Research On The Perfection Of The Adjudication Rules Of The Anti-Suit Injunction Of Foreign-Related Standard-Essential Patent Litigation

Standards are the key factors to promote industrial development,which play an important role in promoting economic and trade development and enhancing consumer welfare.In recent years,Standard-Setting Organization("SSO")involves many industries and fields.The integration of patents and standards is the necessity of trade globalization.Standard Essential Patent("SEP")refers to the patent that must be used to implement a certain technical standard.Therefore,the standard essential patent is irreplaceable and compulsory.In order to reduce the monopoly problems caused by standard essential patents,various standard-setting organizations require patentees to make FRAND(Fair,Rational,Non-Discriminatory)commitments to reduce the monopoly possibility of intellectual property rights.However,there is no exact unified concept of FRAND,which leads to frequent disputes between patentees and patent implementers on the issue of license rates.The rise of disputes is bound to be accompanied by the choice of dispute settlement paths.In order to safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of domestic enterprises,parties in various countries began to issue anti-suit injunctions to prevent foreign parties from continuing litigation in other countries,which was followed by a confrontation between anti-suit injunctions and anti-suit injunctions.The first chapter of this paper focuses on the current judgment rules of injunction for essential patents in foreign-related standards in China,and analyzes the basic analysis framework of the current judgment rules of injunction in China.In 2020,China’s the Supreme People’s Court signed the first injunction in Huawei v.Conversant,and then Wuhan Intermediate People’s Court and Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court successively signed the remaining four injunctions in Xiaomi v.Interactive Digital,Samsung v.Ericsson,OPPO v.Sharp and ZTE v.Conversant.At present,In China’s judicial practice,the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Law of People’s Republic of China(PRC)and the Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Laws in the Examination of Preservation Cases of Intellectual Property Disputes have been roughly formed,and the four factors(international parallel litigation,the influence of extraterritorial litigation on domestic litigation,the consideration of public and private interests and the principle of international comity)have been taken as the basic analysis framework.The second chapter of this paper,on the basis of domestic research on the judgment rules of injunction,analyzes the difficulties encountered by the current judgment rules of injunction for foreign-related standards in China and the reasons for the difficulties.The aforementioned dilemmas include: First,the determination of international parallel litigation is too rigid.Due to the regional characteristics of patents,it is difficult to determine that foreign and domestic lawsuits have the same parties and the same focus of controversy.Second,the criteria for considering public and private interests are not clear.China’s current rules on the adjudication of injunctions lack the measurement of public interests and the specific explanation of depriving foreign parties of their advantages,which will,to a certain extent,cause substantial injustice to foreign parties.Third,the application of the principle of international comity is unreasonable.When analyzing the principle of international comity,Chinese courts put forward three substantive judgment conditions for this principle.However,the crux of the problem lies in the fact that the factors considered by the court "whether the trials and judgments of foreign courts are within a reasonable range" have been evaluated in the previous review process,so to some extent,the relationship between them and the various conditions analyzed in the previous part of the injunction is confusing.The third chapter of this paper combs the experience of foreign judicial practice on the basis of combining the relevant issues of the current judgment rules of injunction in China.Because the injunction is the product of pure legal transplantation in China,China can learn from foreign judicial experience to improve it.The author screened seven typical cases in the field of standard essential patent disputes in Britain,the United States,India,Germany and other countries,analyzed the reasoning path of these cases in the identification of international parallel litigation,the consideration of public and private interests and the application of the principle of international comity,and summarized the experience of issuing them,with a view to providing institutional experience for the improvement of the judgment rules of injunction in China.The fourth chapter of this paper puts forward some suggestions to improve the judgment rules of injunction on the basis of drawing lessons from the experience of foreign judicial practice and summarizing the relevant domestic documents in China.Suggestions for perfection are mainly divided into legislative perfection and judicial perfection.The conclusion summarizes the full text.This paper reiterates the importance of perfecting the judgment rules of injunction on essential foreign-related patents in China,and refines the analysis framework of injunction that Chinese courts can refer to in practice after perfecting the judgment rules.