国产99视频免费精品是看6,午夜福利区免费久久,日韩精品免费无码专区,国产乱理伦片在线观看夜h

China Justice Observer

中司觀察

EnglishArabicChinese (Simplified)DutchFrenchGermanHindiItalianJapaneseKoreanPortugueseRussianSpanishSwedishHebrewIndonesianVietnameseThaiTurkishMalay

China’s Supreme Court Confirms Jurisdiction over SEP Global Rates

Tue, 09 Nov 2021
Categories: China Legal Trends

On 19 Aug. 2021, the Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) rendered the final ruling of jurisdiction challenge over standard essential patent (SEP) licensing disputes in Sharp Corp. v. Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Co., Ltd. ((2020) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Min Xia Zhong No. 517) ((2020)最高法知民轄終517號), upholding the trial ruling and dismissing Sharp’s appeal requests.

This is the first time that China’s top court has clarified the jurisdictional rules for global licensing conditions of SEPs.

In the said ruling, the Intellectual Property Tribunal of SPC adopted the “proper connection” criterion to determine the jurisdiction over SEP licensing disputes, which requires comprehensive consideration of their characteristics.

Whether a SEP licensing dispute has a proper connection with China is related to the place where the patent is authorized, the place where the patent is implemented, the place where the patent license agreement is signed or patent license is negotiated, the place where the patent license agreement is performed, or place of property that can be seized or enforced. As long as one of the aforementioned locations is within China, the case should be deemed to have an appropriate connection with China, and thus Chinese courts have jurisdiction over the case.

In addition, SEP licensing disputes share characteristics of both contract disputes and patent infringement disputes. In the absence of any license agreement between the parties, the place where the patent license agreement is signed or performed could not serve as the connecting factor for jurisdictional basis in this case. As the court where the SEP involved in this case was implemented, Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court of Guangdong Province, the trial court, could exercise jurisdiction over the case.

 

 

Cover Photo by Night Glow on Unsplash

Contributors: CJO Staff Contributors Team

Save as PDF

Related laws on China Laws Portal

You might also like

Beyond the Memorandum: Shanghai Court Enforces Singapore Judgment by Confirming “Reciprocal Consensus” Under China’s New Framework

On January 8, 2025, the Shanghai International Commercial Court recognized and enforced a Singapore High Court monetary judgment in Zhao v Ye (2023) Hu 01 Xie Wai Ren No. 28. It marks the first judicial confirmation of “reciprocal consensus” between China and Singapore under the 2022 reciprocity criteria, based on the China-Singapore Memorandum of Guidance (MOG).

SPC Issues New Rules for Government Information Disclosure Cases

In May 2025, China's Supreme People's Court (SPC) issued a new judicial interpretation, replacing its 2011 predecessor to standardize adjudication of government information disclosure cases and safeguard citizens' right to know by clarifying trial standards, defendant identification, burden of proof, and preventive relief.

China's Top Court Releases Minor Protection Cases

China's Supreme People's Court (SPC) released five typical cases to strengthen holistic judicial protection for minors, exemplifying the "best interests of the child" principle through integrated criminal, civil, and administrative proceedings.