禁訴令に関する中国最高人民法院指針 China SPC's guideline on ASI/ AASI

【ASI概要】

SEPを巡る係争はグローバルである。訴訟が各国で展開され、時としてそれらが「交錯」する関係となる。その先駆的な事案は中国でSEPを巡り頻発した「禁訴令」、正確には「禁訴（執行）令」である。もともと英米法における法概念anti suit injunction(略してASI)である。また、このASIに対抗して出されるのがを反禁訴令（AASI）と呼ばれる。中国での禁訴令をめぐっては、欧州委員会が他国での司法的救済を阻害するものとしてWTOに提訴を行った（2020年）。WTOパネルではEUの主張が認められなかったが、控訴パネルではEUの主張の一部が認められた。

中国では禁訴令は2020年8月以来5件発出されていたが、今回最高人民法院からHuawei v Netgear事案で、反禁訴令（AASI)が中国で初めて発出された。この事案をもとに最高人民法院から指針（正確には全国法院知识产权案件法律适用问题年度报告（2024）摘要）が出された。

【事案】Huawei v Netgear

Huawei は WiFi6規格をめぐって米国カリフォルニア州の大手ネットワーク機器メーカーNetgearとライセンス交渉が決裂し、中国、欧州（UPCミュンヘンLD、ドイツデュッセルドルフ地裁） 、米国での訴訟に発展した。Huaweiは欧州UPCに特許侵害訴訟を提訴し（2023年7月ごろ）、WiFi6のSEPによる差止命令を獲得した（2024年12月）。一方Netgearは反訴として米国で反トラスト法でカリフォルニア中部連邦地裁に提訴した（2024年1月）、なおHuaweiは米国では特許侵害訴訟は提訴していない。中国では済南中級人民法院における2件の特許侵害訴訟で侵害が認定され、差止命令が出された（2024年6月）。

Netgearは2024年12月米国カリフォルニア中部地裁に禁訴令（ASI：Huaweiによる中国など他国での権利行使を差し止める命令）を申し立てた。これに対して、Huaweiは中国最高人民法院（SPC)に「反禁訴命令（AASI）」を申請し、Netgearによる域外禁訴令（ASI）を妨げるため、中国訴訟を妨害しないよう求めた。中国最高人民法院は、Huaweiの申立てを認めてAASIを発出。これは中国史上初の反禁訴命令（AASI）であり、「SEP権者がFRAND条件を遵守し、実施者側に交渉上の重大な過失があり、中国法院での訴訟進行を不当に妨害しようとした場合、中国法院はAASIを認め得る」と判示した（2025年1月）。

【SPCガイドライン】

Huawei v. Netgear事件は、まさに上記の「中国でSEP権者が反禁訴命令（AASI）を申請できる条件と手続きを示した最高人民法院の実務基準に直接該当する典型例。 最高人民法院は、この事件を通じて“SEP権者がFRANDを遵守し、実施者側に過誤と妨害の意図がある場合はAASI認可”という基準を公式化。2024年発表の実務報告・摘要条文は、その「Huawei v Netgear」判決の論点・手法を踏まえて整理されたものです。

このように、「最高人民法院2024年年次報告（摘要）」の条文とHuawei v Netgear事件とは、実際の裁定例と指針（ガイドライン）という“事実と基準”の関係にある。

全国法院知识产权案件法律适用问题年度报告（2024）摘要

リンク：https://www.court.gov.cn/zixun/xiangqing/462901.html

（ただし中国国内アクセスのみ）

• 来源：最高人民法院新闻局

• 发布时间：2025-04-21

　43.反禁诉（执）令的颁发条件　

【案号】　　（2024）最高法知民终914、915号　　

【裁判要旨】　　标准实施者针对标准必要专利权人在中国法院提起的专利侵权诉讼向域外法院申请禁诉（执）令，标准必要专利权利人就此向审理专利侵权诉讼的中国法院提出反禁诉（执）令申请后，人民法院经初步审查，标准必要专利权人在许可谈判中履行了公平、合理、无歧视许可承诺，而标准实施者在许可谈判过程中具有明显过错并意图不当妨碍标准必要专利权人在中国法院行使推进案件审理和裁判执行的正当程序权利的，对标准必要专利权人提出的反禁诉（执）令申请，依法可予准许。

（仮訳）「国内裁判所における知財関連事件の法適用に関する年次報告書（2024年）の概要」の事例43

事件番号は「（2024）最高法知民终914、915号」

標準実施者は、標準必要特許権者が中国裁判所で提起した特許侵害訴訟に対して、域外裁判所に禁訴（執行）令を申請し、これに関して、特許侵害訴訟を審理する中国裁判所に反禁止令（執行）令を申請した後、人民裁判所は予備審査を経て、許可交渉において、公正、合理的、差別のない許可の約束を履行し、標準実施者が許可交渉の過程で明らかな過失があり、中国裁判所で事件審理と裁判執行を推進する正当手続きの権利を行使することを不適切に妨害する場合、標準必要特許権者が提出した反禁止（執）令申請は、法律に基づいて許可することができます。

今回中国におけるASI AASIの状況と、Huawei v Netgear事件の概要について北京のHan Kun法律事務所（汉坤律师事务所）のBin Sun（孙斌）弁護士に以下詳しくまとめていただいた。原文（英語）をそのまま引用する。　　　　　　    

Executive summary:（概要）

It is the first AASI/AAEI decision in China.  On December 22, 2024, the Supreme People’s Court (or the “SPC”) ruled that:

• During the proceedings of the two Huawei v. Netgear cases in China and even after their judgements are made, Netgear is prohibited from filing any motion before any courts or administrative authorities within U.S. or any other foreign jurisdictions with the purpose of stopping Huawei from continuing these lawsuits, enforcing injunctions if issued in these lawsuits, or filing any new lawsuits in China (i.e., Netgear is prohibited from filing any anti-suit/anti-enforcement injunction motion outside China).

• If Netgear has already filed any anti-suit/anti-enforcement injunction motion before any courts or administrative authorities within U.S. or any other foreign jurisdictions, it should withdraw such a motion within 24 hours after it is served with this ruling.  And,

• For any non-compliance of this ruling, Netgear shall pay a fine of 1 million RMB per day (which is the maximum pecuniary penalty under Chinese civil procedure law).

As a procedural rule, this AASI/AAEI is classified as a behavior preservation order which shall become immediately enforceable once served on Netgear, and its enforcement will not be suspended pending its appeal to the same court.

Brief Story of Huawei v. Netgear Disputes:(Huawei  v Netgear訴訟経過）

• Since July 2020, Huawei and Netgear negotiated a FRAND license for Huawei’s Wi-Fi SEP portfolio.  Huawei complained that it provided multiple offers, but Netgear reacted passively and lacked willingness to take a license.

• During Feb. 2022 to Jul. 2024, Huawei filed multiple SEP infringement lawsuits against Netgear before Chinese, German, and UPC courts.  For the two Chinese lawsuits, Huawei filed them before the Jinan (“济南”) Intermediate People’s Court.

• On January 30, 2024, Netgear filed an antitrust lawsuit before the Central District Court of California in U.S.  During the U.S. lawsuit, Netgear added a claim for setting the rate of Huawei’s global Wi-Fi portfolio.

• On June 7, 2024, the Jinan （済南）Court entered the 1^st-instance judgement and granted an injunction against Netgear’s infringement in China.  Then Netgear appealed this judgement to the Supreme People’s Court.

• On December 4, 2024, Huawei, via a publicly available database, found that Netgear filed an ASI/AEI motion before the California Court, in which Netgear clearly targeted at the two lawsuits in China.  

• On December 20, 2024, Huawei filed an AASI/AAEI motion before the Supreme People’s Court, which is the appellate court to hear the appeal from the Jinan Court.  Huawei filed AASI/AAEI motions before the German and UPC courts as well.

• Within 2 days after the filing of AASI/AAEI, the Supreme People’s Court granted it against Netgear.

•  In the same month, the UPC Court granted an injunction against Netgear among seven European countries.

• In January 2025, Netgear settled disputes with Huawei and joined Sisvel Wi-Fi 6 patent pool.

SPC’s Reasonings of AASI/AAEI of Huawei v. Netgear

• The SPC considered the following factors to determine whether to grant an AASI/AAEI:

a.    Whether the movant has factual and legal basis, including whether the patents-in-suits are valid;

b.   Whether the movant is likely to suffer irreparable harm or whether it makes the judgement difficult to enforce in the absence of an AASI/AAEI;

c.    Whether the balance of hardships tips in the movant’s favor;

d.   Whether an AASI/AAEI will cause harms to public interests; and

e.    Other factors that should be considered.

• In applying the five-prong test above, the SPC reasoned that:

·     Factual and legal basis: The SPC found that the patents-in-suit are valid.  Furthermore, based on the fact-findings of the Jinan Court, i.e., Huawei complied with its FRAND obligations while Netgear was obviously not a willing licensee, the SPC preliminarily concluded that Huawei is likely to be entitled to injunctive relief while Netgear’s ASI/AEI motion lacks justifiable reasons. 

·     Irreparable harm: Again, the SPC reasoned that in the absence of AASI/AAEI, Netgear’s ASI/AEI, if approved by the U.S. Court, would force Huawei to discontinue these two Chinese lawsuits and even abandon its injunction relief, which obviously causes irreparable harm to Huawei.

·     Balance of hardships: The SPC reasoned that: 1) In the absence of AAEI/AASI, Huawei would have to tolerate Netgear’s continuous infringement without timely obtaining license fees, and also its procedural rights to proceed the Chinese lawsuits and obtain injunctive relief would be illegally interfered; while 2) If AAEI/AASI is allowed, Netgear would only bear a duty of non-action (“不作為義務”) within a certain period, without any additional losses.

·     Public interests and other factors: The SPC reasoned there is no harm to public interests if AASI/AAEI is granted.  Finally, it found there is no other special factors that are necessary to consider. 

The ASI & AASI race during 2020 -2021

The Huawei v. Netgear ruling is the first AASI/AAEI in China, it is a defensive ruling to protect Chinese judicial sovereignty from being interfered with foreign ASI/AEI decisions.

However, in several years ago, Chinese courts issued multiple offensive ASI/AEI rulings against foreign SEP holders in its domestic rate-setting cases.  I would like to give a brief account of what happened years ago:

• In 2020.8, the SPC granted the first anti-enforcement injunction in Huawei v. Conversant, which was limited to force Conversant not to provisionally enforce the injunction issued in the 1^st-instance infringement lawsuit before the German Court, and it would impose a daily fine of 1 million RMB for Conversant’s potential non-compliance.  Due to this AEI ruling, Conversant chose not to enforce the German injunction and had to settle with Huawei.

• During 2020.9 – 2020.12, the Shenzhen Court and Wuhan Court ruled several ASI injunctions (i.e.,OPPO v. Sharp, ZTE v. Conversant, Xiaomi v. InterDigital and Samsung v. Ericsson), but their effect was widely expanded to the extent that the SEP holder was prevented to file any lawsuits or enforce any injunctions in any foreign jurisdictions.  Sharp yielded, but InterDigital and Ericsson did not: they filed AASI/AAEI in foreign jurisdictions where they asserted their patents.  As a countermeasure, the U.S., Indian, and German courts issued AASI/AAEI against ASI/AEI issued by Chinese courts.  Particularly, in 2021.1, the Munich Court ruled AASI in IP Bridge v. Huawei simply because Huawei mentioned the Conversant case as a threaten in negotiation, even there was no ASI at all.

• In Lenovo v. Nokia (2021.1), the Shenzhen Court rejected Lenovo’s ASI/AEI motion, and there is no ASI/AEI decision since the

• In 2022.2, upon the SEP holders’ requests, the EU initiated a WTO dispute resolution procedure against China and challenged the ASI/AEI rulings issued by Chinese courts."

Photo: Shutterstock