Avoid the antitrust trap in Asia

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Cookies Settings

Avoid the antitrust trap in Asia

Are Chinese regulators unfairly targeting overseas companies for antitrust violations, in a bid to defend domestic industries?

nov2014cover-400.jpg

Don't get caught out in Asia

That’s certainly what the American Chamber of Commerce in China suggested, in a report published last month. It said members were concerned about “selective and subjective enforcement” and that companies were being forced to license patents at low royalty rates.

The concerns follow high-profile investigations into Qualcomm and InterDigital, as well as opposition in China and Korea to the Microsoft-Nokia merger.

In the cover story in Managing IP’s November issue, now available online, our Asia editor Peter Leung examines antitrust issues in Australia, India and China, and asks whether there is any truth to these perceptions and whether foreign companies are in fact soft targets.

It’s a complex story, and Peter provides a guide to the overlapping jurisdiction of China’s three government agencies with responsibility for competition law (Mofcom, the SAIC and the NDRC) as well as recent developments in Australia (the Harper Review) and India (where antitrust enforcement has been focused on copyright licensing and the automobile industry).

Peter blogged earlier this year about FRAND issues in China, but his latest analysis confirms that antitrust investigations can affect all IP owners, whatever rights they own and whatever industry they are in. The likelihood is that scrutiny in Asia will only increase as local economies grow and IP becomes more prominent. International rights owners need to be prepared.

Subscribers can read “Asian governments focus on IP and competition issues” now. Non-subscribers can access it with a free trial. Contact Bobby Dohil with any access enquiries.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Cabinet M Oproiu’s Raluca Vasilescu explains why AI is changing what clients expect from patent attorneys, where the technology is overhyped and what the next generation will need to do differently
As clients demand more flexible fees and AI-driven efficiencies, IP firms are rethinking pricing without abandoning the value of their work
HG Law was formed largely by ex Fish & Neave lawyers who left after the latter's merger with Ropes & Gray; now those experiences are shaping its latest combination
David Rodrigues and Evan Lazerowitz – attorneys at Robinson & Cole – offer practical guidance on the steps a business might consider to preserve and maximise IP value before entering financial distress or insolvency
Daniel Law CEO Alicia Daniel-Shores may have stepped into a family business, but she has spent two decades building her own vision around technology and litigation
Law firms don't particularly like saying no to clients. Perhaps they should get better at it
The office, which has a relatively new patent litigation team as well as a wider ‘soft’ IP offering, would remain independent if the rejection is rubberstamped
The IP boutique is betting that growing investment in quantum and semiconductors will fuel demand as technology shifts toward physical systems
Lawyers say the overhaul better reflects commercial reality, with changes spanning novelty searches, digital designs and access to a small claims track, but stopping short of criminalising unregistered design infringement
Carpmaels & Ransford hires its fourth partner of the year and wins access to UPC files, as fresh orders address costs, confidentiality and the use of divisional patents
Gift this article