Chinese Antitrust Agency Renders Milestone Decision on Standard Essential Patent Case

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

Background

Just a week before the Chinese New Year, the National Development and Reform Commission of China (NDRC)announced the long-awaited penalty decision against Qualcomm with respect to its abuse of standard essential patents (SEPs) in the wireless telecommunication industry. The NDRC imposed a penalty ofRMB 6.088 billion (about USD 1 billion) onQualcomm, equivalent to 8% of Qualcomm's China sales in 2013, for itsabuse of dominance in China, in addition to an order to cease illegal conduct.This milestone decision demonstrates NDRC’s determination to take a stringent stance against any monopoly activities in China and its ambition to become one of the most powerful antitrust enforcement agencies in the world. The NDRC initiated an antitrust investigation of Qualcommas early as November 2013 based on a complaint filed with the NDRC. On 10 February 2015, the NDRCmade its final decision after a one-and-a-half-year investigation, numerous consultations with external experts and multiple meetings and discussions with senior officers of Qualcomm. The fine imposed on Qualcomm sets the record as the highest antitrust penalty ever issued in China’s anti-monopoly enforcement history which accounts for more than three times the total amount of fines rendered by the NDRC in 2014 which is nearly RMB 1.8 billion.

Reading more...

China Intends to Improve Rules on Injunctions

 Authored by He Jing (hejing@anjielaw.com) and Cao Hui (caohui@anjielaw.com) at AnJie Law Firm 

Introduction

The Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China (“the SPC”) issued the Draft Judicial Interpretation on Application of Laws in Trial of Behavior Preservation Cases Involving Intellectual Property and Competition Disputes (“Draft JI”) on February 26, 2015 and is open for public comment until March 30.

Behavior preservation is a term used by the newly amended civil procedure law in China.  Its essence is identical to temporary order, preliminary injunction or interlocutory injunctions in common law system.  Remedies such as the behavior preservation, or preliminary injunctions, are already regulated in several laws and judicial interpretations in China, such as Civil Procedural Law, General Principles of the Civil Law, Patent Law, Trademark Law, Judicial Interpretation of the SPC on Preliminary Injunction against Trademark Infringement, and Judicial Interpretation of the SPC on Preliminary Injunction against Patent Infringement etc., this is the first time for the SPC to unify and specify behavior preservation regulations for IP and competition disputes.

Reading more...

Jurisdiction Issues concerning Insurance Contract Disputes

 Authored by Dr. Zhan Hao (zhanhao@anjielaw.com) and Ms. Zhang Wei(zhangwei@anjielaw.com)

Introduction

The issuance of Interpretations of the Supreme People’s Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as “Interpretations”) has brought a lot of changes to the civil procedure under Chinese law. One great change to the civil procedure is embodied in the jurisdiction issue. Besides the general provisions concerning jurisdiction issue, special provisions are made as to the jurisdiction of insurance contract disputes.

Brief Interpretation of the China Insurance Regulatory Commission on Relevant Provisions on the Overseas Use of Insurance Funds

Authored by Dr. Zhan Hao ( zhanhao@anjielaw.com ) and Ms. Yu Dan ( yudan@anjielaw.com 

Introduction

In 2004, with respect to the overseas use of foreign exchange insurance funds, China Insurance Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "CIRC") and the People’s Bank of China (hereinafter referred to as the "PBC") made a joint distribution of Interim Measures for the Administration of Overseas Use of Foreign Exchange Insurance Funds (CIRC, PBC Fa [2004]No.9 ),allowing insurance companies to implement overseas investments with their self-owned foreign exchange in the prescribed scope of investment; in 2005, in order to further regulating overseas investments of insurance funds, CIRC issued Rules for the Implementation of Interim Administrative Measures for the Use Overseas of Foreign Exchange Insurance Funds(Bao Jian Fa [2005]No.77), which moderately released the foreign investments channels, and set limits to the relevant scope of investment and investment proportion of  the products.

Six Years After the Implementation of the Anti-Monopoly Law: Enforcement Trends and Developments of Anti-monopoly Investigation in China

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

Overview

Six years after the implementation of the Anti-Monopoly Law (“AML”), the National Development and Reform Commission of the People’s Republic of China (“NDRC”) and the State Administration for Industry and Commerce of the People’s Republic of China (“SAIC”) have gradually strengthened their anti-monopoly law enforcement in terms of investigation with rounds of record fines. The range of industries involved is widening, the nature of cases is diversifying, and the enforcement procedure is becoming more open to the public. Given the intensified frequency of investigation initiated and level of penalties imposed by the two competition authorities, it can be seen that China has gradually become one of the three most important antitrust enforcement jurisdictions together with the United States and the European Union. The investigation and enforcement may have far-reaching influence both on those foreign companies directly engaged in business activities within China and those multinationals indirectly connected with China.

Reading more...

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.

Sincerely,

Zhan Hao

Managing Partner at Anjie Law Firm

Read more...

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

Background

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...