China has withdrawn its policy on anti-suit injunctions in standard-essential patent (SEP) litigation, reversing course after the World Trade Organization ruled against Beijing in a dispute brought by the European Union.

The decision closes a chapter in one of the most closely watched trade and intellectual property confrontations between the two trading blocs. The EU had challenged China's approach at the WTO, arguing that the policy operated as a discriminatory barrier affecting foreign patent holders seeking to enforce their rights outside Chinese borders.

At the center of the dispute stood a practice under which Chinese courts issued anti-suit injunctions — orders barring SEP owners from pursuing infringement litigation in other jurisdictions. The policy gained prominence when Chinese courts threatened or imposed penalties on litigants who continued foreign proceedings, a tactic that drew sharp criticism from European industry and regulators alike.

The WTO panel sided with the European Union. In the wake of that ruling, Beijing has now formally pulled back the policy, according to a report by MLex.

What the withdrawal means

For practitioners, the practical consequences are significant. Multinational patent holders — particularly those in the telecommunications sector, where SEP disputes are most frequent — regain greater freedom to choose their enforcement forums. Litigants will face a reduced risk of Chinese anti-suit orders blocking parallel proceedings in European courts, a scenario that had previously forced strategic calculations about where, and whether, to file infringement claims.

The retreat also removes a point of friction in EU–China trade relations. European telecom companies had complained that the policy effectively confined global SEP enforcement to Chinese venues, where courts sometimes set global licensing rates on Chinese terms. With the policy withdrawn, licensing negotiations between SEP owners and implementers may proceed with less leverage attached to the threat of an anti-suit order backed by Chinese judicial authority.

Competition and trade lawyers will watch implementation closely. A policy withdrawal announced at the political level must be reflected in how Chinese courts handle future SEP cases, and practitioners will look for concrete evidence — the absence of new anti-suit injunctions, and the non-renewal of existing orders — before treating the change as settled practice.

The development marks a rare instance in which a WTO panel outcome has produced a direct, visible adjustment in Chinese judicial policy toward foreign intellectual property enforcement.