Ken Korea, founder of Colev Law and former head of US IP at Samsung, sets out the problems with anti-suit injunctions and the problem of getting rid of them
IAM is a unique and timely intelligence service that treats IP as a business asset and tool rather than simply as a legal right, informing boardrooms worldwide.
ZTE v Conversant and
OPPO v Sharp. All of the parties involved in the cases are active players in the telecommunication SEP field. Such a SEP ruling boom emphasises the growing importance of China as a SEP litigation venue.
One of the reasons for such flourishment of SEP litigation is the great development of telecommunication companies in China. From the 2G to 5G era, SEPs owned by Chinese enterprises have soared from less than 10% to over 30% of all declared SEPs. From another perspective, China also has a giant market for manufacturing and selling phones, which is attracting SEP implementers. Therefore, courts in China are holding relatively balanced and tolerant spirits, with no injunction to issue as principle. Courts do not intend to force those implementers to withdraw from the market, but just hope to help move forward licensing negotiations. This is the philosophy in fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) injunctions in the
Tracking the evolution of standard essential patents in China
Shan Jiao of Lifang & Partners explores how standard essential patents litigation in China has evolved following recent developments in the area Sponsored by April 14 2021
lifanChina has attracted significant attention for its handling of standard essential patents (SEPs), arising from the battles over anti-suit injunctions (ASI) and anti-anti-suit injunctions (AASI), as seen in
Huawei v Conversant,
Samsung v Ericsson.
This article provides a legislative background of the debate over SEPs in China and considers some of the key recent developments in judicial practice.
Legislative background of SEP litigation in China
As China is a civil law system, there are two types of sources that are binding on Chinese courts and are cited by judges in their decisions. One type is legislation and the other type is judicial interpretation, as issued by the Supreme Pe