Yanru Chen is a current graduate student in School of Law at Tsinghua University, majoring in International Law.
Yanru Chen 陈彦茹
On 18 Mar. 2022, Singapore High Court rendered a ruling on Re Shanghai Xinan Screenwall Building & Decoration Co, Ltd  SGHC 58, and considered the reference to “China International Arbitration Center” as a reference to “China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Committee” (“CIETAC”).
In May 2020, the New South Wales Supreme Court, Australia, ruled in Bao v Qu; Tian (2020), marking the first case for New South Wales of Australia to enforce a monetary judgment made by a Chinese court.
In 2021, Beijing IP Court confirmed in the final judgment that Jiangling Motors Co. Ltd. engaged in unfair competition by producing and selling Lufeng X7 which was similar to Land Rover’s Range Rover Evoque.
It may be one of the strictest personal information protection legislation worldwide.
In August 2021, the Beijing Haidian District People's Procuratorate moved to file a civil public interest lawsuit against Tencent, alleging the “youth mode” of its WeChat app fails to comply with the Law on the Protection of Minors.
In July 2021, China's Ministry of Justice published the proposed Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China (Revision) (Draft for Public Comment), together with its explanatory notes.
Due to the internationalization of intellectual property right disputes, Chinese companies are more likely to be involved in parallel litigations in multiple jurisdictions around the world thus increasing the risk of Chinese companies encountering anti-suit injunctions.
Yes, Chinese courts can grant an application for preservation of property in cases enforcing foreign judgments, as shown by a recent case heard by Beijing Fourth Intermediate People's Court.
In October 2020, a court in Shenzhen, China, issued a decision in Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Co Ltd v. Sharp Corp. (2020), confirming that it had jurisdiction to set global royalty rates for related patents.
Yes, answers a local court in Beijing in Liang v. Huifa Zhengxin Technology Co., Ltd. (2021), determining that publication and reproduction of the judgment containing the litigants’ names and facts are not considered a violation of privacy.