2014 China Anti-Monopoly Annual Report]

 Authored by Dr. Zhan Hao (zhanhao@anjielaw.com) at AnJie Law Firm

Click Here to Read more

MOFCOM Steps Up: Penalty Decisions Regarding Merger Control Published for the First Time

Authored by Michael Gu (michaelgu@anjielaw.com) and Yu Shuitian (yushuitian@anjielaw.com) at AnJie Law Firm

Two months after the National Development and Reform Commission (“NDRC”) published its last high-profile anti-monopoly penalty decisions (e.g. Japanese Auto Parts and Bearing Manufacturers case, Audi and Chrysler case), another anti-monopoly agency in China, the Ministry of Commerce (“MOFCOM”) steps up in antitrust enforcement in addition to its usual merger reviews with a new round of anti-monopoly crackdown. On 2 December 2014, for the first time ever, MOFCOM, the Chinese antitrust enforcement authority responsible for merger control, published three penalty decisions regarding concentration of undertakings. MOFCOM has announced that it was going to publicize its penalty decisions on undertakings which fail to file a notifiable merger as early as 21 March 2014, and now, here it comes.

Reading more...

Continue Reading...

Translation of The Guangdong High Court's Reasoning in Huawei v. IDC Case

Authored by Dr. Zhan Hao (zhanhao@anjielaw.com) and Ms. Xue Ying (xueying@anjielaw.com) at AnJie Law Firm


Dear readers,

To facilitate your understanding of the Huawei/IDC case, the AnJie lawyers have translated the reasoning of the Guangdong People’s High Court, the appellant court. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact us.


Zhan Hao

Managing Partner at Anjie Law Firm


Huawei vs. ZTE - The Advocate General Has Spoken

 Authored by Dr. Zhan Hao (zhanhao@anjielaw.com) and Wan Jia (wanjia@anjielaw.com) at AnJie Law Frim


On April 5, 2013, the Landgericht Düsseldorf (a German regional court) referred a set of questions relating to injunctive relief over standard-essential patents (“SEPs”) to the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”) in connection with a patent dispute between Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd (“Huawei”) and ZTE Corp. and ZTE Deutschland GmbH (collectively “ZTE”). This lawsuit was originally brought by Huawei in 2011, relating to an alleged infringement by ZTE of a patent owned by Huawei and declared to be essential in the LTE standard developed by the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (“ETSI”).

Continue Reading...

Private AML Enforcement is Catching up its Public Counterpart

Authored by Dr. Zhan Hao (zhanhao@anjielaw.com) & Dr. Song Ying (songying@anjielaw.com) at Anjie Law Firm

Public enforcement and private enforcement of competition law should be complementary mechanisms each other. It is witnessed a situation of “leaning to one side” in China previously, namely the public antitrust enforcement progressed more rapidly than the private enforcement system. While from 2012, a leap-forward development of China’s private AML enforcement has impressed people. This article mainly introduces the tendency and evolvement in China’s private AML enforcement, with the hope to give readers some enlightenment.

Continue Reading...

The 3rd Judicial Interpretation of Insurance Law on Life Insurance has issued to Solicit Advice from Public

Authored by Dr. Zhan Hao (zhanhao@anjielaw.com) & Xia Yibin (xiayibin@anjielaw.com) at Anjie Law Firm

Recently, the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Insurance Law of the People’s Republic of China (III) (hereinafter referred to as “the 3rd Judicial Interpretation of Insurance Law” or the “Draft”) has promulgated to solicit advice from public. The Draft regulates in detail several commonly occurring issues in judicial practice with respect to life insurance contract, which would be helpful to adjudicate disputes in this regard and have important significance on protecting the parties’ legitimate rights and interests.

The Insurance Law has been amended twice since being enacted in 1995. In 2002, in order to fulfil our country’s commitment for joining the World Trade Organization, the standing committee of the National People’s Congress revised part of the Insurance Law. In 2009, the standing committee of the National People’s Congress revised the Insurance Law again, and significantly altered the provisions relating to insurance industry and insurance contract, especially the part of insurance contract.

Continue Reading...

China Loosens Outbound Investment Control

Authored by REN Gulong(rengulong@anjielaw.com) at AnJie Law Firm 

The State Council, China’s cabinet, released on 18 November 2014 a List of Investments That Requires Governmental Approval (2014 version) dated 31 October 2014 (“2014 List”).  The 2014 List provides a much shorter list of investments projects needing government approval.


In the 2014 List, except for investments in sensitive countries or regions or investments in sensitive industries, which are still subject to approval by National Development and Reform Commission (“NDRC”), no governmental approval will be required for any outbound investment (“ODI”) by Chinese investors. Filing with NDRC will be required for any outbound investment above US$ 300 million

Continue Reading...

FAW-Volkswagen, Chrysler and Related Dealers Fined Nearly RMB280 Million for Monopolistic Conduct

Authored by  Michael Gu (michaelgu@anjielaw.com) at AnJie Law Firm


The automotive industry has undergone a new round of “antitrust crackdowns”. On 11 September 2014, Hubei Price Bureau released its decisions to impose penalties arising from a price monopoly on FAW-Volkswagen Sales Co., Ltd (“FAW-Volkswagen”) of RMB248.58 million (USD40.52) and eight Audi dealers in Hubei Province amounting to RMB29.96 million [1]. Two Audi dealers, i.e. Hubei Aoze and Wuhan Aojia, were exempted from the penalty. On the same day, Shanghai’s municipal price authority imposed a fine of RMB31.68 million (USD5.16 million) on Chrysler (China) Automotive Sales Co., Ltd (“Chrysler”) and a combined RMB2.14 million fine on its three dealers in Shanghai for price monopoly [2]. It is worth noting that this is the first time that both horizontal and vertical monopolies were found in the same case. Both FAW-Volkswagen and Chrysler reached vertical agreements with their respective dealers to restrict the resale price of the car and after-sale services. Furthermore, their respective dealers reached and implemented horizontal agreements to fix the relevant price.

Continue Reading...

The Draft Supreme Court Patent Trial Judicial Interpretation Expected to Streamline the Patent Litigation Procedures

Authored by He Jing (hejing@anjielaw.com) at AnJie Law Firm

In August 2014, China Supreme People’s Court (“SPC”) released its proposal for public comments titled “Interpretations of the Supreme People's Court on Certain Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Patent Infringement Cases II” (“Part II”).  It is a further development of SPC’s judicial interpretation on the trial of patent infringement cases. The first part of the interpretation has been implemented since January 1st 2010, and has been an important source of authority for lower courts to deal with patent infringement cases.  This second part covers more aspects of the patent litigations and would likely produce significant impacts on patent litigation practice. 

Continue Reading...

A Significant Step Made by the Supreme People's Court Through the Draft Trademark Law Judicial Interpretation

Authored by He Jing (hejing@anjielaw.com) at AnJie Law Firm

On October 14th, the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) issued a draft judicial interpretation (JI) for public comment regarding judiciary review of decisions related to trademark examination and invalidation procedures.  The deadline for submitting comments is November 15th.

The draft JI will be a fundamental piece to the new China trademark system as the new trademark law has been in effect as of May 2014.  The draft JI intends to provide consistent standards of conducting judiciary reviews of decisions made by the China Trademark Office (CTMO) and the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (TRAB) on trademark examination, invalidation, cancellation and other review procedures.  The Beijing courts and CTMO/TRAB often have different opinions on some key trademark issues, such as how to deal with bad faith trademarks.  Even the courts themselves are often seen to come up self-contradicting decisions.

Continue Reading...