标准必要专利国际平行诉讼中禁诉令影响因素的实证研究

Abstract
Figure/Table
References
Related Citation (4)

Download: PDF (1186 KB) HTML (1 KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

Abstract The distribution of jurisdiction in standard essential patents (SEPs)litigation is not clear in various countries and there are no unified applicable rules of anti-suit injunctions for international parallel litigation of SEPs based on the complexity and global nature of disputes surrounding SEPs.As a result,anti-suit injunctions around SEPs are more and more popular,and has gradually become a tool for the parties and courts to compete for litigation advantage and jurisdiction.Through an empirical study on the typical cases in countries with a high incidence of anti-suit injunctions around the major jurisdictions of the world,this paper compares the differences and similarities of the conditions for issuing anti-suit injunctions,and identifies the decisive factors affecting the issuance of anti-suit injunction.The study found the influencing factors for the issuance of anti-suit injunctions are in order from high to low,which are court factors,party factors and international factors.Among them,whether the two judgements affect each other and thus the domestic litigation is affected is the main factor.And then,the court will weigh the profit and loss between the parties and finally decide whether the impact on the international comity could be tolerated.Based on this,the article puts forward a framework on anti-suit injunctions for coordinating international parallel litigation of SEPs in different jurisdictions to reduce the occurrence of litigation race related to SEPs.

Key words： Standard essential patent Anti-suit injunction Parallel litigation

Received: 08 June 2020

PACS:

D923.42

	Service

	E-mail this article
	Add to my bookshelf
	Add to citation manager
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	Articles by authors
	Zhang Yurong
	Li Jincheng

Cite this article:

Zhang Yurong,Li Jincheng. An Empirical Study on the Influencing Factors of Anti-Suit Injunctions Involving Parallel Litigation of Standard Essential Patents[J]. , 2022, 3(4): 168-179.

URL:

http://www.zgkjlt.org.cn/EN/ OR http://www.zgkjlt.org.cn/EN/Y2022/V3/I4/168

[1]Castanho v.Brown & Root (UK)Ltd.,〖1981]AC 557[EB/OL〗..https://www.bailii.org.
[2]CONTRERAS J L.The new extraterritoriality:FRAND royalties,anti-suit injunctions and the global race to the bottom in disputes over standards-essential patents[J].Boston university journal of science & technology law,2019,25:251-290.
[3]CONTRERAS J L,YU Y.Will China's new anti-suit injunctions shift the balance of global FRAND litigation? University of Utah College of Law Research,Paper No.403[DB/OL]..https://ssrn.com/abstract=3725921.2020.
[4]CONTRERAS J L,BARTOW A,CARRIER M A,et al.Brief of international intellectual property law professors as amici curiae in support of neither party:Ericsson v.Samsung,University of Utah College of Law Research,Paper No.425[DB/OL]..https://ssrn.com/abstract=3802235.2021.
[5]GERADIN D,KATSIFIS D.The use and abuse of anti-suit injunctions in SEP litigation:is there a way forward[DB/OL]..https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3807899.2021.
[6]祝建军.我国应建立处理标准必要专利争议的禁诉令制度[J].知识产权,2020 (6):25-33.
[7]张先砉,殷越.知识产权国际竞争背景下禁诉令制度探索与构建[J].法律适用,2021 (4):41-52.
[8]E.& J.Gallo Winery v.Andina Licores S.A. (9th Cir.2006,p.991)..https://1.next.westlaw.com.
[9]In re Unterweser Reederei GMBH,428 F.2d 888,890 (5th Cir.1970),aff'd on reh'g,446 F.2d 907 (5th Cir.1971),rev'd on other grounds sub nom.M/S Bremen v.Zapata Off-Shore Co.,407 U.S.1 (1972)..https://1.next.westlaw.com.
[10]Council Regulation 1215/2012,On jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Recast 2002)O.J. (L 12) (EC),art.27[EB/OL]..https://www.wipo.int.
[11]Microsoft Corp.v.Motorola,Inc.,871 F.Supp.2d 1089,1097 (W.D.Wash.2012),aff'd,696 F.3d 872 (9th Cir.2012)..https://1.next.westlaw.com.
[12]GERADIN D,KATSIFIS D.The use and abuse of anti-suit injunctions in SEP litigation:is there a way forward[DB/OL]. (2021-05-13).https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3807899.2021.
[13]詹爱岚,王洁怡.面向新一代ICT产业竞争的标准必要专利战略启示及应对[J].情报杂志,2019,38 (5):29-35.
[14]赵景顺,周兢.对英国禁诉令制度的思考[J].人民司法,2015 (17):107-111.
[15]Optis Wireless Tech.,LLC v.Huawei Techs.Co.Ltd,No.2:17-Cv-00123-JRG-RSP (E.D.Tex.,May 14,2018)..https://1.next.westlaw.com.
[16]Conversant Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L.v.Huawei Techs.Co.Ltd.& Ors[2018]EWHC (Pat)808[7] (Eng.)and Conversant Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L.v.Huawei Techs.Co.Ltd.& Ors[2018]EWHC (Ch)2549[10]-[12] (Eng.)..https://www.bailii.org.
[17]湖北省武汉市中级人民法院 (2020)鄂01知民初169号[EB/OL]..https://wenshu.court.gov.cn.
[18]IPCom v.Lenovo,[2019]EWHC 3030 (Pat)..https://www.bailii.org.
[19]湖北省武汉市中级人民法院 (2020)鄂01知民初743号[EB/OL]..https://wenshu.court.gov.cn.
[20]InterDigital v.Xiaomi,Landgericht Munich I,7 O 14276/29[EB/OL]..http://www.ipeconomy.cn/index.php/index/news/magazine_details/id/3065.html.
[21]Vringo,Inc.v.ZTE Corp.,No.14-cv-4988 (LAK)2015 WL 3498634,at *1 (S.D.N.Y.June 3,2015)..https://1.next.westlaw.com.
[22]Huawei Techs.,Co,Ltd v.Samsung Elecs.Co,Ltd.,No 3:16-cv-02787-WHO (N.D.Cal.,Apr.13,2018)..https://1.next.westlaw.com.
[23]Apple Inc,v.Qualcomm Inc.,No.3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD, (S.D.Cal.,Sep.7,2017)..https://1.next.westlaw.com.
[24]最高人民法院 (2020)最高法知民终732、733、734号[EB/OL]..https://wenshu.court.gov.cn.
[25]CONTRERAS J L,EIXENBERGER M.The anti-suit injunction:a transnational remedy for multi-jurisdictional SEP litigation[M].CONTRERAS J L.Cambridge Handbook of Technical Standardization Law-Patent,Antitrust and Competition Law.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2017.
[26]CONTRERAS J L.It's anti-suit injunctions all the way down:the strange new realities of international litigation over standards-essential patents[J].IP Litigator,2020,26 (4):1-7.