论欧盟诉中国知识产权禁诉令案的应对

On the Responding to the Lawsuit of China Intellectual Property Anti-suit Injunction

欧盟诉中国知识产权执法案(DS611)进入专家组这一关键程序。该案关系到我国作出知识产权禁诉令的司法主权,关系到华为公司等标准必要专利使用者的正当权益。我国WTO代表的回应,并未以TRIPS协定为依据否定欧盟的投诉。少有的研究文献中,多数论断不符合TRIPS协定。以《维也纳条约法公约》反映的解释惯例为工具,以DS174等案件报告为参考,分析欧盟援引的TRIPS协定条款,得出欧盟的三项投诉都不成立的结论。建议我国在专家组程序及可能进入的仲裁或者上诉程序中,分清TRIPS协定下的义务及责任主体,讲清TRIPS协定下相关条款适用的条件,慎重援引TRIPS协定其他条款,擅用WTO有关案件报告。知识产权禁诉令不属于TRIPS协定下的知识产权执法和禁令。其国际协调,需要在TRIPS协定的基础上,开启新的国际合作。

DS611-China Intellectual Property Enforcement entered the key process of the panel.This case concerns China s judicial sovereignty to make an anti-suit injunction against litigation of intellectual property rights holders,and the legitimate rights and interests of SEP users such as Huawei.The response of China s WTO representative did not use the TRIPS Agreement as a basis to deny the EU s complaint.In the few research literatures,most of them were inconsistent with the TRIPS Agreement.Using the interpretative customs reflected in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties as a tool and using case reports such as DS174 as a reference,the author analyzes the provisions of the TRIPS Agreement cited by EU and concludes that none of the three EU complaints were founded.It is suggested that China clearly distinguish the obligations and responsible subjects under the TRIPS Agreement in the panel procedure and possible arbitration orappeal procedures,clarify the conditions for the application of the relevant provisions under the TRIPS Agreement,carefully invoke other provisions of the TRIPS Agreement,and make unauthorized use of relevant WTO case reports.IP anti-suit injunction is not IP enforcement and injunction under the TRIPS Agreement.Its international harmonization requires a new international cooperation on the basis of the TRIPS Agreement.