典型案例——华为与康文森无线通信标准必要专利“禁诉令”案

Case Analysis

1

Huawei v. Conversant

华为与康文森无线通信标准必要专利“禁诉令”案

Docket numbers of the cases in the first instance: No. 232, 233, 234, first instance (初), civil case (民), (2018) Nanjing Intermediate People’s Court (苏01)

Docket numbers of the cases in the second instance: No. 732, 733, 734 (Part 1), second instance (终), civil case (民), (2018) IPR Division of the Supreme People's Court (最高法知)

一审案号：（2018）苏01民初232、233、234号

二审案号：（2019）最高法知民终732、733、734号之一

1

Prefatory Syllabus

裁判要旨

Regarding the application for behavior preservation measures prohibiting application for enforcement of the judgment of an extraterritorial court, the people’s court shall consider the impact of the respondent’s application for enforcement of the judgments of an extraterritorial court on the litigation in China, and make a comprehensive judgment on multiple factors such as whether it is necessary to adopt behavior preservation measures, whether the damage to the applicant caused by the failure to adopt behavior preservation measures exceeds that to the respondent caused by the adoption of such measures, whether public interest is compromised due to the adoption of behavior preservation measures and whether the adoption of behavior preservation measures complies with the principle of international comity.

对于禁止申请执行域外法院判决的行为保全申请，人民法院应当考虑被申请人申请执行域外法院判决对中国诉讼的影响，采取行为保全措施是否确属必要，不采取行为保全措施对申请人造成的损害是否超过采取行为保全措施对被申请人造成的损害，采取行为保全措施是否损害公共利益，以及采取行为保全措施是否符合国际礼让原则等因素进行综合判断。

2

Basic Facts

案情介绍

Appellant(Defendant in the cases in the first instance): Conversant Wireless Licensing S.à.r.l (hereinafter: “Conversant”)

Appellee (Plaintiff in the cases in the first instance): Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., Huawei Device Co., Ltd., and Huawei Software Technologies Co., Ltd. (collectively, “Huawei Companies”)

上诉人（原审被告）：康文森无线许可有限公司（简称康文森公司）

被上诉人（原审原告）：华为技术有限公司、华为终端有限公司、华为软件技术有限公司（统称华为公司）

In January 2018, Huawei filed the case with Nanjing Intermediate People’s Court of Jiangsu Province, requesting confirmation of non-infringement of three Chinese patent rights of Conversant and the licensing rates for standard essential patents (SEPs) in China. In April 2018, to counter Huawei’s lawsuit, Conversant filed a patent infringement lawsuit with a court in Dusseldorf, Germany, requesting an order to stop Huawei’s infringement acts and a compensation for losses. On September 16, 2019, the first-instance court determined the licensing rates of SEPs for Huawei, its Chinese affiliates and Conversant. Conversant refused to accept the verdict of first instance, and appealed to the Supreme People’s Court. 

2018年1月，华为公司向江苏省南京市中级人民法院提起本案诉讼，请求确认未侵害康文森公司三项中国专利权并请求确认中国地区标准必要专利的许可费率。2018年4月，为反制华为公司的本案诉讼，康文森公司向德国杜塞尔多夫法院提起专利侵权诉讼，请求判令华为公司停止侵权并赔偿损失。2019年9月16日，一审法院判决确定华为公司及其中国关联公司与康文森公司所涉标准必要专利的许可费率。康文森公司不服一审判决，向最高人民法院提起上诉。

During the trial of the second instance by the Supreme People's Court, on August 27, 2020, the German court made first-instance verdict, ruling that Huawei and its German affiliates infringed on European patents of Conversant and issuing an order that prohibits Huawei and its German affiliates from providing, selling, using, importing or holding relevant mobile terminals for the above purposes, and that requires Huawei to destroy and recall infringing products. This sentence can be provisionally enforced after Conversant provides a guarantee of 2.4 million euros. The sentence holds that, the SEP licensing rate offer made by Conversant to Huawei does not violate the fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory (FRAND) principles. The SEP licensing rate offer for multi-mode 2G/3G/4G mobile terminal products in Conversant's aforementioned offer is about 18.3 times of the Chinese SEP licensing rate determined in first-instance judgments of three cases. On the same day, Huawei filed an application for behavior preservation with the Supreme People's Court, requesting to prohibit Conversant from applying for enforcement of the German court’s judgment before Supreme People's Court makes the final judgment.

在最高人民法院二审审理期间，2020年8月27日，德国法院作出一审判决，认定华为公司及其德国关联公司侵害康文森公司欧洲专利，判令禁止华为公司及其德国关联公司提供、销售、使用或为上述目的进口或持有相关移动终端，销毁并召回侵权产品等。该判决可在康文森公司提供240万欧元担保后获得临时执行。该判决认定，康文森公司向华为公司提出的标准必要专利许可费率要约未违反公平、合理、无歧视（FRAND）原则。康文森公司的前述要约中多模2G/3G/4G移动终端产品的标准必要专利许可费率约为本三案一审判决所确定中国标准必要专利许可费率的18.3倍。当日，华为公司向最高人民法院提出行为保全申请，请求禁止康文森公司在最高人民法院终审判决作出前申请执行德国法院判决。

The following ruling of behavior preservation is made by the Supreme People’s Court on the basis of requiring Huawei to provide guarantees: Prior to the final judgment of the Supreme People's Court, Conversant shall not apply for enforcement of the German court’s judgment mentioned above. In case of violation of this ruling, a fine of RMB 1 million per day, cumulative on a daily basis, will be imposed from the date when such violation occurs. The ruling was served on the same day. Conversant filed the reconsiderationwithin the reconsideration period. After the Supreme People's Court organized a hearing for both parties, it ruled against Conversant's request for reconsideration.

最高人民法院在要求华为公司提供担保的基础上，作出行为保全裁定，即：康文森公司不得在最高人民法院终审判决前，申请执行上述德国判决。如违反本裁定，自违反之日起，处每日罚款人民币100万元，按日累计。该裁定于当日送达。康文森公司在复议期内提起复议。最高人民法院组织双方听证后，裁定驳回康文森公司的复议请求。

2

Typical Significance

典型意义

As the first adjudication of behavior preservation with the nature of “anti-suit injunction” in China’s intellectual property litigations, this case clarifies the necessity, degree of damage, adaptability, public interest and international comity and other factors that should be taken into account at the time of adoption of behavior preservation measures prohibiting application for enforcement of the judgment of an extraterritorial court, first explores the daily fine system, and preliminarily constructs the path of judicial practice of “anti-suit injunction” in China. The ruling in this case enabled the parties to finally reach a global package settlement agreement, putting an end to parallel litigations in many countries worldwide and achieving good legal and social effects.

本案是我国知识产权诉讼首例具有“禁诉令”性质的行为保全裁定，明确了采取禁止申请执行域外法院判决的行为保全措施时应考虑的必要性、损害程度、适应性、公共利益以及国际礼让因素等，并首次探索日罚金制度，初步构建起中国“禁诉令”的司法实践路径。本案裁定促成当事人最终达成全球一揽子和解协议，结束了在全球多个国家的平行诉讼，取得了良好的法律效果和社会效果

英文投稿及市场合作：

[e-mail]

18911449529（微信同号）