CONFERENCE: CHINA - INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY - ANTITRUST - PROCEDURES - INJUNCTIONS - STANDARD ESSENTIAL PATENTS - FRAND

IP and antitrust litigation (10 years of the Anti-Monopoly Law in China - Beijing, 14 July 2018)

In April 2017, Beijing High Court issued its Guidelines on the Ruling of Patent Infringements and one year later, Guangdong High Court issued its Guidelines for the Trial of SEP Disputes (for trial implementation) on 26 April 2018. Both of these Guidelines tried to resolve the SEP-related issues in practice. This article is aimed to show the evolution of the interpretation of FRAND principle and injunction relief in SEP-related actions from the observations of both rules and judicial practice.

Ten years of anti-monopoly civil litigations: Retrospection and prospect Li Zhu Judge, Supreme People’s Court, Beijing 1. In the decade since the implementation of the PRC Anti-Monopoly Law (AML), the People’s Courts have established a unique anti-monopoly civil litigation system, adjudicated a series of influential anti-monopoly civil cases, effectively stopped monopolistic conducts and contributed significantly to the maintenance of a unified, open, healthy and orderly market competition mechanism. The past ten years’ experience has demonstrated that anti-monopoly civil litigations have become an integral part of the implementation of PRC Anti-Monopoly Law, and the system of dual-track, parallel private and public enforcements established by the AML, has achieved remarkable results.

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers

Already Subscribed? Sign-in

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers.

Read one article for free

Sign-up to read this article for free and discover our services.

 

PDF Version

Authors

  • Lifang (Beijing)
  • Lifang (Beijing)
  • Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China (Beijing)

Quotation

Xuting Wu, Guanbin Xie, Li Zhu, IP and antitrust litigation (10 years of the Anti-Monopoly Law in China - Beijing, 14 July 2018), November 2018, Concurrences Review N° 4-2018, Art. N° 88375, www.concurrences.com

Visites 257

All reviews