By Susan Ning, Ding Liang, Liu Jia and Sun Yiming

On November 14, the National Development and Reform Commission ("NDRC") announced its decision to fine two private pharmaceutical companies nearly RMB 7 million for violating the Anti-monopoly Law ("AML")1. The penalty decision was released right after the NDRC publicly confirmed its investigation over China Telecom and China Union for alleged abuse of dominance in the broadband market. It seemed that the NDRC could not wait to show its determination to enforce the AML with another striking case.Continue Reading NDRC Fined Two Pharmaceutical Companies for Abusive Conducts

By Susan Ning, Sun Yiming, Liu Jia and Yin Ranran

On 2 December 2011, China Telecom and China Unicom announced that they have applied to the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) for suspension of its antitrust investigation into their internet access pricing practices, by promising to adjust the internet access prices and overhaul their broadband services.

According to their announcements 1, China Telecom and China Unicom stated that they have proactively cooperated with the NDRC’s investigation and have engaged in "self-evaluation" of the challenged pricing practices.  Both companies acknowledged "room for improvement" for their interconnection services and pricing practices.Continue Reading China Telecom and China Unicom Seek to Settle Antitrust Probe

By Susan Ning, Sun Yiming and Liu Jia

On November 9, 2011, an earlier rumor indicating that China Telecom is under antitrust investigation for alleged abuse of dominance in the broadband market was confirmed by the National Development and Reform Commission ("NDRC"), the authority in charge of price-related breaches of the Anti-Monopoly Law ("AML").  This is by  far the first time for China’s antitrust enforcement authority to conduct an antitrust investigation on large state-owned companies.  It is speculated that billions of antitrust fines could possibly be levied if the violation is established.

This article is a follow-up of our previous article entitled "Chinese Antitrust Enforcement Agencies Ready to Show Teeth to Large State-owned Enterprises? ", which includes a comprehensive analysis of the claimed violation.Continue Reading Earlier Rumor Confirmed: China Telecom and China Unicom under Antitrust Investigation

By Susan Ning and Huang Jing

On 7 September 2011, the Shanxi Combined Transportation Group Company (SCTG) filed an administrative law suit with the Taiyuan Xinghualing District People’s Court against the Taiyuan Bureau of Railways (the "SCTG Case"). On 15 September 2011, the Taiyuan Xinghualing District People’s Court accepted the SCTG Case.

SCTG alleged that it had submitted two applications to the Taiyuan Bureau of Railways for establishing new railway ticket agent stores on 25 January 2011; but Taiyuan Bureau of Railways did not respond to such applications.  According to SCTG, Taiyuan Bureau of Railways’ conduct was a violation of the Anti-monopoly Law (AML), and constituted administrative omission.   Thus SCTG filed the administrative lawsuit.Continue Reading Taiyuan Bureau of Railways Sued for Antitrust Violation

By Susan Ning, Sun Yiming and Liu Jia

Most recently, the hottest  topic on China’s Anti-monopoly Law (AML) is a piece of news spreading on the internet, indicating that China Telecom, one of China’s largest state-owned enterprises is under antitrust investigation conducted by a "relevant" competition authority for its suspected abuse of dominance in broadband market. If the abuse is successfully established, China Telecom may face huge fines under the AML. The news is also quoted by Xinhuanet.com, an authoritative website run by the government. However there has been no formal response from China Telecom or any competition authorities so far in this respect.

This article outlines details to do with China Telecom’s conduct and examines whether or to what extent such conduct would be considered as an abuse of dominance and thus in violation of the AML.
 Continue Reading Chinese Antitrust Enforcement Agencies Ready to Show Teeth to Large State-owned Enterprises?

By Susan Ning and Ding Liang, King & Wood’s Competition Group

In September 2010, Wuxi Baocheng Vehicle Cylinder Inspection Co. Ltd (WB) filed a civil suit to against Wuxi China Resources Gas Co., Ltd (WCR), alleging that the latter abused its dominance, in breach of the Anti-Monopoly Law (AML) (the “WB-WCR case”). WB is engaged in the business of inspecting and installing compressed natural gas vehicle cylinders. WCR owns and operates natural gas filling stations. WB alleged that WCR abused its dominance by refusing to fill natural gas for a vehicle that was installed with a natural gas cylinder installed by WB, in breach of Article 17(3) of the AML. (1)

Continue Reading Natural Gas Cylinders and Abuse of Dominance

By Susan Ning and Ding Liang, King & Wood’s Competition Group

In late August 2010, it was reported in the press that at least 10 antitrust private actions have been heard in the courts in China (see Two years on, ten private antitrust actions). This article describes one of the cases – Huzhou Yiting Termite Prevention Service Co., Ltd vs. Huzhou Termite Prevention Research Institute (an alleged abuse of dominance case) – in detail.Continue Reading Termites and Abuse of Dominance

By Susan Ning, Ding Liang and Angie Ng, King & Wood’s Competition Practice

In late August 2010, it was reported in the press that at least 10 antitrust private actions have been heard in the courts in China (see Two years on, ten private antitrust actions).This article describes one of the cases – Li Fangping vs China Netcom – in detail. This was thContinue Reading Li Fangping vs China Netcom – Abuse of Dominance Case Dismissed

At first glance, the goals of intellectual property law and competition law might appear to conflict. IPR owners are granted statutory rights to control access and charge monopoly rents to others for use of their rights. IPR owners may also use terms of IPR licences to regulate downstream activities of their distributors, such as imposing exclusivity, territorial restraints and price restraints. Competition law, on the other hand, is directed at curtailing such market power which may prove harmful to economic welfare.
Continue Reading Intersect Between Intellectual Property Law And Competition Law