On the July 21, 2025, the World Trade Organization (WTO) released an Award of the Article 25 of the DSU Arbitrator reversing the European Union’s (EU) loss that challenged China’s Anti-Suit Injunctions (ASIs) for Standard Essential Patents (SEPs). In August 2020, China’s Supreme People’s Court held that Chinese courts can prohibit patent holders from going to a non-Chinese court to enforce their patents by putting in place an “anti-suit injunction”. The Supreme People’s Court also held that violation of the order can be sanctioned with a 1 million RMB daily fine. Since then, Chinese courts have adopted several additional anti-suit injunctions against foreign patent holders leading to the EU filing a complaint on February 18, 2022, which led to a ruling on April 10, 2025 against the EU allowing for ASIs.

As summarized by the WTO:

The European Union challenged aspects of the Panel’s findings with respect to Article 1.1, first sentence of the TRIPS Agreement and also challenged the Panel’s findings with respect to Articles 28.1, 28.2, and 44.1 read in conjunction with Article 1.1, first sentence, as well as Article 41.1 of the TRIPS Agreement.

• With respect to Article 1.1, first sentence, the arbitrators considered that the Panel erred in its interpretation of the obligation in Article 1.1, first sentence to “give effect” to the provisions of the TRIPS Agreement in a WTO Member’s territory, and found that the corollary of that obligation is to do so without frustrating the functioning of the systems of protection and enforcement of IP rights implemented by other Members in their respective territories.
• With respect to Article 28.1, read in conjunction with Article 1.1, first sentence, the arbitrators considered that the Panel erred in finding that this obligation is limited to ensuring a patent owner’s exclusive rights in each Member’s domestic legal system and nothing more. Instead, the arbitrators found that Article 28.1, read in conjunction with Article 1.1, first sentence, requires that Members not frustrate a patent owner’s ability to exercise the exclusive rights conferred on it by another WTO Member under that provision, i.e. to prevent third parties not having the patent owner’s consent from making, using, offering for sale, selling, or importing the patented product. The arbitrators considered the European Union’s request to complete the analysis with respect to ASI policy and found that the European Union had demonstrated that the ASI policy is inconsistent with Article 28.1, read in conjunction with Article 1.1, first sentence.
• With respect to Article 28.2, read in conjunction with Article 1.1, first sentence, the arbitrators considered that the Panel erred in finding that this obligation is limited to ensuring a patent owner’s “right… to conclude licensing contracts” in each Member’s domestic legal system and nothing more. Instead, the arbitrators found that Article 28.2, read in conjunction with Article 1.1, first sentence, requires that Members not frustrate a patent owner’s ability to exercise its “right… to conclude licensing contracts” as conferred in the territory of another WTO Member under that provision. The arbitrators considered the European Union’s request to complete the analysis with respect to ASI policy and found that the European Union had demonstrated that the ASI policy is inconsistent with Article 28.2, read in conjunction with Article 1.1, first sentence.
• With respect to Article 44.1, read in conjunction with Article 1.1, first sentence, the arbitrators upheld the Panel’s finding, albeit for different reasons, that the European Union had not demonstrated that the ASI policy is inconsistent with Article 44.1, read in conjunction with Article 1.1, first sentence.
• With respect to Article 41.1, the arbitrators upheld the Panel’s finding that the obligation in the second sentence of Article 41.1 is not applicable to the ASI policy, as the ASI policy is not an enforcement procedure as specified in Part III of the TRIPS Agreement.

China challenged the Panel’s application of the legal standard for the existence of an unwritten measure with respect to the ASI policy, and also challenged the Panel’s finding with respect to the case Xiaomi v. InterDigital under Article 63.1 of the TRIPS Agreement.

• With respect to the Panel’s application of the legal standard for the existence of an unwritten measure, the arbitrators upheld the Panel’s finding that the European Union had provided sufficient evidence and argumentation to demonstrate the existence of the ASI policy and that its specific nature is that of a rule or norm of general and prospective application.
• With respect to Article 63.1, the arbitrators upheld the Panel’s finding that the decision issuing an ASI in Xiaomi v. InterDigital, read together with the reconsideration decision in the same case, is a judicial decision “of general application” within the meaning of Article 63.1 of the TRIPS Agreement.

The full text of the decision is available here (English, French and Spanish).