and trade dialogue or in theWTO TRIPSDiscussion at Council MeetingSEPGlobal dispute resolution mechanism, explore the establishment of a litigation truce mechanism orFRANDSchemes such as rate arbitration to reduce the need for such extreme measures as injunctions. In short, China will strive to find a balance in the process of compliance, that is, abiding by multilateral rules while safeguarding the core interests of domestic enterprises.
V. Perspectives: Chinese enterprise strategy in the era of post-prohibition
Whatever China chooses, one thing is almost certain: China.SEPThe dispute strategy will inevitably be adjusted in the near future.When the injunction order“The killer.”After limited power or even exiting the stage, China companies need to change their offensive and defensive methods and mentality in the global patent game. The following are several possible coping strategies:
(A) Reduce the dependence on domestic prohibition orders for asylum.In the past few years, Huawei, Xiaomi,OPPOWhen companies encounter foreign patent lawsuits, they tend to quickly return to the country to apply for a ban order to prevent their opponents from getting a ban in European and American courts.WTOAfter the ruling, it will be different: even if Chinese courts can issue injunctions in the future, the scale will be greatly tightened, and enterprises can no longer expect a ruling from domestic courts to put an end to overseas litigation. Therefore, inState enterprises must be prepared to respond positively to foreign courts。For example, when sued in European or U.S. courts, stronger legal resources should be invested in defending the case rather than expecting indirect intervention through domestic means. this means thatEnterprises need to have international litigation talents who are familiar with patent laws and litigation rules in major jurisdictions and actively respond to overseas litigation proceedingsIncluding promoting yourself abroad in a timely mannerFRANDPositioning, submitting jurisdictional objection or objection, etc. When necessary, companies can also consider seeking procedural remedies from foreign courts, such as counter-prohibition or counter-prohibition orders (anti-anti-suit injunctionIn order to protect their interests.
(2) Strengthen the global patent portfolio and licensing strategy.Reflecting on the root cause of the war on injunction lies inFRANDThe late licensing rate dispute cannot be resolved through negotiations.Therefore, Chinese technology companies should not be successful at the level of patent operations.On the one hand, it is necessary to continuously enhance their own patent power and master more standard necessary patent codes in order to balance in negotiations; on the other hand, for others.SEPPatents, to set up a global licensing network in advance, to actively join the international patent pool or multilateral licensing framework, to reduce the risk of litigation alone. When a dispute is inevitable, you can consider choosing an arbitration or a global settlement package. For example, recently, Lenovo and Ericsson, Amazon and Nokia ended a long litigation through a global settlement. Chinese companies can also try to propose to submit the dispute to a credible arbitration body to a one-off settlement to avoid multinational litigation. In the current situation, excessive reliance on prohibition lawsuits like this.“Attack to guard.”The tactics are no longer desirable, and the more robust approach is to take the initiative at the international negotiating table and turn legal settlements into commercial cooperation.
(3) Strive for the right to speak in international rules.DS611Behind the case is the background of global intellectual property rules and jurisdictional games.Chinese enterprises and the judiciary should not retreat, but should be more actively involved in the formation and reform of international rules.For example, inWTOLevel, China can cooperate in promotingTRIPSClarification of ambiguous terms in the agreement, or initiative to formulate them in future multilateral negotiationsSEPSpecial rules for disputes. At the academic and industrial levels, China experts and companies can strengthen dialogue with their European and American counterparts, express China's views on issues such as injunctions and anti-injunctions, and strive for understanding and support. Just as the Supreme CourtOPPOAccording to the report, China hopes to“Followers of International Intellectual Property Rules”transformed into“The Leader”This timeWTOThe ruling was undoubtedly a lesson for China and also an opportunity.By digesting the spirit of the ruling and learning from it, China is expected to put forward more constructive solutions in the future and lead the formation of new international practices。For example, we can advocate the establishment of a cross-border collaborative trial mechanism or a global trial mechanism.FRANDThe rate determines the mechanism to reduce the conflict between the courts of each country and the situation where the parties are exhausted.Once these arguments are discussed, Chinese companies will play a more active role in them.
6. Conclusion
DS611The case highlights the complexity of technological powers colliding with the game under international rules:On the one hand, China needs to take seriouslyWTOThe ruling demonstrates the image of a big country that believes in fulfilling the agreement; on the other hand, China must also safeguard the core interests of the country in the process of compliance, and strive for a fair competitive environment for domestic science and technology enterprises.when“prohibition order”This double-edged sword is no longer sharp, and China needs to sharpen new ones“weapon”And the strategy to deal with the global patent warfare. In the interweaving of multilateral rules and national interests, how to take scale and step back will test China’s wisdom and determination. It can be predicted that the international game around standards and necessary patents will continue to evolve. China’s response is both about the rise of its own enterprises and the future of the international intellectual property order. We will continue to pay attention to the development dynamics in this field and see how China will leave its mark in the wave of rethinking the rules.