China has announced the withdrawal of its anti-suit injunction policy after it was found to violate WTO rules.
The award, made by the WTO appeal arbitrator in the European Union’s dispute with China on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (DS611), marks an important win for EU standard essential patent (SEP) holders, whose research outcomes and innovations were undermined by China’s anti-suit injunction policy.
Following the issuance of the award, China officially stated at the WTO that it had withdrawn the anti-suit injunction policy. To that effect, China referred to a ‘notice’ issued by the Supreme People’s Court of China on 23 September 2025. After some initial technical issues were resolved, this notice is currently accessible online from outside China too.
Given the unwritten nature of China’s anti-suit injunction policy, the European Commission will continue to closely monitor the situation to ensure China’s full compliance with the WTO appeal Arbitrator’s Award and take further action, if necessary.
Background
The dispute (DS611) involves standard essential patents (SEP), which are patents necessary for a product or technology to meet specific industry standards, such as those used in mobile communications.
The EU challenged the fact that Chinese courts are empowered to issue worldwide anti-suit injunctions in litigation over standard essential patents. These are provisional measures addressed to SEP holders, prohibiting them (under the threat of heavy fines) from initiating and continuing IP litigation actions for non-Chinese patents in any jurisdiction other than China.
On 21 July 2025, the WTO appeal arbitrator issued its award in DS611: China – Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights, where it found that China’s unwritten anti-suit injunction policy violates the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). The arbitrator concluded that China’s anti-suit injunction policy restricts the owners of standard essential patents from enforcing and meaningfully exercising their patent rights, as conferred by other WTO Members in respect of non-Chinese patents.
The EU has also challenged another Chinese measure relating to standard essential patents. While related, the WTO proceedings in those two disputes are separate, relate to different measures, and involve different implementation obligations.
