TY  - GEN
AB  - Starting from 2020, the Chinese courts have actively participated in the jurisdictional battles for the standard essential patent (SEP) disputes, a pivotal development marked by the Supreme People’s Court’s inaugural SEP-related anti-suit injunction (ASI) in Huawei v Conversant. Subsequently, lower courts in China have emulated this approach by issuing ASIs targeting SEPs in the domain of information and communication technology.  The present study highlights the features of the Chinese ‘act preservation measures’ by comparing them with the typical ASIs originally developed in the common law jurisdictions. This comparison reveals significant divergence in the factors considered by Chinese courts issuing ASIs, particularly in the context of cross-border patent litigation. The study aims at elucidating potential defenses that the respondents in SEP litigation may employ to contest the issuance of ASIs in Chinese judicial proceedings, with particular attention accorded to the principles of comity and public interest.  The article concludes that the invocation of international comity and public interest in SEP litigation will encounter a formalistic assessment by the Chinese judiciary due to potential conflicts with statutory provisions and the lack of a more context-specific analysis. As a result, in the absence of supra-national mechanisms that would address the problem of parallel litigation, there appears to be little room for judicial self-restraint.
AU  - Svetlicinii, Alexandr,
DO  - 10.1093/jiplp/jpae049
DO  - doi
ID  - 50160
JF  - Intellectual Property Law & Practice,
KW  - Intellectual property
KW  - Patent law and legislation.
KW  - Patents
KW  - Patents.
KW  - Intellectual property.
KW  - Copyright.
LA  - eng
LK  - https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpae049
N2  - Starting from 2020, the Chinese courts have actively participated in the jurisdictional battles for the standard essential patent (SEP) disputes, a pivotal development marked by the Supreme People’s Court’s inaugural SEP-related anti-suit injunction (ASI) in Huawei v Conversant. Subsequently, lower courts in China have emulated this approach by issuing ASIs targeting SEPs in the domain of information and communication technology.  The present study highlights the features of the Chinese ‘act preservation measures’ by comparing them with the typical ASIs originally developed in the common law jurisdictions. This comparison reveals significant divergence in the factors considered by Chinese courts issuing ASIs, particularly in the context of cross-border patent litigation. The study aims at elucidating potential defenses that the respondents in SEP litigation may employ to contest the issuance of ASIs in Chinese judicial proceedings, with particular attention accorded to the principles of comity and public interest.  The article concludes that the invocation of international comity and public interest in SEP litigation will encounter a formalistic assessment by the Chinese judiciary due to potential conflicts with statutory provisions and the lack of a more context-specific analysis. As a result, in the absence of supra-national mechanisms that would address the problem of parallel litigation, there appears to be little room for judicial self-restraint.
T1  - The anti-suit injunctions in patent litigation in China :what role for judicial self-restraint?.
TI  - The anti-suit injunctions in patent litigation in China :what role for judicial self-restraint?.
UR  - https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpae049
VL  - 19, 9, 2024
ER  -