monopolistic conduct

Subscribe to monopolistic conduct via RSS

By Susan Ning and Ding Liang King & Wood Mallesons’ Antitrust Group

The Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Civil Dispute Cases Arising from Monopolistic Conduct (“Anti-Monopoly Judicial Interpretation”), as adopted at the 1539th Session of the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People’s Court (“SPC”) in January 2012, were issued on May 3, 2012 and came into force on June 1, 2012. The Anti-Monopoly Judicial Interpretationreflects important experience accumulated in the judicial practice of monopoly civil disputes and is expected to play an important role in monopoly civil dispute cases. This article will briefly discuss the key issues involved in the Anti-Monopoly Judicial Interpretation. 

I .The Drafting Background of the Anti-Monopoly Judicial Interpretation
Continue Reading Commentary on the Anti-Monopoly Judicial Interpretation

作者：宁宣凤 丁亮 金杜律师事务所反垄断组

《最高人民法院关于审理因垄断行为引发的民事纠纷案件应用法律若干问题的规定》（以下简称“反垄断司法解释”）已于2012年1月30日由最高人民法院审判委员会第1539次会议通过，于2012年5月3日公布，自2012年6月1日起施行。《反垄断司法解释》凝结了垄断民事纠纷案司法实践中积累的一些重要经验，将在未来垄断民事纠纷案中起到重要作用。本文将对《反垄断司法解释》所涉及的重要内容做简要的梳理和评述。

一、《反垄断司法解释》的起草背景

早在2008年8月1日《反垄断法》正式实施后，最高人民法院就已开始着手准备垄断民事纠纷案所能出现的各种问题。2008年10月24日，最高人民法院在天津召开研讨会，讨论人民法院在审理垄断民事纠纷案中急需解决的问题。
Continue Reading 反垄断司法解释评述

By Liu Cheng  Martyn Huckerby and Yu Chenchen  King & Wood Mallesons’ M&A Group

Whether a resale price maintenance (“RPM”) provision is deemed to infringe the Anti-Monopoly Law (“AML”)[1] regardless of whether it has an impact on competition has been one of the most cloudy issues under the AML since the law came into effect in 2008. A recent decision by the Shanghai No.1 Intermediate People’s Court (“Shanghai Court”) has found that for RPM to infringe the AML it must have an adverse impact on competition. While it is still too early to say if this court decision will be followed by other Chinese courts, the decision provides valuable guidance for companies when considering how the AML will apply to their distribution agreements in China.Continue Reading Resale Price Maintenance – Not Per Se Illegal Under the AML

作者：刘成  贺墨亭 俞珍珍   金杜律师事务所并购组

自从《中华人民共和国反垄断法》[1]（“《反垄断法》”）实施以来，关于“无论限定转售价格条款对竞争有无影响，均被视为违反《反垄断法》”这一问题，始终是《反垄断法》中几个最不明确的问题之一。但是近日，上海市第一中级人民法院（“上海一中院”）作出的一项判决表示，要认定限定转售价格条款违反《反垄断法》，必须证明该条款对竞争产生了不利影响。尽管目前还很难说上海一中院的这一判决能否得到中国其他法院的认可和遵循，但总的来说，这一判决对于各个公司考察《反垄断法》如何适用于其在中国的经销协议，将发挥重要的指导作用。

 案件事实和法院判决

本案的争议双方是强生（上海）医疗器材有限公司和强生（中国）医疗器材有限公司（合称“强生”）与它们的一位经销商—北京锐邦涌和科贸有限公司（“锐邦”），争议在于强生经销合同中限定最低转售价格的条款。
Continue Reading 限定转售价格–《反垄断法》下并非本身违法的情形