A continuing dispute between China and the European Union over intellectual property rights has brought Chinese court practices involving technology patents under scrutiny at the World Trade Organization (WTO). The dispute focuses particularly on standard-essential patents (SEPs) used in technologies such as 3G, 4G and 5G. In July 2025, a WTO appeal arbitrator found that China’s policy allowing its courts to issue certain anti-suit injunctions was inconsistent with obligations under the WTO’s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). In April 2026, the European Commission said China had announced the withdrawal of the policy.Key HighlightsThe China-EU dispute concerns intellectual property rights and technology patents.The WTO appeal arbitrator found China's anti-suit injunction policy inconsistent with TRIPS obligations.The dispute involves standard-essential patents used in technologies including 3G, 4G and 5G.China later announced the withdrawal of the anti-suit injunction policy.The EU has also initiated a separate WTO dispute over worldwide patent licensing terms.The European Commission says it will continue monitoring China's compliance. What Is the China Intellectual Property Dispute? The dispute, known as DS611: China – Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights, concerns how Chinese courts handled disputes involving standard-essential patents. SEPs are patents covering technologies that are essential for products to comply with technical standards. They are particularly important in telecommunications and mobile technology. The EU argued that Chinese courts were using anti-suit injunctions to prevent patent holders from pursuing related cases outside China. According to the WTO case record, Chinese courts issued such injunctions in several SEP disputes beginning in 2020. Why Did the EU Challenge China? The European Union argued that these practices could restrict companies from exercising patent rights granted in other countries. An anti-suit injunction can order a party involved in litigation not to start or continue related proceedings in another jurisdiction. The EU argued that China's use of these measures interfered with the ability of European patent holders to enforce their rights outside China. The dispute became particularly significant for companies holding telecommunications patents, where the same technology may be protected by patents in multiple countries. What Did the WTO Decide? The WTO panel's initial ruling in April 2025 did not accept all of the EU's claims concerning China's intellectual-property obligations, although it found China had failed to meet certain transparency requirements. The EU appealed the panel's findings. In July 2025, the WTO appeal arbitrator changed part of that outcome. It found that China's anti-suit injunction policy was inconsistent with the TRIPS Agreement because it frustrated the ability of holders of standard-essential patents to exercise certain exclusive rights and negotiate licensing arrangements. The arbitrator also upheld findings concerning China's transparency obligations relating to intellectual-property matters. China Later Announced Withdrawal of the Policy Following the WTO ruling, China informed the WTO that it had withdrawn the anti-suit injunction policy. The European Commission reported in April 2026 that China referred to a notice issued by China's Supreme People's Court on September 23, 2025. The European Commission said it would continue monitoring implementation to determine whether China fully complies with the WTO ruling. A Separate Dispute Over Global Patent Royalties The intellectual-property disagreement has not ended with DS611. In February 2026, the EU requested the establishment of another WTO panel concerning China’s worldwide licensing terms for standard-essential patents. The EU argues that Chinese courts can set worldwide licensing conditions, including royalty rates, for patent portfolios containing non-Chinese patents. The EU says this can affect how European technology companies negotiate licensing agreements for patents used in global products. The WTO process in this second dispute, known as DS632, is separate from the earlier anti-suit injunction case. Why Intellectual Property Rights Matter Intellectual property rights are particularly important in technology industries because companies invest heavily in research and development. Patents give innovators legal rights over inventions for a defined period and provide a framework for licensing those technologies. The China-EU dispute illustrates the challenges that can arise when patent portfolios cover multiple jurisdictions. Patent rights are generally territorial, while modern technologies such as mobile communications operate across international markets. The WTO proceedings therefore have implications beyond the individual companies involved, particularly for international technology licensing and enforcement. What Happens Next? China's withdrawal of the anti-suit injunction policy addresses one major issue raised in DS611, but the European Commission has said it will continue monitoring compliance. Meanwhile, the separate DS632 dispute over worldwide licensing conditions represents another point of disagreement between China and the EU over intellectual property enforcement. The cases demonstrate how disputes over patents, technology licensing and national court powers can develop into broader international trade disputes under WTO rules.
