| In the past,the discussion of international parallel proceedings always pointed to what this article called“Narrow” international parallel proceedings,that is,“The same party” based on“The same cause of action” to the courts of more than two countries.As a concept which does not appear in the important international law treaties and domestic law,the active conflicts of jurisdiction serves for the international“Parallel Proceedings” in the narrow sense of the former.This may be because it was difficult to predict the departure from the basic composition of civil litigation-outside the framework of party + cause of action,that is,when the parties or cause of action were not exactly the same,two lawsuits in a foreign country at the same time,or even at different times,can pose such a significant challenge to the meaning of each other’s existence.However,with the development of technology and the advancement of standardization process,the above-mentioned previously unpredictable situation has already appeared in the standard essential patent litigation wars that occur frequently in various countries nowadays,And This phenomenon provides an opportunity to examine the theory and practice of the past.The first chapter begins with two classical cases involving the participation of the courts in our country in recent years,aiming to show the characteristics of the conflicts of jurisdiction in foreign-related SEPs disputes,then in the second section,the I defines the conflicts of jurisdiction by international parallel proceedings and court competing for jurisdiction.In the second section,I first analyze the relationship between“International Parallel Proceedings” and“Conflicts of Jurisdiction”.Then the author brings the international parallel proceedings analysis framework of the party +cause of action into the SEPs disputes,and then shows the difference between SEPs international parallel litigation and international parallel proceedings,namely the particularity.The part of“courts competing for jurisdiction” mainly analyzes the reasons why there are conflicts of jurisdiction under such particularity.The second chapter analyzes the causes of the conflicts of jurisdiction in the SEPs disputes from three aspects: substantive law,procedural law and national interests involved in SEPs.First of all,the ambiguity of FRAND makes the courts adopt different substantive law and different SEPs license rate calculation methods.This situation will further stimulate the parties to choose to benefit their own court proceedings.Secondly,the expansion of jurisdiction beyond principle of territory is the basic condition for any type of jurisdictional conflict.And,the limitation of international law and domestic law on the mechanism of restricting the expansion of jurisdiction has undoubtedly contributed to this trend.Finally,because SEPs disputes often involve the vital economic0 interests and national security of states,when exercising jurisdiction,national courts rarely choose to give up jurisdiction to complete the court of other states.The third chapter analyzes the consequences of jurisdiction conflicts of foreign-related SEPs disputes,that is,the necessity to deal with such conflicts.The first section analyses the common consequences of conflicts of jurisdiction,that is,increasing the litigant’s litigation cost 、wasting the judicial resources and race to the bottom.Because this kind of consequence is easy to appear in the conflicts of jurisdiction under all kinds of disputes,so this article focuses on analyzing how this kind of consequence manifests in SEPs disputes.The second section analyzes the special phenomenon caused by SEPs disputes which is the competition of anti-suit injunction.This once happened only in the common law system between countries with an anti-suit injunction system,now because of SEPs disputes spread to the civil law system.And This paper focuses on the negative impact of such consequences on the parties and the state.Chapter four,based on the“China’s position”,analyzes how to deal with the conflicts of jurisdiction of SEPs disputes reasonably on the basis of the preceding article,from the perspective of judicial practice and China’s participation in alternative dispute resolution mechanism,to put forward countermeasures from our country.The first section starts from the judicial practice of our country and unifies the newly issued amendment draft of the Civil Procedure Law,takes the judicial unification as the inspection standard,for our courts how to more reasonable exercise of jurisdiction to deal with such disputes recommendations.Including the territorial jurisdiction“the appropriate related standard” the application method consummates,as well as regarding the international parallel proceedings judicial adjudication method unification.The second section gives some thoughts on alternative dispute resolution measures.It includes whether arbitration can be used to settle such disputes,support for the licensing rate of arbitral awards,and an analysis of the important role of mediation mechanisms for such disputes. |
