中国法院的反诉讼禁令

IF 1.3 4区 社会学 Q2 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Chinese Journal of International Law Pub Date : 2023-08-23 DOI:10.1093/chinesejil/jmad031
Yong Gan
{"title":"中国法院的反诉讼禁令","authors":"Yong Gan","doi":"10.1093/chinesejil/jmad031","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The increasingly intensified competition arose among national courts over their judicial authority to resolve standard-essential patents (SEPs) disputes. This competition drove courts and litigants to resort to antisuit injunctions (ASIs) more frequently. However, ASIs Chinese courts issued in SEP-related cases raised concerns in foreign countries. Chinese ASIs’ legal basis has evolved through decades of legislation regarding injunctions, including compulsory maritime orders, IPR preliminary injunctions, and general rules of act preservation, despite containing inherent defects that troubled the subsequent antisuit practice. Likewise, Chinese antisuit practice did not emerge overnight but took years to develop, growing from a mere sprinkle in maritime litigations to a respectable drizzle in SEP-related actions. It encompasses orders to prevent foreign collateral proceedings, the injunction to inhibit foreign antisuit orders, and orders to halt foreign substantive proceedings. Chinese antisuit practice is at its nascence and exhibits striking features in SEP cases. However, closely examining Chinese antisuit decisions in SEP cases reveals that so-called Chinese worldwide ASIs were justifiable and legitimate, in terms of substantive conditions and actual operation, even by the EU and US standards. Nevertheless, China needs to reform the relevant laws regarding antisuit relief and refine its antisuit practice in various aspects to fend off due process and other equitable concerns. Only through international coordination can national courts efficaciously tackle the proliferation of antisuit relief in SEP cases.","PeriodicalId":45438,"journal":{"name":"Chinese Journal of International Law","volume":"30 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Antisuit Injunctions in Chinese Courts\",\"authors\":\"Yong Gan\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/chinesejil/jmad031\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract The increasingly intensified competition arose among national courts over their judicial authority to resolve standard-essential patents (SEPs) disputes. This competition drove courts and litigants to resort to antisuit injunctions (ASIs) more frequently. However, ASIs Chinese courts issued in SEP-related cases raised concerns in foreign countries. Chinese ASIs’ legal basis has evolved through decades of legislation regarding injunctions, including compulsory maritime orders, IPR preliminary injunctions, and general rules of act preservation, despite containing inherent defects that troubled the subsequent antisuit practice. Likewise, Chinese antisuit practice did not emerge overnight but took years to develop, growing from a mere sprinkle in maritime litigations to a respectable drizzle in SEP-related actions. It encompasses orders to prevent foreign collateral proceedings, the injunction to inhibit foreign antisuit orders, and orders to halt foreign substantive proceedings. Chinese antisuit practice is at its nascence and exhibits striking features in SEP cases. However, closely examining Chinese antisuit decisions in SEP cases reveals that so-called Chinese worldwide ASIs were justifiable and legitimate, in terms of substantive conditions and actual operation, even by the EU and US standards. Nevertheless, China needs to reform the relevant laws regarding antisuit relief and refine its antisuit practice in various aspects to fend off due process and other equitable concerns. Only through international coordination can national courts efficaciously tackle the proliferation of antisuit relief in SEP cases.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45438,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Chinese Journal of International Law\",\"volume\":\"30 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Chinese Journal of International Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/chinesejil/jmad031\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chinese Journal of International Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/chinesejil/jmad031","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要各国法院在解决标准必要专利(sep)纠纷方面的司法权力竞争日益激烈。这种竞争促使法院和诉讼当事人更频繁地诉诸反诉讼禁令(ASIs)。然而,中国法院在sep相关案件中发布的ASIs引起了外国的关注。尽管存在一些内在缺陷,困扰着随后的反诉实践,但中国的司法基础是经过数十年的禁令立法发展而来的,包括强制海事令、知识产权初步禁令和行为保全一般规则。同样,中国的反诉实践也不是一夜之间出现的,而是经过多年的发展,从海事诉讼中的零星案例发展到环保相关诉讼中的零星案例。它包括阻止外国附带诉讼的命令、禁止外国反诉讼命令的禁令和停止外国实体诉讼的命令。中国的反诉实践刚刚起步,在SEP案件中表现出鲜明的特点。然而,仔细研究中国在SEP案件中的反诉决定,就会发现,即使以欧盟和美国的标准衡量,所谓的中国全球范围内的自主专利在实质条件和实际操作方面都是正当合法的。然而,中国需要改革反诉救济的相关法律,完善反诉实践的各个方面,以应对正当程序和其他公平问题。只有通过国际协调,各国法院才能有效地解决SEP案件中反诉讼救济泛滥的问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Antisuit Injunctions in Chinese Courts
Abstract The increasingly intensified competition arose among national courts over their judicial authority to resolve standard-essential patents (SEPs) disputes. This competition drove courts and litigants to resort to antisuit injunctions (ASIs) more frequently. However, ASIs Chinese courts issued in SEP-related cases raised concerns in foreign countries. Chinese ASIs’ legal basis has evolved through decades of legislation regarding injunctions, including compulsory maritime orders, IPR preliminary injunctions, and general rules of act preservation, despite containing inherent defects that troubled the subsequent antisuit practice. Likewise, Chinese antisuit practice did not emerge overnight but took years to develop, growing from a mere sprinkle in maritime litigations to a respectable drizzle in SEP-related actions. It encompasses orders to prevent foreign collateral proceedings, the injunction to inhibit foreign antisuit orders, and orders to halt foreign substantive proceedings. Chinese antisuit practice is at its nascence and exhibits striking features in SEP cases. However, closely examining Chinese antisuit decisions in SEP cases reveals that so-called Chinese worldwide ASIs were justifiable and legitimate, in terms of substantive conditions and actual operation, even by the EU and US standards. Nevertheless, China needs to reform the relevant laws regarding antisuit relief and refine its antisuit practice in various aspects to fend off due process and other equitable concerns. Only through international coordination can national courts efficaciously tackle the proliferation of antisuit relief in SEP cases.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
20.00%
发文量
25
期刊介绍: The Chinese Journal of International Law is the leading forum for articles on international law by Chinese scholars and on international law issues relating to China. An independent, peer-reviewed research journal edited primarily by scholars from mainland China, and published in association with the Chinese Society of International Law, Beijing, and Wuhan University Institute of International Law, Wuhan, the Journal is a general international law journal with a focus on materials and viewpoints from and/or about China, other parts of Asia, and the broader developing world.
期刊最新文献
Navigating New Waters: IMO’s Efforts to Regulate Autonomous Shipping Jurisdiction of a State Party under Article 2(1) of the ICCPR: A Comment on A.S. and Others v. Italy The 2022 ICJ Judgment in Nicaragua v. Colombia: Towards a Theory of Exclusivity in Allocating Rights and Jurisdiction between the Coastal and Other States? Interplay of International Law and Cyberspace: State Sovereignty Violation, Extraterritorial Effects, and the Paradigm of Cyber Sovereignty Military Alliances under International Law
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1