On December 22, 2024, the Supreme People’s Court of China issued a global Anti-Suit Injunction (AASI) in the case of Huawei v. Netgear, ordering Netgear to cease obstructing Huawei from initiating patent lawsuits or enforcing Chinese court judgments through any global channels, with a daily fine of RMB 1 million for non-compliance. In a prior litigation in China, the first-instance court had found Netgear to be infringing on Huawei’s patents. If the second-instance court upholds this decision, Netgear may face a sales ban in China. Furthermore, on December 18, 2024, Huawei won a patent infringement case in Europe, resulting in a ban on Netgear’s products in seven countries.
This article summarizes and interprets the court’s decision in this case.
[Case Background]
This case involves two patent infringement disputes. Huawei filed lawsuits against Netgear’s Beijing subsidiary, as well as companies in Australia and Hong Kong, alleging infringement of two Chinese patents. The Jinan Intermediate People’s Court accepted the case on April 7, 2022, requesting that Netgear cease the infringement, compensate for damages, and bear the litigation costs. Upon trial, the court concluded that the accused products infringed Huawei’s patents, and that Huawei had fulfilled its Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) obligations. It was also found that Netgear’s Beijing subsidiary had made significant errors in the negotiation process. The court ruled that Netgear’s Beijing subsidiary, along with the Australian and Hong Kong subsidiaries, should immediately cease the infringing acts and pay Huawei RMB 702,278 in reasonable costs. Netgear Beijing appealed the first-instance decision to the Supreme People’s Court, which accepted the case in September 2024, and the case is still under trial.
On January 30, 2024, Netgear filed a lawsuit against Huawei in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, accusing Huawei of violating the U.S. Sherman Act, attempting to illegally monopolize the Wi-Fi technology market, breaching IEEE FRAND commitments, committing contract violations, and engaging in unfair competition, seeking triple damages and punitive compensation. On November 14, 2024, Netgear requested the lawsuit be split into two parts: one concerning rate disputes and the other covering other issues. It also requested the court to set a global licensing rate for Huawei’s Wi-Fi patents. On December 4, 2024, Netgear further requested the court to prohibit Huawei from seeking or enforcing injunctions in Germany, the European Unified Patent Court, or Chinese courts. If a comprehensive anti-enforcement injunction could not be obtained, it sought a temporary licensing rate. The motion specifically referenced Huawei’s patent lawsuit in China and the first-instance ruling from the Jinan Intermediate People’s Court, aiming to limit Huawei’s legal actions in other jurisdictions.
Huawei argued that Netgear’s requests for an Anti-Suit Injunction (ASI) and an Anti-Enforcement Injunction (AEI) in the U.S. court were an evident attempt to stop Huawei from continuing or enforcing Chinese court judgments. In response, Huawei applied to the Supreme People’s Court for an interim injunction, seeking to restrict Netgear and its affiliates from obstructing Huawei’s litigation or the enforcement of Chinese court decisions in any foreign courts or other institutions. Huawei’s primary requests were:1. To prohibit Netgear and its affiliates from seeking to prevent Huawei from pursuing patent lawsuits or enforcing court judgments in China, whether during the litigation or after a ruling.2. To demand that Netgear withdraw the related anti-suit injunction applications filed in the U.S. or any other country.3. To bar Netgear from making further oppositional applications against this action.
[Court’s Review and Analysis]
After reviewing the case, the court found that the two lawsuits at the core of the case were patent infringement disputes. During the appeal process, Huawei filed a motion for an interim injunction, asking the court to order Netgear not to seek to prevent Huawei from continuing its litigation in Chinese courts or to block the enforcement of Chinese court judgments in overseas courts, customs, or administrative agencies. This application fell under China’s legal framework for interim injunctions. According to Article 103 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, the court can grant interim relief measures at the request of a party to prevent the judgment from being difficult to enforce or to avoid harm to the party’s rights. Moreover, Article 7 of the "Regulations of the Supreme People’s Court on the Application of Laws in the Review of Interim Injunctions in Intellectual Property Disputes" explicitly states that when reviewing such applications, courts should consider multiple factors, including whether there is factual basis for the request, whether failing to grant the injunction would result in irreparable harm to the applicant, and whether granting the relief would cause undue harm to the respondent.
Based on these legal provisions and preliminary investigation, the court believed that Huawei’s application for an interim injunction was legally and factually substantiated. The specific reasons are as follows:
1. Legal and Factual Basis for Huawei’s Application
Huawei is the legitimate patent holder of the two patents in question, and these patents were granted by the Chinese National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) and remain valid. Huawei has initiated patent infringement lawsuits in China, and the Jinan Intermediate Court has already made a preliminary judgment recognizing Netgear’s infringement. Netgear’s attempt to apply for an anti-suit injunction in the U.S. court to block Huawei’s litigation in China lacks reasonable legal grounds.
2. Potential Harm from Failing to Grant the Injunction
Without the injunction, Huawei’s legitimate rights could suffer irreparable damage. This is particularly true in standard-essential patent (SEP) cases where, even if the accused party made serious errors in licensing negotiations, the patent holder is still entitled to seek an injunction to halt the infringement. In this case, the Jinan Intermediate Court found Netgear had committed substantial wrongful acts in the patent licensing negotiations, meaning Huawei’s rights should be effectively protected. Without the injunction, Netgear’s anti-suit application might force Huawei to abandon its litigation in China, leading to irreversible damage.
3. Application of the Harm-Balancing Principle
If no injunction is granted, Huawei would suffer damage that clearly outweighs any harm that Netgear might face. Huawei would lose out on reasonable patent royalties and face obstructions in the legitimate procedures of Chinese courts, which would be a severe and irreversible consequence. By contrast, granting the interim injunction would only impose procedural obligations on Netgear and its affiliates, without causing significant substantive losses.
4. Consideration of Public Interest
The interim injunction would not harm the public interest, and the court did not identify any other factors that should be particularly considered.
Based on the above analysis, the court concluded that Huawei’s application for an interim injunction had a legitimate factual and legal basis and should be supported.
[Court’s Ruling]
The court finally ruled that Netgear and its affiliates, both during the litigation and after a ruling, are prohibited from seeking to prevent Huawei from continuing its patent lawsuits or enforcing court judgments in China through any foreign courts or institutions. The court further ordered Netgear to withdraw any anti-suit injunction applications already filed and barred them from filing any further oppositional applications against the injunction.
[Comment]
This case involves patent infringement and interim injunction applications, reflecting the complexities of cross-border legal applications and judicial jurisdiction in intellectual property disputes. The following global evaluations of the ruling can be made:
1. Global Patent Protection and Jurisdictional Issues
In this case, Huawei filed a patent infringement lawsuit in China and applied for an interim injunction to ensure the enforcement of Chinese court decisions globally. The case highlights the conflict between cross-border judicial jurisdiction and patent protection, especially when a defendant (Netgear) attempts to block a patent holder from pursuing litigation or enforcing judgments in one jurisdiction (e.g., China) by seeking injunctions in other countries (e.g., the U.S.).
This situation exemplifies a common challenge in international intellectual property disputes - the protection and enforcement of global patents across multiple judicial systems, requiring careful balance between these different jurisdictions. The use of interim relief measures such as an AASI is increasingly important as a tool to preserve the rights of patent holders and prevent abusive legal practices that may delay or block legitimate claims.
2. China’s Growing Influence in Global IP Judiciary
China has gained increasing importance in global intellectual property protection, particularly in standard-essential patent (SEP) cases. Chinese court rulings, especially those involving interim injunctions, can have a significant impact on multinational companies. This judgment not only protected Huawei’s litigation rights in China but could also have cascading effects on global patent enforcement, especially in the EU and the U.S.
By supporting Huawei’s application for an interim injunction, the Chinese courts demonstrated an active stance in international IP disputes, safeguarding the effectiveness and dignity of its own legal decisions. This practice helps China establish itself as a key player in the global IP protection system, particularly in complex international lawsuits involving SEPs.
3. Application of FRAND Principles
The case also highlighted the core issue of the Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) principles in global patent licensing, especially in the context of SEPs. Netgear was found to have acted improperly during licensing negotiations, violating FRAND obligations. The court’s decision reinforced the global consensus that patent holders must adhere to fair principles, especially with commitments made during standard-setting processes.
FRAND disputes are becoming more frequent in the EU and the U.S., especially in SEP-related cases. While national courts may interpret and apply FRAND differently, the principle’s global applicability is becoming more firmly established. This case not only supports Huawei’s application for interim relief but also upholds the fairness of the FRAND principle, preventing one party from using tactics like negotiation delays or unreasonable counteroffers to harm the other party’s interests.
4. Anti-Suit Injunctions and Anti-Suit Injunctions in Cross-Border Litigation
Huawei’s request for an interim injunction is a classic example of addressing an Anti-Suit Injunction (ASI) issue. In global patent litigation, a party often seeks to use injunctions from other jurisdictions (such as the U.S.) to prevent litigation or enforcement in their own country. With the rise of international IP disputes, legal tools like AASI have become increasingly important to protect the authority of national courts and prevent interference with their judicial processes.
5. Globalization and International Cooperation Challenges
Although Huawei achieved a partial victory in China, cross-border litigation does not mean that a single national legal system can resolve all disputes independently. In a globalized context, international cooperation and judicial coordination are critical. The Chinese court’s support of the interim injunction demonstrated both the independence and efficiency of China’s legal system, but also highlighted the need for greater international collaboration and dialogue among courts when dealing with global patent disputes.
Currently, there remains considerable uncertainty in the coordination of patent enforcement mechanisms among countries, as judicial systems in regions like the EU, the U.S., and China may conflict in some areas. This case may further stimulate international discussion on the need for a more unified and effective global system of judicial recognition, especially in SEP-related disputes and cross-border litigation.
In conclusion, this case reflects the complex legal issues in multinational patent disputes. The Chinese court’s ruling is significant not only for Huawei’s rights protection but also for the broader global implications for patent enforcement. As globalization deepens, international cooperation in IP protection and enforcement is becoming more interconnected, and this case serves as a valuable reference for future global patent litigation.
This article summarizes and interprets the court’s decision in this case.
[Case Background]
This case involves two patent infringement disputes. Huawei filed lawsuits against Netgear’s Beijing subsidiary, as well as companies in Australia and Hong Kong, alleging infringement of two Chinese patents. The Jinan Intermediate People’s Court accepted the case on April 7, 2022, requesting that Netgear cease the infringement, compensate for damages, and bear the litigation costs. Upon trial, the court concluded that the accused products infringed Huawei’s patents, and that Huawei had fulfilled its Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) obligations. It was also found that Netgear’s Beijing subsidiary had made significant errors in the negotiation process. The court ruled that Netgear’s Beijing subsidiary, along with the Australian and Hong Kong subsidiaries, should immediately cease the infringing acts and pay Huawei RMB 702,278 in reasonable costs. Netgear Beijing appealed the first-instance decision to the Supreme People’s Court, which accepted the case in September 2024, and the case is still under trial.
On January 30, 2024, Netgear filed a lawsuit against Huawei in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, accusing Huawei of violating the U.S. Sherman Act, attempting to illegally monopolize the Wi-Fi technology market, breaching IEEE FRAND commitments, committing contract violations, and engaging in unfair competition, seeking triple damages and punitive compensation. On November 14, 2024, Netgear requested the lawsuit be split into two parts: one concerning rate disputes and the other covering other issues. It also requested the court to set a global licensing rate for Huawei’s Wi-Fi patents. On December 4, 2024, Netgear further requested the court to prohibit Huawei from seeking or enforcing injunctions in Germany, the European Unified Patent Court, or Chinese courts. If a comprehensive anti-enforcement injunction could not be obtained, it sought a temporary licensing rate. The motion specifically referenced Huawei’s patent lawsuit in China and the first-instance ruling from the Jinan Intermediate People’s Court, aiming to limit Huawei’s legal actions in other jurisdictions.
Huawei argued that Netgear’s requests for an Anti-Suit Injunction (ASI) and an Anti-Enforcement Injunction (AEI) in the U.S. court were an evident attempt to stop Huawei from continuing or enforcing Chinese court judgments. In response, Huawei applied to the Supreme People’s Court for an interim injunction, seeking to restrict Netgear and its affiliates from obstructing Huawei’s litigation or the enforcement of Chinese court decisions in any foreign courts or other institutions. Huawei’s primary requests were:1. To prohibit Netgear and its affiliates from seeking to prevent Huawei from pursuing patent lawsuits or enforcing court judgments in China, whether during the litigation or after a ruling.2. To demand that Netgear withdraw the related anti-suit injunction applications filed in the U.S. or any other country.3. To bar Netgear from making further oppositional applications against this action.
[Court’s Review and Analysis]
After reviewing the case, the court found that the two lawsuits at the core of the case were patent infringement disputes. During the appeal process, Huawei filed a motion for an interim injunction, asking the court to order Netgear not to seek to prevent Huawei from continuing its litigation in Chinese courts or to block the enforcement of Chinese court judgments in overseas courts, customs, or administrative agencies. This application fell under China’s legal framework for interim injunctions. According to Article 103 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, the court can grant interim relief measures at the request of a party to prevent the judgment from being difficult to enforce or to avoid harm to the party’s rights. Moreover, Article 7 of the "Regulations of the Supreme People’s Court on the Application of Laws in the Review of Interim Injunctions in Intellectual Property Disputes" explicitly states that when reviewing such applications, courts should consider multiple factors, including whether there is factual basis for the request, whether failing to grant the injunction would result in irreparable harm to the applicant, and whether granting the relief would cause undue harm to the respondent.
Based on these legal provisions and preliminary investigation, the court believed that Huawei’s application for an interim injunction was legally and factually substantiated. The specific reasons are as follows:
1. Legal and Factual Basis for Huawei’s Application
Huawei is the legitimate patent holder of the two patents in question, and these patents were granted by the Chinese National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) and remain valid. Huawei has initiated patent infringement lawsuits in China, and the Jinan Intermediate Court has already made a preliminary judgment recognizing Netgear’s infringement. Netgear’s attempt to apply for an anti-suit injunction in the U.S. court to block Huawei’s litigation in China lacks reasonable legal grounds.
2. Potential Harm from Failing to Grant the Injunction
Without the injunction, Huawei’s legitimate rights could suffer irreparable damage. This is particularly true in standard-essential patent (SEP) cases where, even if the accused party made serious errors in licensing negotiations, the patent holder is still entitled to seek an injunction to halt the infringement. In this case, the Jinan Intermediate Court found Netgear had committed substantial wrongful acts in the patent licensing negotiations, meaning Huawei’s rights should be effectively protected. Without the injunction, Netgear’s anti-suit application might force Huawei to abandon its litigation in China, leading to irreversible damage.
3. Application of the Harm-Balancing Principle
If no injunction is granted, Huawei would suffer damage that clearly outweighs any harm that Netgear might face. Huawei would lose out on reasonable patent royalties and face obstructions in the legitimate procedures of Chinese courts, which would be a severe and irreversible consequence. By contrast, granting the interim injunction would only impose procedural obligations on Netgear and its affiliates, without causing significant substantive losses.
4. Consideration of Public Interest
The interim injunction would not harm the public interest, and the court did not identify any other factors that should be particularly considered.
Based on the above analysis, the court concluded that Huawei’s application for an interim injunction had a legitimate factual and legal basis and should be supported.
[Court’s Ruling]
The court finally ruled that Netgear and its affiliates, both during the litigation and after a ruling, are prohibited from seeking to prevent Huawei from continuing its patent lawsuits or enforcing court judgments in China through any foreign courts or institutions. The court further ordered Netgear to withdraw any anti-suit injunction applications already filed and barred them from filing any further oppositional applications against the injunction.
[Comment]
This case involves patent infringement and interim injunction applications, reflecting the complexities of cross-border legal applications and judicial jurisdiction in intellectual property disputes. The following global evaluations of the ruling can be made:
1. Global Patent Protection and Jurisdictional Issues
In this case, Huawei filed a patent infringement lawsuit in China and applied for an interim injunction to ensure the enforcement of Chinese court decisions globally. The case highlights the conflict between cross-border judicial jurisdiction and patent protection, especially when a defendant (Netgear) attempts to block a patent holder from pursuing litigation or enforcing judgments in one jurisdiction (e.g., China) by seeking injunctions in other countries (e.g., the U.S.).
This situation exemplifies a common challenge in international intellectual property disputes - the protection and enforcement of global patents across multiple judicial systems, requiring careful balance between these different jurisdictions. The use of interim relief measures such as an AASI is increasingly important as a tool to preserve the rights of patent holders and prevent abusive legal practices that may delay or block legitimate claims.
2. China’s Growing Influence in Global IP Judiciary
China has gained increasing importance in global intellectual property protection, particularly in standard-essential patent (SEP) cases. Chinese court rulings, especially those involving interim injunctions, can have a significant impact on multinational companies. This judgment not only protected Huawei’s litigation rights in China but could also have cascading effects on global patent enforcement, especially in the EU and the U.S.
By supporting Huawei’s application for an interim injunction, the Chinese courts demonstrated an active stance in international IP disputes, safeguarding the effectiveness and dignity of its own legal decisions. This practice helps China establish itself as a key player in the global IP protection system, particularly in complex international lawsuits involving SEPs.
3. Application of FRAND Principles
The case also highlighted the core issue of the Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) principles in global patent licensing, especially in the context of SEPs. Netgear was found to have acted improperly during licensing negotiations, violating FRAND obligations. The court’s decision reinforced the global consensus that patent holders must adhere to fair principles, especially with commitments made during standard-setting processes.
FRAND disputes are becoming more frequent in the EU and the U.S., especially in SEP-related cases. While national courts may interpret and apply FRAND differently, the principle’s global applicability is becoming more firmly established. This case not only supports Huawei’s application for interim relief but also upholds the fairness of the FRAND principle, preventing one party from using tactics like negotiation delays or unreasonable counteroffers to harm the other party’s interests.
4. Anti-Suit Injunctions and Anti-Suit Injunctions in Cross-Border Litigation
Huawei’s request for an interim injunction is a classic example of addressing an Anti-Suit Injunction (ASI) issue. In global patent litigation, a party often seeks to use injunctions from other jurisdictions (such as the U.S.) to prevent litigation or enforcement in their own country. With the rise of international IP disputes, legal tools like AASI have become increasingly important to protect the authority of national courts and prevent interference with their judicial processes.
5. Globalization and International Cooperation Challenges
Although Huawei achieved a partial victory in China, cross-border litigation does not mean that a single national legal system can resolve all disputes independently. In a globalized context, international cooperation and judicial coordination are critical. The Chinese court’s support of the interim injunction demonstrated both the independence and efficiency of China’s legal system, but also highlighted the need for greater international collaboration and dialogue among courts when dealing with global patent disputes.
Currently, there remains considerable uncertainty in the coordination of patent enforcement mechanisms among countries, as judicial systems in regions like the EU, the U.S., and China may conflict in some areas. This case may further stimulate international discussion on the need for a more unified and effective global system of judicial recognition, especially in SEP-related disputes and cross-border litigation.
In conclusion, this case reflects the complex legal issues in multinational patent disputes. The Chinese court’s ruling is significant not only for Huawei’s rights protection but also for the broader global implications for patent enforcement. As globalization deepens, international cooperation in IP protection and enforcement is becoming more interconnected, and this case serves as a valuable reference for future global patent litigation.