The Supreme People’s Court of China (SPC) has released a new set of judicial interpretations concerning interim injunction applications for intellectual property rights (IP Rights)-related disputes. The Provisions on Application of Laws in Adjudication of Action Preservation Cases Involving Intellectual Property Disputes (Fa Shi  No. 21) (Provisions) were published on 12 December 2018 and take effect on 1 January 2019. Prior to that, a consultation draft of the Provisions was released for public consultation on 26 February 2015.
The Provisions provide further guidance on interim injunctive relief (i.e. action preservation) applications made under Articles 100 and 101 of the Civil Procedure Law 2017 (2017 CPL) in cases concerning IP Rights and unfair competition, and clarify certain key concepts therein. (For more information on interim relief in the PRC, contact firstname.lastname@example.org to request a copy of our guide “Interim Relief in Mainland China”.)
Some important articles in the Provisions, which are covered in this post, are:
- Article 6, which provides for circumstances classified as “urgent circumstances” under Articles 100 and 101 of the 2017 CPL;
- Article 7, which lists the factors that the courts shall take into consideration in determining whether an action preservation order should be granted;
- Article 10, which elaborates on the concept of “irreparable harm” under Article 101 of the 2017 CPL in cases related to IP Rights or unfair competition. Risk of “irreparable harm” is an element that needs to be proved in any application for pre-litigation or pre-arbitration action preservation orders; and
- Article 16, which specifies circumstances under which applications for action preservation will be considered “wrongful”.
In its decision of 4 July 2018, the Delhi High Court (“Court“) has agreed to enforce a China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) award against an Indian company, despite the award debtor’s arguments that the dispute should have been referred to and administrated by the now independent Shanghai International Arbitration Centre (SHIAC), which until mid-2012 was the Shanghai Sub-Commission of CIETAC (“Shanghai Sub-Commission“). The Court’s decision is interesting not only in discussing the 2012 split of CIETAC, but also because it may provide some guidance on how Indian courts may, in future, deal with structural changes to other arbitral institutions, such as the very recent termination of the joint venture between LCIA and Mauritius (the LCIA-MIAC Arbitration Centre), or the Shenzhen Court of International Arbitration (SCIETAC/SCIA) and the Shenzhen Arbitration Commission (SAC) merger at the beginning of 2018. Last but not least, this decision reinforces a pro-enforcement approach of Indian courts in relation to foreign arbitral awards.
We are delighted to share with you the latest issue of the publication from Herbert Smith Freehills' Global Arbitration Practice, Inside Arbitration.
In addition to sharing knowledge and insights about the markets and industries in which our clients operate, the publication offers personal perspectives of our international arbitration partners from across the globe.
In this issue:
Sarah Grimmer, the new Secretary General for the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre shares her insights on, and ambitions for, HKIAC.
Nick Peacock and Dr Mathias Wittinghofer consider whether arbitration is a suitable tool for resolution of derivative disputes, as well as the future of the ISDA arbitration guide.
Jessica Fei, Chinese national and NY lawyer, talks about the unique blend of cultures and legal qualifications that shape her perspective as a practitioner.
Mark Lloyd-Williams, Hamish Macpherson, Craig Shepherd, Emma Kratochvilova and Thomas Weimann give a global perspective on arbitrating construction and infrastructure disputes.
Dominic Roughton and Andrew Cannon consider the impact of territory and maritime boundary disputes on commercial investments and the role of private actors and states in their resolution.
Peter Leon and Ben Winks give their view from Johannesburg on the future of arbitration in South Africa.
Vanessa Naish and Hannah Ambrose take a practical look at the effect of Brexit on dispute resolution choices, both now and in the future.
Andrew Cannon talks about his experience working at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and how it has shaped his public international law practice.
The full digital edition can be downloaded in PDF by clicking on this link.
We hope that you enjoy reading Issue #2 of Inside Arbitration. We would welcome your feedback.