Analysis On Huawei V. Conversant Case

In recent years,SEP litigation disputes in the field of communications have been increasing,usually in the form of simultaneous lawsuits in multiple countries,and more and more international parallel SEP lawsuits involving Chinese enterprises.The determination of standard-essential patent licensing rates is the core issue of standard-essential patent disputes.At present,no widely recognized solution has been proposed by courts around the world.The international mainstream calculation methods are the Comparable Licences method and the Top down approach.Comparable Licences method and Top down approach have their own advantages and disadvantages.Which method to adopt depends not on the method itself,but on which party provides more sufficient evidence.The Comparable Licences method requires a suitable comparable agreement,but the comparable conditions advocated by Conversant are not truly comparable,and the relevant data provided by Huawei is more sufficient,so the Top down approach is more appropriate.When calculating the royalty rate,it involves the identification of the number of standard essential patent families.Due to the small number of SEPs involved,the court can directly compare with the standard specifications one by one,However,in the determination of the total number of 2G/3G/4G Chinese standard-essential patent families,the court directly adopted the data in the expert report submitted by Huawei.However,the determination of the accuracy of the data is questionable,and the reasons for adoption are not sufficient,which exposes the shortcomings of the court as the subject of determination when determining a huge number of standard essential patents.Therefore,consideration should be given to the introduction of a third-party certification body for standard-essential patents.In the field of standard essential patents,anti-suit injunctions have become an important tool for countries to compete for judicial dominance.Extraterritorial courts often issue anti-suit injunctions against Chinese enterprises,which seriously interferes with the litigation process in my country.In 2020,my country issued an anti-suit injunction for the first time in the Huawei v.Conversant case,and clarified the conditions for issuing an anti-suit injunction and legal safeguards for daily penalties.The basis for the court to issue an anti-suit injunction is my country’s act preservation.In terms of considering conditions,it did not break away from the framework of act preservation,and at the same time drew on the judicial practice of foreign countries.It can be summed up as the preconditions for international parallel litigation,the necessity,the balance of interests of both parties,the substantive conditions for not harming public interests,and the consideration of the principle of international comity.Although the current laws and regulations of our country do not provide for the act preservation punishment measures that are punished on a daily basis.,for an anti-suit injunction,the daily penalty can commensurate with the consequences of the violation and ensure the realization of the anti-suit injunction function.At the same time,it is also in line with the international practice of anti-suit injunction cases.However,the anti-suit injunction is special after all,and the act preservation cannot completely cover its characteristics,and its legitimacy will inevitably be questioned.Therefore,it is necessary to improve the anti-suit injunction system as soon as possible,clarify the relationship with the act preservation,and ensure that the anti-suit injunction system can be independent developing.