A Discovery or a Misery? The Issuance of Anti-Suit Injunction before WTO
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21776/ub.blj.2023.010.02.03Keywords:
Anti Suit Injunctions; EU; TRIPS; WTOAbstract
On 27 January 2023, the Dispute Settlement Body established a panel as requested by the European Union in document WT/DS611/5, pursuant to Article 6 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes. In fact, the European Union has proposed the formation of a panel according to Article 6 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) to respond to the Action against China's lawsuit against high technology in the European Union. China imposed a preservation measure, Anti-Suit Injunction (ASI), that prohibit patent holder for asserting their rights before non-Chinese courts. Such movement is inconsistent to international principles, namely National Treatment (NT) and Most-Favored-Nation (MFN). As the EU claimed China on the subject of patent use on high technology, this discussion will further dissect the WTO Agreement on the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). Specifically, Article 3 on National Treatment and Article 4 on Most-Favored-Nation Treatment. The issuance of ASI itself is not listed under Appendix 1 of the DSU that regulates laws that are applicable and recognized as WTO norms under a WTO panel. The WTO panel has never adjudicated any cases relating to the issuance of ASI. This questions whether a WTO norm will be formed before the WTO panel and whether or not China has violated the principles of the WTO and the TRIPS Agreement.
Downloads
References
“Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China”. cicc.court.gov.cn. Accessed February 20, 2023, http://cicc.court.gov.cn/html/1/219/199/200/644.html.
“EU Requests Two WTO Panels against China: Trade Restrictions on Lithuania and High-Tech Patents.” n.d. European Commission - European Commission. Accessed January 17, 2023. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/e%20n/ip_22_7528.
“Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organisation.” n.d.
“The Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China Civil Ruling”, patentlyo, accessed April 8, 2023, https://patentlyo.com/media/2020/10/Huawei-V.-Conversant-judgment-translated-10-17-2020.pdf.
Alexy, Robert. 2021. “Gustav Radbruch’s Concept of Law.” Essay. In Law’s Ideal Dimension. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Arnold, Richard. “The EU’s WTO Complaint against China Can Only Be Resolved by Establishing Legally Enforceable Global Arbitration of Sep Dispute.” Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 17, no. 4 (2022): 329. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpac016.
Azzahra, Mikaila Jessy, and Yetty Komalasari Dewi. “Re-examining Indonesia’s Nickel Export Ban: Does it Violate the Prohibition to Quantitative Restriction?.” Padjadjaran Journal of International Law 6, no. 2 (June 2022): 182. https://doi.org/10.23920/pjil.v6i2.797.
Barcelo III, John J. “Anti-Foreign-Suit Injunctions to Enforce Arbitration Agreements, In Contemporary Issues in International Arbitration and Mediation.” The Fordham Papers 107 (2007): 107-118. https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004167384.i-336.51.
Bartels, Lorand. “Applicable Law in WTO Dispute Settlement Proceedings.” HeinOnline. Accessed March 14, 2023, https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.kluwer%2Fjwt0035&div=31&id=&page=, 503.
Bello, Judith H., and Mary E. Footer. “Preface to Symposium: Uruguay Round – GATT/WTO.” The International Lawyer 29, no. 2 (1995): 335-343.
Bleimaier, John Kuhn. “The Doctrine of Comity in Private International Law.” Catholic Lawyer 24 (1979): 327-332.
Certain German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia (Germany v Poland). 1925. PCIJ.
Cohen, Mark A. “China’s Practice of Anti-Suit Injunctions in SEP Litigation: Transplant or False Friend?.” Jonathan Barnett (ed), 5G and Beyond: Intellectual Property and Competition Policy in the Internet of Things (2022): 1-24. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4124618.
Colangelo, Giuseppe, and Valerio Torti. “Anti-Suit Injunctions and Geopolitics in Transnational Seps Litigation.” Forthcoming in European Journal of Legal Studies 1355 (2021): 1-35. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3976754.
Constitution of the Panel Established at the Request of the European Union, China-Enforcement. n.d.
Contreras, Jorge L. “Anti-Suit Injunctions and Jurisdictional Competition in Global Frand Litigation: The Case for Judicial Restraint.” Journal of Intellectual Property and Entertainment Law 11, no. 2 (2021): 174. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3899923.
Contreras, Jorge L. “Fixing FRAND: A Pseudo-Pool Approach to Standards-Based Patent Licensing.” Antitrust Law Journal 79, (2013): 47. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2232515.
Contreras, Jorge L. “The New Extraterritoriality: Frand Royalties, Anti-Suit Injunctions and the Global Race to the Bottom in Disputes over Standards-Essential Patents”. BU J. Sci. & Tech. L. 25 (2019): 254.
Contreras, Jorge, and Michael Eixenberger. “The Anti‐Suit Injunction—A Transnational Remedy for Multi‐ Jurisdictional SEP Litigation” in J Contreras (ed). The Cambridge Handbook of Technical Standardization Law: Competition, Antitrust and Patents. England: Cambridge University Press, 2019.
Dewi, Sinta. “Legal Analysis of Tobacco Dispute between Indonesia vs United States under WTO relating to National Treatment Principles.” Indonesian Journal of International Law 8, no. 3 (2011): 558. https://doi.org/10.17304/ijil.vol8.3.308.
EC-Trademarks and Geographical Indications. 2005. Panel Report.
Ericsson Inc. et al v. Samsung Electronics Co., LTD. et al. 2013. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Tyler Division.
Esplugues, Carlos Aurelio. “(PDF) China's Accession to WTO - Researchgate”, accessed April 12, 2023, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228147953_China%27s_Accession_to_WTO.
European Commission. “EU challenges China at the WTO to defend its high-tech sector”. Press corner. Accessed January 17, 2023, https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/%20nl/ip_22_1103.
Factory at Chorzow (Germany v. Poland). 1927. PCIJ.
Gittinger, Dr. Corin. “Update on the EU's Case at the WTO against China about Anti-Suit Injunctiin the Sep Ecosystem.” Update on the EU’s case at the WTO against China about anti-suit injunctions in the SEP ecosystem. Accessed February 21, 2023, https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=c8ee6fbb-b925-4e23-9cd6-959e4aa4170a.
Gustira, Zevia, and Retno Kusniati. “Pengaturan Aspek Lingkungan Hidup dalam Perdagangan Internasional berdasarkan GATT-WTO.” Uti Possidetis: Journal of International Law 1, no. 2 (2021): 228. https://doi.org/10.22437/up.v1i2.10717.
Hartley, Trevor C. “Comity and the Use of Anti-suit Injunctions in International Litigation.” The American Journal of Comparative Law 487, no. 3 (1987): 6.
Huawei Technologies Co Ltd and another v Conversant Wireless Licensing SÁRL. 2020. Supreme People's Court of the People's Republic of China.
Leawood, Heather. “Gustav Radbruch: An Extraordinary Legal Philosopher.” Washington University Journal of Law & Policy 2 (2000): 493-495.
Moses, Margaret L. The Principles and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012.
Piola, Valentina. “The Phenomenon of Anti-Suit Injunctions and Extraterritorial Implications.” les Nouvelles - Journal of the Licensing Executives Society 57 (March 2022): 52.
Radbruch, Gustav. Legal Philosophy (1932). Trans. Kurt Wilk, in The Legal Philosophies of Lask, Radbruch, and Dabin. Oxford University Press: Harvard University Press, 1950.
Rep. n.d. Request for the Establishment of a Panel by the European Union, China— Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights, WT/DS611/5.
Request for Consultations by the European Union, China—Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights, WTO Doc. WT/ DS611/1.
Sant, Cynitiya Scandi. “Penerapan Anti-Suit Injunction sebagai Langkah Pencegahan diajukannya Sengketa ke Pengadilan Asing dalam Arbitrase Nasional.” Belli Ac Pacis 8 (October 2022): 12-51. https://doi.org/10.20961/belli.v8i1.68763.
Sari, Idha Mutiara. “Dispute Settlement of Anti-Dumping Legal Aspect in Indonesia based on GATT/WTO Provisions (Allegations Case Study of Dumping Wood Free Copy Paper between South Korea and Indonesia),” Lampung Journal of International Law 1, no. 2 (2019): 85–98. https://doi.org/10.25041/lajil.v2i2.2034.
Saudi Arabia – Measures Concerning The Protection Of Intellectual Property Rights. 2020. Panel Report.
Shany, Yuval. “The Competing Jurisdictions of International Courts and Tribunals.” University of Miami International and Comparative Law Review 12, no.1 (2004): 239-245. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199274284.002.0003.
Stoianoff, Natalie P. “The Influence of the WTO over China’s Intellectual Property Regime.” The Sydney Law Review 34, no. 1 (2012):65-89. Accessed April 12, 2023.
Stoll, Peter-Tobias, Jan Busche, and Katrin Arend. WTO, Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. Leiden: Nijhoff, 2011.
Strong, S.I. “Anti-Suit Injunctions in Judicial and Arbitral Procedures in the United States.” The American Journal of Comparative Law Vol. 66, No suppl_1, (July 2018): 155-156. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcl/avy023.
United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998. 2001. Panel Report.
Widiatedja, I Gusti Ngurah Parikesit. “The Supremacy of the Dispute Settlement Mechanism (DSM) under the World Trade Organization (WTO).” Brawijaya Law Journal 6, no. 1 (2019): 60-75. https://doi.org/10.21776/ub.blj.2019.006.01.05.
Winiger, Aaron. “EU Requests Establishment of WTO Panel in Chinese ASI Patent Cases”. Natlawreview. Accessed March 20, 2023, https://www.natlawreview.com/article/eu-requests-establishment-wto-panel-chinese-anti-suit-injunction-patent-cases.
Yu, Peter K., Jorge L. Contreras, and Yang Yu. “Transplanting Anti-Suit Injunctions.” American University Law Review 71 (2022): 1537-1618. Accessed February 4, 2023.
Zaki, Muhammad Reza Syariffud, and Abdul Rasyid. Hukum Pariwisata Syariah di ASEAN. Jakarta: Prenadamedia Divisi Kencana, 2021.
Zaki, Muhammad Reza Syariffudin, Agus Riyanto, and Okta Auliazahara. “The Independence of the Trustee as an Organ Formed by the Public Company.” Proceedings of the 1st UMGESHIC International Seminar on Health, Social Science and Humanities (UMGESHIC-ISHSSH) (2020): 607-616. https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.211020.087.
Zaki, Muhammad Reza Syariffudin, and Muhammad Farhan Akmal. “Covid-19 Vaccine Legal Protection Through Patent for Public Interest.” Transnational Business Law Universitas Padjadjaran 2, no. 1 (2021): 50-67. https://doi.org/10.23920/transbuslj.v2i1.694.
Zaki, Muhammad Reza Syariffudin, Marcelino Alfrediko Slaat, Bambang Pratama, Niken Savitri, Iron Sarira, Paulus Aluk Fajar Dwi Santo, and Juvina Jasmine Salsabila. Hukum Investasi Multimoda dan Perdagangan Internasional di Era Pandemi Covid-19. Jakarta: Publica Indonesia Utama, 2022.
Zaki, Muhammad Reza Syariffudin, Mursal Maulana, Prita Amalia, and Ardiansyah. Pengantar Hukum Transaksi Bisnis Transnasional. Bandung: Refika, 2022.
Zaki, Muhammad Reza Syariffudin. Hukum Perdagangan Internasional. Jakarta: Prenadamedia Divisi Kencana, 2021.
Zaki, Muhammad Reza Syariffudin. Pengantar Ilmu Hukum dan Aspek Hukum dalam Ekonomi. Jakarta: Prenadamedia Divisi Kencana, 2022.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Brawijaya Law Journal
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
