- Introduction
On April 13, 2015, SAIC promulgated the IPR Abuse Rules that became effective on August 1, 2015.
As a special regulation on IPRs related to AML issues, the drafting of the IPR Abuse Rules can be dated back to SAIC’s efforts of drafting the Guideline for Law Enforcement on IPR Antitrust (the “Guideline”) in 2009. Due to the complexity and sensitivity of the issue and the absence of law enforcement experience, SAIC has decided not to promulgate comprehensive guidelines but to formulate rules instead to regulate the major issues as a priority. Since 2013, SAIC has solicited opinions from various industries and released an exposure draft on its website for public comments (“Exposure Draft’) in June, 2014.[1]
The IPR Abuse Rules primarily regulate the following six aspects:
- defining monopolistic conducts that eliminate and restrict competition, relevant markets and the like;
- prohibiting monopoly agreements between undertakings through IPRs’ implementation, and stipulation of “safe harbor” rule;
- prohibiting the abuse of dominant market position in the course of implementation of IPRs and prohibitive regulations on specific abusing conducts;
- regulating patent pool and monopolistic conducts during the formulation and implementation of standards;
- clarifying analysis, principles and framework of SAIC system’s AML enforcement in connection with IPRs;
- administrative sanctions.
This article will conduct a preliminary look into the IPR Abuse Rules from the perspective of compliance in the context of some recent cases.
[1] See the official website of SAIC: Drafting Notes for Soliciting Public Opinions on Rules of Industry & Commerce Authorities on Prohibiting the Exclusion or Restriction of Competition through Abusing Intellectual Property Rights, available at: http://www.saic.gov.cn/gzhd/zqyj/201406/t20140610_145803.html.
