China’s Anti-Suit Injunctions Before the WTO: Procedural Legitimacy, Transparency Limits

In 2022, the European Union initiated WTO proceedings against China, alleging that Chinese courts had acted inconsistently with international trade obligations by issuing anti-suit injunctions in standard essential patent disputes.

The EU’s complaint focused on several high-profile cases involving major Chinese technology companies and challenged both the global effect of the injunctions and the significant daily penalties that could follow non-compliance. China, for its part, maintained that such injunctions were procedural mechanisms grounded in domestic civil procedure, designed to manage parallel proceedings and preserve judicial order rather than to alter substantive patent rights.

The WTO panel issued its report on 24 April 2025. In substance, China prevailed on most of the central issues: the panel rejected the EU’s claims under TRIPS Articles 28, 41 and 44. However, the panel found against China on transparency grounds under TRIPS Article 63, holding that certain decisions had not been properly published and that China had failed to respond adequately to information requests. A subsequent MPIA ruling in July 2025 adjusted part of the panel’s reasoning, while leaving the transparency finding intact.

The result was therefore mixed. The rulings did not condemn the use of anti-suit injunctions as such, but they did place meaningful emphasis on disclosure, reasoning and procedural transparency.

Why it matters:

For multinational businesses engaged in SEP litigation, the WTO rulings are best understood as boundary-setting decisions. They do not eliminate the risk of anti-suit relief in China, but they do reinforce the importance of transparency and may provide additional arguments for foreign rights holders navigating parallel global proceedings.

Implications for Middle Eastern Businesses

For Middle Eastern technology companies, telecom operators, manufacturers and investors involved in global IP disputes, the rulings illustrate the growing procedural significance of Chinese courts in multi-jurisdictional patent litigation. Even where a dispute spans Europe, Asia and the United States, Chinese proceedings may materially affect litigation strategy, timing and settlement leverage. Businesses across the Middle East should therefore monitor Chinese procedural developments closely and build China-related litigation scenarios into their broader global dispute planning.