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

Overview

In 2014, China’s three competition authorities have all been very active in their enforcement practices. A number of new implementing rules have been enacted as part of an effort to further refine China’s antitrust regime. On top of that, a recent wave …

 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 …

 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 …

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

Click Here to Read more

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

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

 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 Huawei vs. ZTE – The Advocate General Has Spoken

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 Private AML Enforcement is Catching up its Public Counterpart