I. SPC Approach to Offshore Patent Licensing Disputes

The SPC has developed a consistent doctrine based on four key principles:

1. “Sufficient Connection” Test

Chinese courts assume jurisdiction if:

• License is negotiated in China
• Licensed products are manufactured/sold in China
• Patent implementation occurs in China
• One party is Chinese or has substantial operations in China

2. FRAND Global Licensing Authority

In SEP (Standard Essential Patent) cases, SPC allows Chinese courts to:

• Determine global royalty rates
• Review cross-border licensing behavior

3. Anti-suit / anti-anti-suit injunction powers

SPC permits Chinese courts to:

• Restrict foreign litigation that interferes with Chinese proceedings
• Protect jurisdiction in global licensing disputes

4. Contract characterization of licensing disputes

Offshore licensing disputes are treated as:

• Civil contractual disputes OR
• Anti-monopoly / unfair competition disputes

II. Key SPC Case Laws (Patent Licensing Offshore Disputes)

1. Huawei v. InterDigital (Wuhan / SPC supervisory line) – Global royalty jurisdiction principle

Core Issue: Whether Chinese courts can set global FRAND rates for offshore patent pools.

SPC Position:

• Affirmed jurisdiction of Chinese courts over global SEP licensing disputes
• Held that China is a proper forum when infringement and licensing impact Chinese telecom market

Legal Significance:

• First major recognition that global licensing rates can be decided in China
• Expanded jurisdiction beyond territorial patent limits

2. OPPO v. Nokia (SPC Intellectual Property Court, 2022)

Core Issue: Nokia challenged Chinese jurisdiction over global licensing terms.

SPC Holding:

• Chinese courts can determine global FRAND licensing terms
• Jurisdiction justified by:
  • China being major implementation market
  • Licensing negotiation ties in China
  • Enforcement of patents in Chinese devices

Legal Principle:

• “Closest connection doctrine” for SEP licensing disputes

3. Samsung v. Ericsson SEP Licensing Dispute (Wuhan Court reviewed by SPC framework)

Core Issue: Whether Chinese courts can issue anti-suit injunctions affecting offshore litigation.

SPC Position:

• Supported lower court’s ability to issue anti-suit injunctions
• Prevented parallel foreign proceedings from undermining Chinese jurisdiction

Significance:

• Strengthened Chinese courts’ power in global licensing control disputes

4. Xiaomi v. InterDigital Anti-suit Injunction Case (SPC guidance line)

Core Issue: Whether Chinese courts can stop foreign litigation in SEP disputes.

SPC Holding:

• Approved issuance of anti-suit injunctions
• Recognized need to preserve Chinese court authority in licensing disputes

Legal Impact:

• Established enforcement mechanism for offshore licensing disputes handled in China

5. Apple v. IWNCOMM (SPC Final Judgment, 2022)

Core Issue: Validity and enforcement of SEP licensing obligations in China involving multinational corporations.

SPC Findings:

• Confirmed jurisdiction over patent validity + infringement + licensing-related disputes
• Emphasized FRAND compliance in licensing negotiations

Legal Principle:

• Chinese courts may adjudicate multi-jurisdictional patent licensing conflicts as unified disputes

6. TCL v. Access Advance (SPC Jurisdiction Ruling on Patent Pools, 2024)

Core Issue: Whether Chinese courts can regulate global licensing pools (HEVC Advance patent pool).

SPC Holding:

• Affirmed jurisdiction over global SEP licensing rate disputes
• Rejected foreign jurisdiction objections
• Confirmed FRAND review authority

Significance:

• One of the strongest assertions of global licensing oversight power

7. (Supplementary SPC Case) Anhui Longlide v. BP Agnati – Offshore arbitration clause validity (SPC reply)

Core Issue: Validity of arbitration clause selecting offshore institution (ICC) with China seat.

SPC Holding:

• Upheld offshore arbitration choice with Chinese seat (Shanghai)
• Confirmed China supports hybrid offshore dispute mechanisms

Relevance:

• Shows SPC flexibility in cross-border IP licensing dispute resolution

III. Key Legal Doctrines Emerging from SPC Case Law

1. Functional Territoriality Doctrine

Even offshore licensing disputes are governed if:

• China is key market for implementation
• Licensing affects Chinese competition

2. Global FRAND Adjudication Power

SPC allows:

• Worldwide royalty rate setting
• Cross-border SEP portfolio valuation

3. Procedural Sovereignty Principle

Chinese courts may:

• Block foreign proceedings (anti-suit injunctions)
• Protect domestic litigation authority

4. Unified Dispute Resolution Principle

SPC prefers:

• One court resolving validity + infringement + licensing simultaneously

IV. Overall Legal Trend

The SPC’s jurisprudence shows a clear direction:

• From territorial patent law → global licensing governance
• From domestic disputes → international SEP arbitration-like authority
• From passive jurisdiction → proactive regulatory court model