On April 24, 2025, the WTO (World Trade Organization) dispute settlement panel concluded that China had not violated WTO rules in the case filed by the EU concerning intellectual property rights. In 2022, the EU had brought the case to the WTO, alleging that Chinese courts were obstructing the protection of patents related to 5G technologies, among others. However, the EU’s claims were ultimately dismissed.
Background – The EU’s Concerns
The EU argued that Chinese courts were issuing Anti-Suit Injunctions (ASIs), thereby preventing European companies from enforcing their patent rights in their own jurisdictions. In particular, the EU was concerned that protection of Standard Essential Patents (SEPs), which are critical to next-generation communications infrastructure like 5G, was being unfairly restricted.
In response, China contended that its domestic judicial practices were consistent with its own legal system and did not violate international rules.
Panel Ruling – “No Rule Violation” but “Transparency Obligations Unmet”
The WTO panel concluded that the EU had failed to demonstrate a violation of WTO rules. However, this does not mean that China achieved a complete victory. The panel also pointed out that China had not fully complied with all WTO-mandated transparency obligations, suggesting that issues regarding the disclosure of information remain.
What This Ruling Signifies
There are several important takeaways from this decision:
- The “Gray Zone” of International Rules
The ruling highlights that international regulations regarding ASIs are still underdeveloped, and WTO rules alone cannot fully regulate the exercise of jurisdiction by national courts.
- Effectiveness of China’s Judicial Strategy
China has successfully leveraged its domestic legal system to protect the competitiveness of its enterprises while staying within the boundaries of WTO rules.
- Potential Transparency Disputes
Issues concerning transparency could lead to new disputes or necessitate further international negotiations in the future.
Future Outlook
The EU may appeal the ruling if it remains dissatisfied with the outcome. For now, however, China’s position has been partially validated at the international level. This development may cause a subtle shift in the global dynamics of intellectual property protection. Particularly, it could have significant implications for future licensing negotiations and disputes involving 5G and 6G technologies.
This case stands as a key example of the ongoing “battle over the interpretation of international rules,” and will require continued close observation moving forward.