Anti-Suit Injunctions in SEP Disputes: A Constructivist Analysis of Institutional Conflict
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.62051/ijsspa.v8n2.02Keywords:
Standard-essential Patents, Anti-suit Injunctions, Judicial Conflict, International Comity, Procedural OrderAbstract
This article analyzes the growing use of anti-suit injunctions (ASIs) in standard-essential patent (SEP) disputes and the resulting procedural fragmentation in transnational litigation. It argues that ASIs have been increasingly weaponized by courts to secure jurisdictional advantage, triggering institutional distrust and escalating judicial conflict. Drawing on a comparative study of practices in the UK, US, China, and Germany, the article shows that divergences in ASI issuance reflect deeper legal traditions and judicial role conceptions, rather than purely strategic behavior. Adopting a constructivist approach, the article reframes SEP-related ASI disputes as conflicts of institutional identity, normative constraint, and procedural expectation. It proposes a three-tiered response: refining domestic ASI rules, restoring the normative force of international comity, and fostering judicial self-reflection on cross-border conduct. This framework seeks to restore procedural discipline and rebuild trust in the governance of global SEP litigation.
Downloads
References
[1] See Ben Ma, Zimeng Ye & Yuexi Yang, Chinese Path to Modernization and the Fourth Industrial Revolution: Risks and Solutions, 1 Shandong Daxue Xuebao (Zhexue Shehui Kexue Ban) 11 (2023).
[2] See Mark A. Lemley & Timothy Simcoe, How Essential Are Standard-Essential Patents?, 104 Cornell L. Rev. 607 (2019).
[3] See King F. Tsang & Jyh-An Lee, The Ping-Pong Olympics of Antisuit Injunction in FRAND Litigation, 28 MICH. TECH. L. REV. 305 (2022).
[4] See Wentong Zheng, Weaponizing Anti-Suit Injunctions in Global FRAND Litigation, 30 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 413 (2023); Jorge L. Contreras, The Global Race to Weaponize Anti-Suit Injunctions in FRAND Litigation: A Judicial Constraint Case Study, in The Cambridge Handbook of Judicial Control of Litigation 361 (Lee Anne Fennell & Guy-Uriel E. Charles eds., 2023); Nicolas Petit, Anti-Suit Injunctions and Geopolitics in Transnational SEP Litigation: The Cases of the EU, U.S. and China, 9 J. Antitrust Enf't 224 (2021); Huibin Zhang & Shilei Liu, Jurisdictional Disputes and Strategic Choices in Standard-Essential Patent Licensing Disputes, 4 Int'l Econ. L.J. 80 (2023).
[5] See Jennifer Mitzen, Ontological Security in World Politics: State Identity and the Security Dilemma, 12 Eur. J. Int’l Rel. 341 (2006).
[6] See Raphael, Thomas. The anti-suit injunction. Oxford University Press, 2008..
[7] See David Altaras, The Anti-Suit Injunction: Historical Overview, 75 Arb.: Int'l J. Arb., Mediation & Disp. Mgmt. 313 (2009).
[8] See David Altaras, The Anti-Suit Injunction: Historical Overview, 75 Arb.: Int'l J. Arb., Mediation & Disp. Mgmt. 313 (2009).
[9] See Senior Courts Act 1981, c. 54, § 37(1) (UK). Information on: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/54/contents
[10] Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale (SNIA) v. Lee Kui Jak, [1987] A.C. 871 (P.C.) (appeal taken from Brunei).
[11] Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale (SNIA) v. Lee Kui Jak, [1987] A.C. 871 (P.C.) (appeal taken from Brunei).
[12] C.J.S. Knight, The Continued Rise (and Future Fall) of the Anti-Suit Injunction, 20 King's L.J. 137, 137–44 (2009).
[13] See Conversant Wireless Licensing SARL v Huawei Techs. Co. Ltd., [2018] EWHC (Ch) 2549, [2018] 10 WLUK 13 (Eng.).
[14] See Love v. Baker & Al., (1665) Nelson 103, 21 E.R. 801 (Ch.).
[15] See Optis Cellular Tech. LLC v. Apple Retail UK Ltd., [2023] EWHC 1095 (Ch) [504].
[16] See Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc., No. C10-1823JLR, 2013 WL 2111217 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 25, 2013).
[17] See Vringo, Inc. v. ZTE Corp., No. 14-cv-4988 (LAK), 2015 WL 3498634 (S.D.N.Y. June 3, 2015).
[18] See Huaiyin Zhang, The Anti-Anti-Suit Injunction System in Germany's SEP Litigation and Its Implications, 4 J. Intell. Prop. Rts. (Intell. Prop. Publ'g House) 89 (2022).
[19] See Zivilprozessordnung [ZPO] [Code of Civil Procedure], § 935 (Ger.).
[20] See Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch [BGB] [Civil Code], § 1004(1) (Ger.).
[21] See GEVC et al. v. Xiaomi, LG Düsseldorf, 4c O 42/20, 4c O 43/20, 4c O 44/20, 4c O 49/20, 4c O 50/20 & 4c O 51/20 (Ger.).
[22] See Supreme People's Ct. of China [SPC], Interpretation of Huawei v. Conversant: Exploring the PRC Court's First Anti-Suit Injunction in a SEP Dispute, IPC.COURT.GOV.CN (Sept. 2020), https://ipc.court.gov.cn/zh-cn/news/view-1056.html.
[23] See IPCom v. Lenovo, Tribunal judiciaire [TJ] [Court of Paris], Nov. 8, 2019, No. RG 19/60318 (Fr.).
[24] See European Union, Request for Consultations by the European Union, WTO Doc. WT/DS649/1 (Jan. 20, 2025), https://docs.wto.org.
[25] Yong Zhou, On the Influence of Ideas on National Interests, 4 Int'l Pol. Stud. 98, 98–108 (2011).
[26] John Henry Merryman, The Civil Law Tradition (2d ed. 1985).
[27] Mengmeng Huang, The Changing Role of German Foreign Policy: From Civilian Power to Constructive Power?, 2023(2) Eur. Stud. 80.
[28] Frédéric Pierucci & Matthieu Aron, The American Trap 334 (Sheila Malovany-Chevallier & Nathan Schneider trans., Hodder & Stoughton 2019).
[29] Qi Kai, Hegemonic Constraints: U.S. Long-Arm Jurisdiction in the Field of International Economy (China Social Sciences Press, 2021).
[30] Proceedings of the Inaugural Meeting of the China Law Society, at 7 (July 1982).
[31] See China, Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights, WTO Doc. WT/DS611/9.
[32] See Defending American Courts Act, H.R., 118th Cong. (2023) (discussion draft).
[33] Alexander Wendt, Social Theory of International Politics 255 (Cambridge Univ. Press 1999).
[34] Xuetong Yan, The U.S. Containment of Huawei and the Emerging Trend of International Competition, 2 Int'l Pol. Sci. 5 (2019).
[35] Shulian Li, Standard Essential Patent (SEP) Distribution: Telecommunications Technology Dominates While Asian SEP Owners Are on the Rise, 13 N. Am. IPR (2017).
[36] Lin Chenyi, Huawei Leads Global 5G Patent Rankings; Five Chinese Firms in Top Ten, World Journal (Oct. 2, 2024), https://www.worldjournal.com/wj/story/121347/8265463.
[37] See Kurt Lipstein, Principles of the Conflict of Laws, National and International 14 (Martinus Nijhoff 1981).
[38] See Thomas Raphael, The Anti-Suit Injunction 8 (2d ed. Oxford Univ. Press 2019).
[39] See Du Huanfang & Duan Xinrui, The Role and Application of International Comity in Cross-Border Anti-Suit Injunctions, 4 China Univ. Soc. Sci. 100 (2023); Ye Jing, A Comparative Study of the Three Principles of Huber, Story, and Dicey, J. Hubei U. Econ. (Humanities & Soc. Sci.), at 98.
[40] See Ruth L. Okediji, Knowledge and the International Public Good: The Role of International Law, in International Public Goods and Transfer of Technology Under a Globalized Intellectual Property Regime 27 Keith E. Maskus & Jerome H. Reichman eds., (2005).
[41] See Jing Huang, On the Application of Anti-Suit Injunctions in Standard-Essential Patent Litigation and China's Responses, 6 Tsinghua L.J. 69, 69–92 (2022).
[42] See Lunxing Zheng, On the Modest Application of Anti-Suit Injunctions in SEP-FRAND Litigation, 6 Pol. & L. 110, 110–123 (2022).
[43] See Jianjun Zhu, German Court Rejects InterDigital's Application----A "Rational Return" in SEP Anti-Suit Injunction Cases, SOHU.COM (Dec. 27, 2021), https://www.sohu.com/a/523246270_121123527.
[44] See Zhe Peng, Anti-Suit Injunction Judgments: A Judicial Pathway to International Regulatory Dialogue, 22 People's Judicature (Applied Ed.) 83 (2021).
[45] See Jing Ye, A Comparative Study of the Three Principles of Huber, Story and Dicey, J. Hubei Univ. Econ. (Humanities & Soc. Sci.), No. 4, at 97 (2015).
[46] See Shuangyuan Li, Legal Paths to a New International Civil and Commercial Order: A Deep Analysis of the Functions of Private International Law, Modern L. Sci., No. 2, at 113 (2023).
[47] See Thomas Lippman, Comity and Anti-suit Injunctions: Developments Since Aérospatiale, 1 J. Priv. Int'l L. 65 (2004).
[48] See Ravi V. Verma, Comity Lost: The Use of Anti-Suit Injunctions Against Foreign Courts, 29 Emory Int'l L. Rev. 579 (2015).
[49] See Chien-Huei Wu, From Judicial Comity to Legal Comity: Rethinking the Conceptual Framework of International Judicial Dialogue, 22 Asian Y.B. Int'l L. 58 (2016).
[50] See Alexander Wendt, Social Theory of International Politics 327–340 (Cambridge Univ. Press 1999).
[51] See Heli Peng, The Impact of Identity on the U.S. Vision of International Law: A Constructivist Perspective, Modern L. Sci., No. 1, at 84 (2021); see also Lei Zhao, Norm Evolution and Value Standards: China's Practice in Shaping International Norms, Int'l Forum, No. 6, at 25 (2022).
[52] See Yang Zhao, Actors, Structure and Interaction in National Identity Construction: A Study of China's Participation in the International System, Int'l Pol. Stud., No. 5, at 58 (2020); see also Mengmeng Huang, The Changing Role of German Foreign Policy: From Civilian Power to Constructive Power?, Eur. Stud., No. 2, at 79 (2023).
[53] See Cixin Liu, The Dark Forest (Joel Martinsen trans., Tor Books 2015).
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 International Journal of Social Sciences and Public Administration
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
