Concurrences in partnership with NYU Stern will hold the fourth annual Global Antitrust Economics Conference on Friday, May 31 2019 from 8:30 am to 5:00 pm at NYU Stern School of Business. The Global Antitrust Economics Conference is organized by Concurrences Review in collaboration with New York University Stern School of Business. So far, the conference has been held for three consecutive sessions. This annual global antitrust economics conference is a one-day conference, which combines the global economic situation and conducts in-depth discussion on the current antitrust hot topics. This conference is composed of four panels, Antitrust in Sports, Telecom Mergers, Pricing Issues in Pharma: Pay-For-Delay, Product Hopping… and In-House Counsel Session: Platforms. This event is for free registration. For information on the agenda, please find details as follows:

Conference Agenda

8:30 am Registration & Breakfast


Luis CABRAL | Chair, Department of Economics, NYU Stern, New York

Lawrence WHITE | Professor, Department of Economics, NYU Stern, New York


Noah Joshua PHILLIPS | Commissioner, US Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC


Roger NOLL | Professor of Economics, Emeritus, Stanford University, Stanford

Andrew ZIMBALIST | Professor of Economics, Smith College, Northampton

Brad HUMPHREYS | Professor of Economics, West Virginia University, Morgantown

Rodney FORT | Professor of Sport Management, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

Michael HAUSFELD | Partner, Hausfeld, Washington, DC

Moderator: Lawrence WHITE | Professor, Department of Economics, NYU Stern, New York

10:45 am Break


Gail LEVINE | Deputy Director, Bureau of Competition, US Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC

Tim BRENNAN | Professor of Public Policy & Economics, University of Maryland, Baltimore

Gregory ROSSTON | Senior Fellow, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, Stanford University

Dennis CARLTON | Professor of Economics, University of Chicago Booth School of Business

John HARKRIDER | Partner, Axinn, New York

Moderator: Katja SEIM | Professor, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia

12:15 pm Lunch


Paul CSISZÁR | Director, DG COMP, Brussels

David GILO | Professor of Law, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv

Damien NEVEN | Professor of Economics, The Graduate Institute, Geneva

George ROZANSKI | Partner, Bates White, Washington, DC

Ingrid VANDENBORRE | Partner, Skadden Arps, Brussels

Mark GIDLEY | Partner, White & Case, Washington DC

Moderator: Robert WILLIG | Professor of Economics and Public Affairs, Emeritus, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University

3:00 pm Break


Samantha KNOX | Associate General Counsel, Facebook, San Francisco

Rosie LIPSCOMB | Senior Competition Counsel, Google, San Francisco

Alvaro RAMOS | Head, Global Antitrust, Qualcomm, San Diego

David HIGBEE | Partner, Shearman & Sterling, Washington, DC

Boris BERSHTEYN | Partner, Skadden Arps, New York

Moderator: Harry FIRST | Professor, NYU School of Law, New York


Hal VARIAN | Chief Economist, Google, San Francisco

5:00 pm Drinks


Speaker to be confirmed




Bates White



Shearman & Sterling


White & Case





To register, please click:


Bo Hu

On March 15, 2019, China’s national legislature, the National People’s Congress passed the Foreign Investment Law (the “Law”), a landmark legislation that will provide stronger protection and a better business environment for foreign investors. The Law will take effective on January 1, 2020. Upon its effectiveness, the Law will replace China’s current foreign investment regimes, i.e, the existing three laws on Chinese-foreign equity joint venture, the Chinese-foreign contractual joint venture and wholly foreign-owned enterprises, which were promulgated in the early years after the country started to implement the reform and opening policy.

Read More

Authored by Bo Hu <> , at AnJie Law Firm

Ren Gulong and Yang Anshu

With the further opening-up of China’s financial market and the continuous progress of the internationalization of Renminbi in recent years, more and more foreign entities choose to issue renminbi-dominated bonds in mainland China (for the purpose of this article, excluding Hong Kong, Taiwan and Macao). In accordance with international practice, renminbi-denominated bonds issued in China by foreign organizations was named as “Panda Bonds”.

China’s onshore bond markets comprises the interbank bond market and exchange bond market. Interbank bond market is regulated by People’s Bank of China (“PBOC”) and exchange bond market is regulated by China Securities Regulatory Commission (“CSRC”). While there are no specific rules for issuing Panda Bonds in exchange bond markets, new rule has been issued by PBOC regulating the issuance of Panda Bonds in interbank bond market by foreign organizations including governmental agencies, international development institutions, foreign financial institutions and non-financial enterprises.

Read More

Authored by Ren Gulong <> ,  Yang Anshu <>  at AnJie Law Firm

Ren Gulong and Zhang Jiaqi

In mid-February, the European Commission adopted its new list of 23 high-risk countries for money laundering. As a result of the listing, banks and other entities covered by the European Union anti-money laundering rules will be required to apply increased checks on financial operations involving customers and financial institutions from these countries. China, as a member of FATF, has also devoted to fight against money laundering. One of the recent developments in this regard is the issuance of Interpretation on Several Issues concerning the Application of Laws in the Handling of Criminal Cases Involving Illegal Fund Payment and Settlement Business and Illegal Foreign Exchange Trading (the “Interpretation”) by Chinese Supreme People’s Court and Chinese Supreme People’s Procuratorate to combat criminal activities involving underground banks which in nature have largely facilitated money laundering.

Due to changes of economic situation in China, some people are trying to transfer their funds out of China illegally. This is a severe threaten to financial stability and national security. The Interpretation was released to fight against illegal money transfer and other money laundering activities. It addresses several issues concerning the application of laws in handling criminal cases involving illegal fund payment and settlement business (“Illegal Settlement”) and illegal foreign exchange trading (“Illegal Trading of FX”).

Read More

Authored by Ren Gulong <> ,  Zhang Jiaqi <>  at AnJie Law Firm

Jerry Xia / Wen Zou / Anbi Xu

Recently, the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court (SIPC) rendered a so-called partial or interlocutory judgment during a patent infringement lawsuit filed by the French automotive parts manufacturer Valeo against three Chinese defendants including Xiamen Lucas Automotive Parts Co., Ltd., Xiamen Fuke Automotive Parts Co., Ltd. and an individual Mr. Chen (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the defendants”). In this case, Valeo alleged that the wipers for cars being manufactured and sold by the defendants have infringed its Chinese invention patent named “Connectors for wiper of motor vehicles and corresponding connecting devices” and on that basis, they requested RMB 6M for damages. After careful investigation with support of technical experts, the SIPC found that the defendants’ products have indeed fallen into the scope of Claims 1-3 and 6-10 of Valeo’s patent in question and hence should immediately stop the infringement first while the damages can be determined later.

It’s said that this is the first time the SIPC has made such a partial judgment for an IP case. The legal basis is Article 153 of the Civil Procedure Law of PRC: “If some of the facts in a case being tried by the people’s court are already evident, the court may pass judgment on that part of the case first.”

Read More

Authored by Jerry Xia <> ,  Wen Zou <> , Anbi Xu <> at AnJie Law Firm

Steve Zhao / Pei Lyu

In the everchanging business environment, business owners’ exploration in terms of using and registering non-traditional trademarks, such as 3D trademarks, sound trademarks, color trademarks and position trademarks, has never stopped. Different jurisdictions may have different thresholds to assess registrability of non-traditional marks. In China, there has been a noteworthy development regarding single-color mark used on a particular position filed by Christian Louboutin.

Fashion followers should know that the red sole is a signature design of Christian Louboutin high heel shoes. Christian Louboutin has been fighting for years in various jurisdictions for trademark registration of its red-sole signature, arguing that the red sole alone is capable of identifying origin of the shoes. Christian Louboutin applied for an international trademark of the red sole design under No. 1031242 on women’s high heels in Class 25 and designated China for protection.

Read More

Authored by Steve Zhao <> ,  Pei Lyu <> , at AnJie Law Firm

Michael Gu / Sihui Sun[1]


In 2018 the Anti-monopoly Law celebrated its 10th anniversary. Further, the antitrust enforcement functions of China’s three former antitrust agencies (ie, the Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM), the National Development and Reform Commission and the State Administration for Industry and Commerce) were consolidated into the new State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR). The SAMR comprises 27 divisions, including the Anti-monopoly Bureau, which is responsible for the supervision and enforcement of the Anti-monopoly Law. The bureau’s functions include:

  • drafting anti-monopoly rules and guidelines;
  • enforcing the Anti-monopoly Law;
  • assisting enterprises in responding to foreign investigations;
  • promoting the fair competition review system;
  • undertaking international cooperation; and
  • undertaking the day-to-day work of the State Council Anti-monopoly Committee[1].

Read More

Authored by Michael Gu <> ,  Sihui Sun <> , at AnJie Law Firm

Arthur Dong and Darren Mayberry

Your day in court; Months of preparation. Millions on the line.  But today your lawyers will finally press the other side’s evasive CEO / CFO / Low-level Lackey with the tough questions.  And this time, there is no escape.

Or is there?

If the arbitration is in China, there can be no guarantee that your opponents may have to answer the tough questions. Proper preparation permits no substitute here.

Cross-examination remains a dominant presence in international commercial arbitration proceedings in leading jurisdictions. China commonly recognizes this in foreign-related proceedings, but the parties must have opted for arbitration. This article discusses additional steps non-Chinese companies can take to preserve cross-examination when handling international commercial arbitration seated in China.


Authored by Arthur Dong <>, Darren Mayberry <> at AnJie Law Firm

He Jing, Jerry Xia

February 3 was the deadline for the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress of China to accept the public comments on the new version of the proposed Draft Amendments to the Patent Law (“the Draft”).  This new draft is the result of the first reading at the end of December by the standing committee.  The 2nd reading of the Draft is expected to be in April 2019.  The final version may be approved in June at the earliest.

While the NPC is reviewing the comments, let us analyse what are possible changes to come. Compared to the earlier version, the Draft has eliminated some provisions that generated intense discussions, e.g., rules related to administrative enforcement on repeated infringement matters, some special rules on service invention, and secondary infringement etc.  The Draft has introduced a new provision on patent term extension for innovative pharmaceutical drugs, among other notable points.

Read More

Authored by He Jing <> ,  Jerry Xia <> , at AnJie Law Firm

Zhan Hao, Song Ying, Yang Zhan

The year 2018 should be a milestone for Anti-Monopoly Law of the People’s Republic of China (“AML”) enforcement and development in China.


On May 9, 2018, the newly established State Administration for Market Regulation (“SAMR”), as a sole Chinese antitrust and competition authority, has completed unification and reorganization of the three previously separate government agencies. In the second half of 2018, SAMR transited through a series of AML regulations modification and rearrangement of internal enforcement responsibilities, as well as reshuffle of official positions. Public enforcement is active in 2018, although the institutional reform took much time. Private antitrust enforcement has also developments in 2018. For worldwide antitrust policy and enforcement, international cooperation among competition authorities in different jurisdictions is expected to be more frequent.

Read More

Authored by Zhan Hao <>,  Song Ying <> , Yang Zhan <> at AnJie Law Firm