1.Liu Dahua v. Hunan Huayuan Industrial Co., Ltd., Dongfeng Motor Co., Ltd., and Dongfeng Nissan Passenger Vehicle Co. (appeal of monopoly dispute)

[Judgment Abstract]

Abusing a dominant market position is monopolistic behavior. The term “dominant market position” refers to a market position by which a business operator is able to control the price, quantity or other trade terms of a product in the relevant market. Therefore, in a dispute over abuse of a dominant market position, it is necessary to define the relevant market to determine whether a business operator has a dominant position. Defining the relevant market is to be undertaken by: (1) preliminarily determining the scope of the relevant market based on the products involved in the dispute; (2) after preliminarily determining the scope of the relevant market, appropriately subdivide the market based on the general views within the industry and by the public; and (3) incorporate the product’s interchangeability, with products that possess close interchangeability placed in the same market. After analyzing these three aspects, a final determination can be made on the scope of the “relevant market.”

2.Huawei Technology Co., Ltd. v. Inter Digital Corporation (appeal over standard essential patent royalty fees)

[Judgment Abstract]

If certain patent technology is generally adopted as a technical standard, the patent is called as “a standard essential patent”. The system of standard essential patent not only ensure the patent owner deserved return but also prevent the patent owner from demanding high royalty fees or unreasonable conditions. For this purpose, standardization groups developed corresponding provisions regarding standard essential patent license. FRAND is one of them. According to the FRAND principles, a patent owner shall undertake to grant authorization at a reasonable and non-discriminatory term, but may not reject goodwill users of the standard who would pay reasonable royalty fees. Therefore, where a user of the standard essential patent cannot reach agreement with the patent owner on royalty fees, to avoid the patent owner from abusing the patent rights, the user may sue in a court for confirmation of royalty fees, and the court shall determine a reasonable royalty and order the patent owner to authorize the use of the patent.

3.Wu Xiaoqin v. Shaanxi BC & TV Network (Group) Co., Ltd. (Case about dispute over bundled transaction)

[Judgment Abstract]

a. As the only operator engaging in the legal business operation of cable TV transmission business and an entity engaging in the centralized broadcast control of TV programs in a specific area, it has advantages in market access, market share, operating status, operation scale, and other elements. It may be recognized that the operator has a dominant market position.

b. By making advantage of its dominant market position, the operator bundles the basic maintenance fee for receiving digital TV programs with the fee for paid digital TV programs and charges a consumer the fees together, which has infringed upon the consumer's right of choice and is prejudicial to other service providers accessing the digital TV service market. Even though the operator falls under exceptions where it separately charges the two service items, it is insufficient to deny that its acts constitute tie-in sale as prohibited by the Anti-Monopoly Law.

From：www.chinalawinfo.com