July 2014

Authored by Arthur Dong (dongxiao@anjielaw.com) from AnJie Law Firm and Li Meng

Whether foreign arbitration institutions could conduct arbitration in the People’s Republic of China (“PRC”) is a question that many industry insiders are curious about. Back in 2006, when the Wuxi Intermediate People’s Court (“Wuxi Court”) refused to recognize and enforce an arbitral award issued by the ICC Court of Arbitration in Shanghai in the Züblin case,1 many practitioners deemed that Chinese courts would decline opportunities for foreign arbitration bodies to carry out arbitration in China. However, the recently published PRC Supreme People’s Court (“SPC”) instruction in Longlide Packaging Co. Ltd. v. BP Agnati S.R.L. may suggest otherwise.Continue Reading Does Supreme People’s Court’s Decision Open the Door for Foreign Arbitration Institutions to Explore the Chinese Market?

Authored by Dr. Zhan Hao (zhanhao@anjielaw.com) and He Shan from AnJie Law Firm

At present, most Chinese financial institutions are paying quite close attention to the ongoing process of Chinese participation in the implementation of FATCA. It is heard that the Chinese government has made its decision to sign the bilateral with the U.S. government. If this is true, Chinese financial institutions will undertake many more obligations. Some other countries have already signed this kind of treaty. FATCA is like a storm sweeping the whole world and will rewrite the financial order all over the world. At this moment, it is necessary to know that in general, FATCA has already become a buzzword in the financial area.

Continue Reading General introduction on FATCA

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

On June 11, 2014, China’s State Administration for Industry and Commerce (SAIC) released the latest draft [1] of regulations designed to implement the Anti-Monopoly Law (AML) with respect to intellectual property rights—Rules of the Administration of Industry and Commerce on the Prohibition of Abuses of Intellectual Property Rights for the Purposes of Eliminating or Restricting Competition (Rules), to solicit public opinions. The Rules describe the authority’s enforcement policies, criteria of proof, and types of acceptable evidence in its analysis of suspected anti-competitive conduct involving IPR. The period of calling for public opinions will expire on July 10, 2014.Continue Reading SAIC Moves Closer to Antitrust Rules for IP

Authored by He Jing (hejing@anjielaw.com) and Dong Xue from AnJie Law Firm

On May 22 2014, China’s National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) announced the suspension of the investigation against Inter Digital Communications (IDC), a US wireless technology developer, as the company had submitted detailed  measures to address the regulator’s concerns. What is interesting is the differences in the IDC measures between the press release of NDRC and that of IDC. NDRC states that:

1) IDC will not charge Chinese enter- prises discriminatory and excessive patent licensing fees.

2) IDC will not bundle standard-essential patents (SEPs) with non-SEPs in the patent licence.

3) IDC will not require a Chinese manufacturer to agree to a royalty-free, reciprocal cross-licence.

4) IDC will not force Chinese enterprises to accept unreasonable licence conditions through direct legal action.Continue Reading Excessive pricing and standard-essential patents