In September 2022, China's Supreme People's Court issued a final jurisdictional ruling on the Nokia v OPPO case and rejected Nokia's appeal.
In August 2020, the Intellectual Property Court of China’s Supreme People’s Court (SPC) issued, in Huawei v. Conversant (2019), the first-ever conduct preservation order as equivalent to anti-suit injunctions in China’s IP-related litigation.
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.
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.
Chinese Court Confirms Its Jurisdiction over Global Rates for Standard Essential Patents For the First Time
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.
In September 2020, a conduct preservation order as equivalent to anti-suit injunctions was issued by a Shenzhen court in ZTE v. Conversant (2018), restraining Conversant from applying to the German court to enforce the German judgment.
Yes, Peppa Pig is a well-known trademark in China and enjoys cross-category protection, says a Shanghai court in the case of Entertainment One UK Limited (2019).
The damages of more than USD 20 million indicate the Chinese court's determination to strengthen judicial protection for IP rights.
China's Supreme Court's latest judicial interpretation (2020) sets out the standards for the application of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law in trade secret infringement cases.
China's Supreme Court's Ten Typical technological IP cases (2020) covered both traditional and emerging technology fields and issued the first-ever “anti-suit injunction”.