The anti-suit injunction (ASI) originated in English based on principles of equity, which is an important judicial strategy for countries to take the initiative and gain a competitive advantage in the global game of jurisdictional competition.

Relevant background: China currently has no statutory ASI system per se. Instead, it relies on ruling for perpetuation of behaviour issued under the Civil Procedure Law, which provides that "a people's court may order a party to refrain from certain acts" as the legal basis. China's ASIs emerged as a proportional countermeasure in response to the objective judicial needs of Chinese enterprises amid international jurisdictional conflicts. In the case of Huawei v. Conversant, the Supreme People's Court (SPC) stated that the ASI system serves certain positive functions in preventing parties from choosing locations to file lawsuits, malicious litigation, resolving parallel international proceedings, and safeguarding national judicial sovereignty.

Relevant Cases

1. Huawei v Conversant, (2019) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Min Zhong No.732, No.733 and No.734

This case marks the first anti-suit injunction in the field of intellectual property issued by a Chinese court, clarifying the boundaries of judicial jurisdiction, establishing Chinese courts' legitimate jurisdiction over disputes concerning SEP rate and cross-border parallel proceedings, and breaking the previously single-dominant pattern of overseas courts over SEP disputes. Strictly speaking, this case constitutes an enforcement injunction. Once Conversant applies for provisional enforcement of the German first-instance injunction, Huawei would have either withdrawn from the German market or accepted licensing rates far higher than those determined by the Chinese court in this case, making subsequent Chinese judgments difficult to enforce. This case establishes key adjudication rules for future cases, regulating market balance and safeguarding the business environment.

2. Xiaomi v. Interdigital Technology (2020) E 01 Zhi Min Chu No.169

In this case, the Wuhan Intermediate People's Court issued China's first cross-border anti-suit injunction in the SEP field, prohibiting Interdigital Technology from initiating or advancing any new infringement proceedings globally on the disputed patents before the conclusion of the case. It breaks the pattern of unilateral anti-suit injunctions issued by other countries and established landmark adjudicative rules for resolving cross-border SEP disputes and balancing cross-border litigation.

3. ZTE v. Conversant, (2018) Yue 03 Min Chu No. 335; (2019) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Min Xia Zhong No. 157

This is a typical case of anti-suit injunction (anti-enforcement injunction) application in China's IP field, issued by a local court, further improving China's rules for resolving cross-border patent disputes.

4. OPPO v. Sharp Corp, (2020) Yue 03 Min Chu No. 689; (2020) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Min Xia Zhong No.317

In this case, the Supreme People's Court clarifies that Chinese courts may exercise jurisdiction over disputes concerning global licensing terms and rates for SEP patents based on the principle of "appropriate connection." The parties reached a global settlement agreement after the second-instance ruling. This case provides strong judicial support for Chinese companies facing cross-border litigation from foreign patent trolls.

5. Samsung v. Ericsson (2020) E01 Zhi Min Chu No. 743

This is the first cross-border SEP litigation confrontation between two major telecommunications giants globally in the 5G era, forming a cross-border patent litigation and injunction standoff between China and the United States. This case regulates a cross-border two-way litigation balancing mechanism, clarifies that both Chinese and foreign enterprises are entitled to equal judicial protection in SEP disputes, and Chinese courts may lawfully issue cross-border anti-suit injunctions to counterbalance parallel malicious litigation abroad.

6. Huawei v. Netgear Inc., (2024) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Min Zhong No.914, No.915

This case is the first ruling for perpetuation of behaviour with the nature of an anti-anti-suit injunction (AASI), further improving the judicial adjudication rules for SEP licensing. The Supreme People's Court's ruling prohibited Netgear Inc. from enforcing its anti-suit injunction obtained in the United States, safeguarding Huawei's legitimate right to seek legal remedies. This marks a transition for Chinese innovators from passive defense to proactive rights enforcement.

Conclusion

In 2023, the European Union brought Chinese courts' anti-suit injunction practices in 5 SEP disputes — Huawei v. Conversant, ZTE v. Conversant, OPPO v. Sharp Corp, Xiaomi v. InterDigital Technology, and Samsung v. Ericsson, alleging that they violated China's obligations under the TRIPS Agreement. On April 1 in 2026, the European Commission announced that China had formally withdrawn its "anti-suit injunction policy" at the WTO, indicating that this jurisdictional game has entered into a new phase. As a judicial defensive tool, the core issue in these cases remains the pricing power over technology transactions. Beginning with Panasonic v. Xiaomi, UK courts have introduced a provisional licensing mechanism, attempting to find additional judicial tools for resolving SEP licensing disputes. Countries around the world have been exploring more approaches— through judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings — to facilitate licensing agreements between parties in SEP rate cases. China, too, continues to seek institutional pathways that align with internationally accepted rules while offering diversified solutions to address cross-border abuses of patent rights.

From About Intellectual Property

June 2nd, 2026