United States: U.S. Ramps Up Criticism Of China’s Enforcement Of Its Antitrust Laws Against Foreign Companies

Last Updated: October 22 2014
Article by David M. Goldstein

I.  Introduction

For some time, many in the antitrust community have expressed concerns about how China is enforcing its antitrust laws against foreign companies. The past several months have seen a steady stream of criticism from the United States that in certain areas—notably, dominant firm conduct, intellectual property rights and mergers—China is selectively enforcing its antitrust laws outside of international norms in order to protect domestic industries. The criticism includes pointed complaints, comments and recommendations from the U.S. enforcement agencies, U.S. business groups and antitrust practitioners. This article provides a brief overview of some of the comments and recommendations being offered to the Chinese government.

II. Discussion

The FTC and DOJ

On Sept. 10, 2014, U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chairwoman Edith Ramirez gave a speech entitled "Standard-Essential Patents and Licensing: An Antitrust Enforcement Perspective."1 Among other topics, Ramirez explained that in the area of SEP licensing, the FTC and the European Union (EU) recently have taken similar approaches with respect to FRAND (Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory)-encumbered SEPs. In short, they have brought enforcement actions based on a patent holder's alleged breach of a voluntary license agreement by seeking injunctions against willing licensees; the agencies have not, however, pursued enforcement actions based on particular royalty terms and they have not precluded the availability of injunctive relief where a licensee is unwilling or unable to abide by the terms of a license for FRAND-encumbered patents. But China, Ramirez explained, appears to be taking a different course and seems to be willing to impose liability based solely on what it perceives to be unfair royalty terms a patent owner demands for a license to its FRAND-encumbered SEPs, as well as on royalty demands for licenses for patents that might not be subject to a voluntary FRAND commitment. Ramirez expressed "serious concern" that China's approach suggests "an enforcement policy focused on reducing royalty payments for local implementers as a matter of industrial policy, rather than protecting competition and long-run consumer welfare."2

Two days later, Bill Baer, assistant attorney general for the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), gave a speech entitled, "International Antitrust Enforcement: Progress Made; Work To Be Done."3 Among other things, he said that he shared Ramirez's concern regarding antitrust regimes (i.e., China) that appear to be advancing industrial policy goals by "imposing liability solely based on the royalty terms that a patent owner demands for a license," and the apparent forced adoption of a specific royalty rate that is not necessary to remedy the actual harm to competition.4

These comments were precursors to FTC Commissioner Maureen K. Ohlhausen's Sept. 16, 2014 speech entitled, "Antitrust Enforcement in China—What Next?"5 Ohlhausen focused on two areas where China may be moving away from, rather than towards, international norms in antitrust enforcement. She repeated the FTC Chairwoman Ramirez's point that China appears to be operating outside international norms with respect to antitrust and intellectual property rights, including licensing practices and SEPs. Ohlhausen focused on the efforts of China's State Administration for Industry and Commerce (SAIC) to issue guidelines with respect to the intersection of antitrust law and intellectual property rights, noting that the most recent draft Guidelines (the eighth draft), which were issued this past summer, contain several sections that deviate from international norms regarding the treatment of intellectual property. For example, China appears to want to apply the essential facilities doctrine to patents in the standard-setting context. Of greater concern, China appears willing to apply the essential facilities doctrine to all potentially relevant patents, including patents that were not voluntarily contributed to a standard-setting body. Ramirez had noted this same issue.

In addition to noting divergence with respect to intellectual property rights, Ohlhausen discussed the apparent trend in China to focus on non-competition factors in analyzing mergers and acquisitions, and what she described as "a growing chorus claiming that the Chinese are using the AML to promote industrial policy."6 She explained that the Anti-Monopoly Law (AML) expressly provides for consideration of non-competition factors, that the legislative history of the AML lends support to the notion that the law may be used to protect and promote domestic industry, and that recent data suggest that China is using the AML to do so. She emphasized that she hoped that "future merger analyses from MOFCOM will be more robustly tethered to existing legal and economic norms and contain abundant supporting evidence, including econometric work."7

The Obama Administration

The White House is also ramping up criticism of China's enforcement of its antitrust laws. The Wall Street Journal reported on Sept. 14, 2014, that Jack Lew, that U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, sent a letter to China's Vice-Premier Wang Yang, his counterpart, regarding recent high-profile investigations of foreign companies, including U.S. companies. Although the letter is not public, it reportedly said that China's focus on foreign companies could devalue foreign intellectual property, and warned that China's conduct could affect relations between the two countries.8

Business Groups and Associations

The U.S. enforcement agencies and the Administration are not alone in expressing concern with China's enforcement of the AML—the business community is also concerned. In fact, of course, complaints from the business community are at least one reason the enforcement agencies and the Administration have been speaking out recently.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce released a report on Sept. 8, 2014, entitled, "Competing Interests in China's Competition Law Enforcement: China's Anti-Monopoly Law Application and the Role of Industrial Policy."9 The report is a thorough review of China's prioritization of industrial policy over competition law; merger review, which seems designed to support domestic industries; the use of competition law to constrain the exercise of intellectual property rights; and systemic flaws in the judicial system, including lack of independence and transparency. "AML remedies often appear designed to advance industrial policy and boost national champions," the report states. "[The antitrust enforcement authorities] rely insufficiently on sound economic analysis, intellectual property rights have been curtailed in the name of competition law, and AML enforcement suffers from procedural and due process shortcomings. These patterns in AML enforcement give rise to growing concern about the quality and fairness of enforcement, and they raise legitimate questions about China's commitment to the global antitrust commons."10 The report offers several recommendations to the Chinese government, including: 1) officially endorsing principles of competition law, protection of intellectual property rights and due process to bring the AML in line with international norms; 2) insulating AML enforcement activity from political pressures; and 3) continuing to accelerate judicial reforms.

The Chamber continued these themes in testimony it gave on Oct. 1, 2014, before the Office of the United States Trade Representative in connection with its "Hearing on China's Implementation of and Compliance with Its Commitments to the World Trade Organization."11 The Chamber argued that "[r]ecent developments suggest that Chinese authorities are using a variety of policy tools—including competition law, technology standards and IP policies—to limit prices of foreign companies' goods and IP, while protecting and promoting domestic Chinese companies and clearing the way for national champions to emerge, consolidate market power and flourish, often at the expense of their foreign competitors, in certain key sectors."12

Other business groups and associations have expressed similar concerns. The US-China Business Council released a report in September 2014 called "Competition Policy and Enforcement in China."13 It underscores the widely held view among non-Chinese companies that Chinese authorities enforce the AML in a biased manner against them. It raises questions such as whether the AML is being used to protect domestic industry and to force foreign companies to lower prices. The report provides many specific recommendations in areas such as ensuring fair treatment and nondiscrimination, providing due process and regulatory transparency, shortening the time for merger review, committing to eschew non-competition factors in competition enforcement, improving the determination and application of remedies and fines, and clarifying that the rule of reason applies to alleged monopoly agreements.

The American Bar Association

Finally, the Antitrust, Intellectual Property and International Law sections of the American Bar Association recently submitted comments on the SAIC's June 23, 2014 Draft for Comments of the Rules on Prohibiting Abuse of Intellectual Property Rights to Eliminate or Restrict Competition.14 The ABA sections offered a host of proposed revisions to address areas where the proposed rules deviate from international norms, some of which were mentioned in the speeches noted above by FTC and DOJ officials. Key recommendations included the following:

  • Article 2, which recognizes that the AML applies only to conduct that abuses intellectual property rights and results in the elimination or restriction of competition, should be incorporated throughout the rules.
  • Article 7, which appears to endorse application of the essential facilities doctrine to intellectual property rights including but not limited to SEPs, should be omitted.
  • Article 8, which concerns exclusive dealing, should be clarified to state that the SAIC must establish that the conduct resulted in the elimination or unreasonable restriction of competition and is without justification.
  • Article 11, which prohibits undertakings with dominant market positions from treating counterparts of same conditions in a discriminatory manner, should be revised to prohibit such conduct only if it eliminates or restricts competition and is without justification.
  • Article 12, which concerns patent pools, should be clarified to make clear that the rule of reason applies to all aspects of patent pools, because the current draft appears to classify certain patent pool conduct as per se unlawful and puts the burden on patent pool members to prove that the patent pool agreements are in compliance with the AML. The comments refer the Chinese authorities to the DOJ's patent pool Business Review Letters as a resource.15
  • Article 13, which concerns SEPs, was criticized for possibly requiring a non-member of a standard-setting organization to disclose SEPs, and also for prohibiting a patent holder from failing to offer FRAND terms regardless of whether the patent holder had participated in the SSO and made such a commitment, or whether the SSO required a FRAND commitment. The comments suggested abandoning the current draft of Article 13 and returning to the 2013 draft of the Rules, which was more consistent with international norms.

III. Conclusion

There is broad-based and consistent criticism regarding China's enforcement of its antitrust laws against foreign firms. Critics generally recognize, however, that the AML is only a few years old, and China does not have decades of experience and tradition to inform its implementation and enforcement of the Law. In that light, recent criticism can be seen as well-intentioned and valuable commentary to assist Chinese authorities in taking corrective steps to align its antitrust enforcement policies, standards and practices with international norms. It may be premature to assess China's reaction, but on Sept. 11, 2014, representatives from China's three antitrust enforcement agencies—NDRC, MOFCOM and SAIC—held a press conference to defend their enforcement efforts, arguing that they have not been targeting foreign firms.16 China's antitrust enforcement work "is strictly conducted according to regulations," said Xu Kunlin, director general of the NDRC's Price Supervision and Inspection and Anti-Monopoly Bureau. "It is fair and transparent. It is not targeting any market player, and of course, it is not targeting any foreign invested or foreign enterprises."17 Thus, it remains to be seen whether recent criticism, commentary and advice will help moderate China's antitrust enforcement policies and practices against foreign firms.

Footnotes

1. http://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/582451/140915georgetownlaw.pdf

2. Id. at 9.

3. http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/speeches/308592.pdf

4. Id. at 7-8.

5. http://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/582501/140915gcrlive.pdf

6. Id. at 3.

7. Id. at 7-8.

8. http://online.wsj.com/articles/u-s-treasury-warns-china-over-antimonopoly-efforts-1410687635

9. https://www.uschamber.com/sites/default/files/aml_final_090814_final_locked.pdf

10. Id. at ii.

11. http://s3.amazonaws.com/cdn.orrick.com/files/chamberremarks10.1.14.pdf.

12. Id. at 8.

13. http://uschina.org/sites/default/files/AML%202014%20Report%20FINAL_0.pdf

14. http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/antitrust_law/at_comments_
201410eu.authcheckdam.pdf

15. See Letter from William J . Baer, Assistant Att'y General, Antitrust Div., U.S. Dep't of Justice to Garrard R. Beeney, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, at n.40 (Mar. 26, 2013), available at http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/busreview/295151.htm

16. http://news.yahoo.com/chinas-antitrust-regulators-defend-probes-qualcomm-inquiry-nearly-112912025–sector.html; http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/11/china-antitrust-idUSL3N0RC2MY20140911

17. Id. at 1.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Events from this Firm
21 Nov 2018, Seminar, New York, United States

“Big data” is changing our economy. It has allowed Amazon, Google, Facebook and many others to redesign traditional business models and to create new or improved products and services with greater utility for consumers and often at very little cost.

24 Nov 2018, Speaking Engagement, New York, United States

Each year, the New York Region of IFA hosts a panel and reception at the NYU Law School. This year’s panel will include a discussion of the TCJA international provisions.

27 Nov 2018, Speaking Engagement, New York, United States

Employment Managing Associates, Alexandra Stathpoulos and Alexandra Heifetz are presenting at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law’s FORM+FUND Series.

 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions