China : Protection of Intellectual Property Rights and Anti-Monopoly Enforcement under the Unified Market Regulation

Xianlin Wang

2021-01-01

Abstract:Reformer le mecanisme de regulation du marche et mettre en œuvre une regulation unifiee du marche est essentiel a la mise en place d'un systeme de marche moderne, unifie, ouvert et ou la concurrence est…

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Does China need competition law?

kevin x li,ming du

2007-01-01

Abstract:To cope with its rapid development and transformation from a planned economy toward a market-orientated economy, China has over the years strived to formulate a comprehensive and multifaceted competition law.1 Such a law is regarded as a way of regulating a chaotic economy that has experienced years of unruly competition. During the years of opening up of its economy, China has gradually realised that contemplated competition law will protect the process of competition, which will in the long term lead to lower prices, better products, and more choices for consumers, and enhance the overall efficiency of social welfare.2 So far the existing Chinese legal framework falls far short of ensuring an effective system of competition,3 and a comprehensive competition code has yet to be adopted. The call for a comprehensive competition law was reinforced by China’s accession to the World Trade Organisation in November 2001.4 Significant progress has been made in both the drafting of a new competition code and the reconstruction of existing laws and regulations on competition. In 2003, China’s National Development and Reform Commission (SDRC) announced ground-breaking provisional rules banning price-fixing alliances, monopoly profits, and predatory pricing. This was the first time that the Chinese
A Discussion on Market-oriented Reform of Implementing Mechanism of Land Use Regulation Institution

Cheng-yan WANG,Xiang-mu JIN

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1009-4210.2009.01.030

2009-01-01

Abstract:It is a basic way to relieve the contradiction between demand and supply for land,and to fully display the role of land policy to regulate and control the macro-economy.This paper uses case analysis to get an insight into innovation of land use regulation at levels of both central and local governments,concluding that introducing market mechanism is the ultimate objective of land use regulation innovation.
On the Enforcement of China's Antimonopoly Law in the Field of Intellectual Property

Xian-lin WANG

DOI: https://doi.org/10.13806/j.cnki.issn1008-7095.2009.06.002

2009-01-01

Abstract:It is both complicated and sensitive to enforce the antimonopoly law in the field of intellectual property in China.Some basic issues needs to be resolved,especially issues such as the relationship between protection of intellectual property and enforcement of antimonopoly law,between abuse of intellectual property rights and elimination or restriction of competition,and between intellectual property and the dominant position of the market.The fundamental framework for analyzing the enforcement of China's antimonopoly law in the field of intellectual property involves both general issues of antimonopoly and special issues related to intellectual property.China should learn from the experiences of other countries and regions,and formulate guidelines on how to enforce the antimonopoly law in the field of intellectual property.
Antitrust Regulation of Intellectual Property Rights in China

Liyang Hou

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2648736

2015-01-01

Abstract:This article reviews the practice of competition agencies, including NDRC, Mofcom and SAIC, and courts in China regarding the application of antitrust law to intellectual property rights related anti-competitive conduct. It covers all the cases and regulations coming out after the adoption of China's Anti-monopoly Law. Although China has progressed considerably in this domain, there are still some imperfections.
Antimonopoly Law Regulation on Performance of IPR Activities

Wang Xianlin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1005-0221.2008.01.007

2008-01-01

Abstract:People's Republic of China Antimonopoly Law,Antimonopoly Law in short,which was enacted on Au- gust 30th 2007,will take effect on August 1st this year.Actually,the birth of Antimonopoly Law came after a long way of halting steps,in that it takes 20 years since 1987,when the State Council founded the Antimonopoly Law drafting committee and enacted Prohibiting Monopoly and Unfair Competition Temporary Regulation Draft,and it takes 13 years since 1994,when Antimonopoly Law was included in the legislation program of the Eighth session of Standing Committee of the National People's Congress.The enact of Antimonopoly Law is an important milestone of the legal construction of Chinese market economy and the history of Chinese economic law development,since that it has significant influence to protect the fair market competition,to enhance the economic operating efficiency,to maintain the consumer benefit and the social public interest,and to promote the healthy development of socialist market economy.Under such background, the journal specially invites some experts and scholars in this area to discuss correlated questions,so as to properly un- derstand the characteristics,the values,the significance,and the functions of Antimonopoly Law,and to recognize the correlation among Antimonopely Law,industrial policy,industrial supervision,and other related legal systems.
Recent Developments in China’s Antimonopoly Regulations on Abuse of Intellectual Property Rights

Wang Xianlin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0003603x17735197

2017-01-01

The Antitrust Bulletin

Abstract:Over the past decade, while strengthening intellectual property rights (IPR) protection, China has also explored means to regulate the abuse of IPRs. IPR protection in China is mainly based on the Anti-Monopoly Law (AML), in particular Article 55. Recent years have seen more and more judicial and administrative enforcement practices related to China’s antimonopoly regulation on the abuse of IPRs. Provisions on the Prohibition of the Abuse of Intellectual Property Rights to Eliminate or Restrict Competition was released on April 7, 2015, and the draft of Antimonopoly Guidelines in Relation to the Abuse of Intellectual Property Rights was released for public comment in early 2017. It can be expected that China’s antimonopoly guidelines on the regulation of abuses of IPRs will come out in the near future.
Administrative Monopoly and the Anti-Monopoly Law: an examination of the debate in China

Gordon Y. M. Chan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10670560802576026

IF: 3.126

2009-03-01

Journal of Contemporary China

Abstract:After more than a decade of preparation, China finally passed the Anti-Monopoly Law (AML) on 30 August 2007. This paper examines the debate over whether or not administrative monopoly should be included in the ambit of the AML, which took place throughout the drafting process of this new law. Administrative monopoly refers to the abusive use of administrative power by government agencies to engage in monopolistic activities. Owing to the administrative nature of this type of monopoly, the intent to regulate it by an economic law, such as the AML, has stirred up much controversy. Having analyzed the arguments both in support of and in opposition to the inclusion, this paper suggests the need to adopt a more comprehensive scheme in tackling administrative monopoly. Also, the enforcement mechanism of the AML will have to be strengthened in order to prevent this new law from degenerating into ‘a toothless tiger’. Furthermore, the competition law regime of China will benefit from in-depth research in overseas anti-monopoly practices. In particular, the experiences of the former socialist states in Europe should be taken into account, given that they are similarly undergoing the transition from a planned economy to a market economy.

area studies
Civil Right Socialization for the Legislation Value Tropism of Intellectual Property

Zhang Dong,Li Bo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1003-0476.2012.03.008

2012-01-01

Abstract:Under the background of competition globalization,how to duly use the civil right nature of intellectual property(IP) originated from Roman Law has become theoretical requirement of realizing IP strategy in the process of China traditional industry's globalization.Legislation value tropism of IP socialization is the result of value balance under rational principle.It mainly reflects in three aspects,legislation aim of considering social benefits,Legislation content of the limitation from social interests and legislation trend of strategy.In practice,with the development of Intellectual Property Civil Right Socialization,its civil right attribute is applied reasonably under modern competition.Thus,this paper suggests to give more IP protetion to traditional industries in developing countries,by which to realize interests balance around the world.
On Reform of Chinese IP System under the WTO Laws

Zhang Nai-gen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1008-7184.2011.05.004

2011-01-01

Abstract:During the period of the first 10 years after China＇s accession into the WTO,China made great efforts to reform IP system under the TRIPS Agreement so as to response the challenge of economic globalization,which have three key characters,i.e.,combination of implementation of international obligations and domestic situations,balance between IP holders＇ rights and public interests,development oriented by National IP Strategic for the new century.It is suggested that China shall continue reforms of IP system in order to promote IP competition with the consideration of global trend of development to strengthen the IP enforcement and to harmonize IP system.
The System of Prohibiting Administrative Monopoly in Chinese Anti-monopoly Legislation

WANG Xian-lin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1001-5019.2005.06.021

2005-01-01

Abstract:Administrative monopoly means the act of exclusion or limitation of competition as a result of the abuse of power by the administrative subject.It is not unique but more prominent in China.Administrative monopoly has various harms,and with China's entry into WTO,it conflicts with the basic principles of WTO.Administrative monopoly must be regulated by the Anti-monopoly Law that China will soon enact.
Thirty Years' Development of China's Anti-monopoly Law under the Yardstick of "State-Market":Toward "Autonomous-Responsive" Law

HUANG Yong,JIANG Shan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1009-8003.2008.03.002

2008-01-01

Abstract:The development of AML after Reform and Openning can be divided into three phases,namely market gestation,market establishment,and market consummation,in which the genesis of AML is largely attributable to the evolution of "State-Market" yardstick.The focus of the implementation of Anti-monopoly Law is differed in various phases.And the main bottleneck of implementation are the institutional absence,enforcement deficiency and system malajustment.Under the framework "Autonomous-Responsive" law with referrence to the Berkeley Perspective Classification of legal genre,the implementation of AML can have a reasonable prospect.
China: The Council of State (Chinese Government) issues Opinions on a Fair Competition Review System of public policies (FCRS)

F. Souty

2016-06-14

Abstract:Le 1er aout 2016 vient de marquer le 8e anniversaire de l'entree en vigueur du droit chinois de la concurrence et en particulier de la Loi Antimonopole adoptee le 30 aout 2007 (v. F. Souty, “Chine :…

Political Science
Trips Agreement and Enforcement of the Intellectual Property Rights in China

Zhongfa Ma,Yan Zhang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.14330/jeail.2012.5.2.05

2012-01-01

Journal of East Asia and International Law

Abstract:It is generally accepted that China's legislation including the provisions on enforcement of intellectual property rights has met the requirements of the TRIPS agreement and its government has exerted best efforts to enforce intellectual property laws, as illustrated by the institution of executive bodies, the dual-track approach system for protecting IPRs and other actions in this field. However, enforcement of IPRs is still a critical problem for China to solve because the protection standards of IPRs are beyond its economic development and education level, local protectionism interferes with enforcement, insufficient severity of punishment against infringers fails to deter, the price of genuine IP products is overinflated and a legal culture of not observing laws in China. To eliminate the roots of difficulties in enforcing IP laws, awareness of protecting IPRs and abiding by IP laws should be improved. Also, the IPR enforcement system should be further perfected by, centralizing the power of IPR enforcement by merging the current executive bodies into fewer ones with certain focuses, increasing the severity of punishment against infringers of IPRs and cracking down against local protectionism.
Rethinking the Application of China’s Antimonopoly Law in the Area of Intellectual Property Rights

Wang Xianli

2013-01-01

Abstract:Established with specific legislative background and purpose,article 55 of China’s Antimonopoly Law makes clear the basic principle and standpoint of the application of the Law in the area of Intellectual Property Rights(IPRs).Its role is,nevertheless,declaratory and illustrative,and the validity of an exercise of is not judged directly according to it.The abuse of IPRs should be understood by the general meaning rather than,consciously and subconsciously,by the specific meaning of case law of some countries.Abusing is not necessarily monopolistic behavior,but monopolistic behavior involving is certainly an abuse.When formulating the enforcement guidelines on antimonopoly law in the area of IPRs,what must be well-balanced is the relationship between drawing lessons from foreign experience and being based on the reality of China,and between principle and operation as well.
The Regulation of Injunctive Relief on Standard Essential Patents Within China’s Anti-monopoly Law

Yuting Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.54648/woco2020025

2020-12-01

World Competition

Abstract:Competition concerns arising from the seeking of injunctions by FRAND-encumbered (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory) standard essential patent (SEP) owners have become a contentious issue. This issue has attracted the attention of many competition enforcement authorities and no consensus is reached as to the compatibility of such injunctive relief with competition law. This is also a hard and challenging problem faced by China. A coherent and balanced response is urgently needed under current China’s legal framework. Therefore, this article proposes that a basic regulating approach should be established first to treat the seeking of injunctions by FRAND-encumbered SEP owners as an independent anti-competitive practice prohibited by the Anti-monopoly Law. Then, an analysis framework should be established to consider the circumstances in which and the extent to which such seeking of injunctions should be limited from the perspective of competition enforcement. The behaviour of both SEP owners and SEP users should be properly examined. standard, standard essential patent (SEP), injunctive relief, injunction, competition, antitrust, Anti-monopoly law, competition law, fair, reasonable and non- discriminatory (FRAND), reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND).
A Legal Analysis on Establishment of a Fair Competition Review Mechanism in China- A case study based on Opinions for Establishing a Fair Competition Review

Guilin Gao,Ziqi Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2991/icpel-17.2017.52

2017-01-01

Abstract:China is a country undergoing gradual transition from planning economy to market economy. Administrative monopoly is an urgent problem that has to be solved in China's market economic development. The Opinions for Establishing a Fair Competition Review Mechanism in the Market System (Hereinafter referred as The Opinions) issued by the State Council...
A functionalist approach to a principled application of the General Clause of China's Anti-Unfair Competition Law in intellectual property cases

Wenjie Ding,Li Chen

2022-01-01

Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property

Abstract:An overlap exists between China's IP laws and its Anti-Unfair Competition Law in that the General Clause of the latter can and is expected to be used to protect IP rights (`IPRs') that are not specifically enumerated in existing IP laws. However, in applying the General Clause, current court practice fails to properly adhere to the separation of powers doctrine between the legislature and judiciary and adopts an excessively interventionist approach in creating `judge-made' law. To address this, a functionalist analysis proposes, in consideration of both the extrinsic and intrinsic constraints of IP rights, that courts should generally avoid invoking the General Clause save in exceptional situations. On the one hand, the extrinsic constraints of IPRs dictate that the courts should, in principle, avoid applying the General Clause in so far as possible. Yet on the other hand, the intrinsic constraints permit exceptions in cases where the creators of the intellectual property do put adequate work into warranting legal recognition and protection, and where allowing free-riding will result in grossly inadequate incentives and underinvestment in product innovation and development, jeopardizing the evolution of legitimate business models and social welfare overall.
Research on the Theory and Practice of the Fair Competition Review System in China

Yanling Peng,Pinguang Ying

DOI: https://doi.org/10.14738/assrj.87.10496

2021-07-29

Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal

Abstract:On June 1, 2016, the State Council of the People’s Republic of China released its Opinions on Establishing a Fair Competition Review System in the Development of the Market System. It shows the determination of Chinese center government that firmly protect the Market System. Actually, the Chinese government is always making the effort to decrease the inappropriate intervention to Market System which from the public rights. Up to now, remarkable results have been achieved. And the stable and rapid growth of China's economy is the best proof. The release of the document about Fair Competition Review is conducive to consolidating the previous achievements of the Chinese government. The purpose of this paper is to introduce the content of this system and put forward some suggestions based on the actual situation in China.

English Else
GOVERNING CHINA’S ADMINISTRATIVE MONOPOLIES UNDER THE ANTI-MONOPOLY LAW: A TEN-YEAR REVIEW (2008–2018) AND BEYOND

Zhanjiang Zhang,Baiding Wu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/joclec/nhz009

2019-01-01

Abstract:ABSTRACT An important focus of China’s Anti-Monopoly Law (AML) is “administrative monopolies”—government-imposed restraints on competition. Since adopting the AML in 2008, China gradually has strengthened its efforts to curb administrative monopolies. Despite notable reforms such as the creation of the Fair Competition Review System (FCRS), government restrictions remain a major obstacle to competition in China’s economy. The 2008 legislation narrowly defined what constitutes improper government intervention, adopted a permissive standard for determining when public restraints were legitimate, and relied heavily on internal administrative controls to correct infringements. This paper draws upon experience in China and abroad to enhance the ability of China’s competition authorities to challenge administrative monopolies. Suggested upgrades include augmenting the robustness of FCRS, introducing new tools to improve competition advocacy, bolstering the ability of competition authorities to initiate or join litigation to attack administrative monopolies, and narrowing the range of justifications that can immunize public restraints.

economics,law
Regulation of Platform Economy Under the Domination of Anti-Monopoly Law Enforcement With Sector Regulation Coordination: Theoretical Analysis and the Model Innovation in China

BAI Rang-rang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.19654/j.cnki.cjwtyj.2023.04.002

2023-01-01

Abstract:Since 2018, the world ’s leading economies have set off an anti-monopoly law upsurge in the field of platform economy. In the wave, government sector regulators take the responsibility to investigate and regulate the anti-competitive behavior of various platform operators alone or in cooperation with anti-monopoly enforcement authorities. There are different judgements about whether the sector regulation and substitution of anti-monopoly law enforcement impedes the establishment of the competition policy’s essential position and weakens the authority and deterrence of anti-monopoly law.This paper takes the cutting-edge cases regarding anti-monopoly law enforcement and industrial regulation in the field of platform economy from China, the United States, and the European Union. We find a common phenomenon of joint law enforcement and instrument regulation of anti-monopoly law enforcement within the government regulatory practice of platform economy. The further implication lies in the failure to carry out substantive changes based on data intensity,network externalities, quasi-public goods, and other characteristics of the platform economy in the existing legislative principles and enforcement mechanisms of anti-monopoly law. Traditional government regulatory agencies responsible for natural monopoly have extended their own regulatory scope of the electronic communication and Internet industry to the field of the platform economy, whereas they lack the legal basis and law enforcement methods to control the abuse of market power by monopolistic operators. With the absence of anti-monopoly enforcement and the offside of government regulation,anti-competitive behaviors in the platform economy failed to receive effective government regulation.This paper constructs a new model for platform economy regulation and governance, which is led by anti-monopoly law enforcement and coordinated by sector regulation. This collaboration is accomplished with the administrative resources and technical methods from sector regulatory agencies, targeting key segments like market structure and governance rules involving operators’ anti-competitive behavior. It is coordinated under the leadership of the anti-monopoly law enforcement authorities, and is conducted on the premise of independent regulation by anti-monopoly law enforcement authorities and government sector regulatory agencies according to legislative scope division.Since 2020, the State Administration for Market Regulation and financial regulators have investigated, penalized, and remedied Alibaba Group Holding Limited for related behaviors. This is a model innovation for the Chinese government to manage the platform economy, and proves the feasibility and effectiveness of the collaborative governance model constructed in this paper. This paper also puts forward specific policy suggestions on reforming the existing anti-monopoly law enforcement system, implementing platform-neutral regulation, and strengthening judicial litigation.

China : Protection of Intellectual Property Rights and Anti-Monopoly Enforcement under the Unified Market Regulation

Does China need competition law?

A Discussion on Market-oriented Reform of Implementing Mechanism of Land Use Regulation Institution

On the Enforcement of China's Antimonopoly Law in the Field of Intellectual Property

Antitrust Regulation of Intellectual Property Rights in China

Antimonopoly Law Regulation on Performance of IPR Activities

Recent Developments in China’s Antimonopoly Regulations on Abuse of Intellectual Property Rights

Administrative Monopoly and the Anti-Monopoly Law: an examination of the debate in China

Civil Right Socialization for the Legislation Value Tropism of Intellectual Property

On Reform of Chinese IP System under the WTO Laws

The System of Prohibiting Administrative Monopoly in Chinese Anti-monopoly Legislation

Thirty Years' Development of China's Anti-monopoly Law under the Yardstick of "State-Market":Toward "Autonomous-Responsive" Law

China: The Council of State (Chinese Government) issues Opinions on a Fair Competition Review System of public policies (FCRS)

Trips Agreement and Enforcement of the Intellectual Property Rights in China

Rethinking the Application of China’s Antimonopoly Law in the Area of Intellectual Property Rights

The Regulation of Injunctive Relief on Standard Essential Patents Within China’s Anti-monopoly Law

A Legal Analysis on Establishment of a Fair Competition Review Mechanism in China- A case study based on Opinions for Establishing a Fair Competition Review

A functionalist approach to a principled application of the General Clause of China's Anti-Unfair Competition Law in intellectual property cases

Research on the Theory and Practice of the Fair Competition Review System in China

GOVERNING CHINA’S ADMINISTRATIVE MONOPOLIES UNDER THE ANTI-MONOPOLY LAW: A TEN-YEAR REVIEW (2008–2018) AND BEYOND

Regulation of Platform Economy Under the Domination of Anti-Monopoly Law Enforcement With Sector Regulation Coordination: Theoretical Analysis and the Model Innovation in China