Oppo v Sharp (SPC, (2020) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Min Xia Zhong No. 517, 2021)

Dhenne Avocats · 11 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

The Intellectual Property Tribunal of the Supreme People’s Court of China dismissed the appeal of Sharp and ScienBiziP Japan against the ruling upholding the jurisdiction of the Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court. That court may hear OPPO’s claim for breach of FRAND obligations and set the terms of a worldwide licence of Sharp’s Wi-Fi, 3G and 4G standard essential patents, without any agreement of the parties on the forum (reasons, points I to III; operative part).

The ruling accepts that a Chinese court may set worldwide SEP licence terms; it rests on the parties’ willingness to negotiate a worldwide licence and on the closer connection of the dispute with China (reasons, point III).

Facts and procedure

On 10 July 2018 Sharp and ScienBiziP Japan sent OPPO a patent list including 645 3G and 4G families, 555 of them Chinese; at a meeting on 19 February 2019 at OPPO’s Shenzhen offices they proposed a five-year worldwide non-exclusive licence (reasons, facts found I). At 31 December 2019 OPPO made 71.08% of its sales in China, 0.21% in Europe and 0.07% in Japan (ibid.). Sharp brought infringement actions in 2020 in Japan, Munich, Mannheim and Taiwan; for its part, OPPO sued in the Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court, which registered the case on 25 March 2020, for a declaration that Sharp had breached its FRAND obligations, for the setting of worldwide licence terms and for RMB 3 million (reasons, facts found II). On 16 October 2020 that court rejected the jurisdictional challenge.

The applicable law

Where a foreign defendant has neither domicile nor representative office in China, the Chinese courts have jurisdiction only if the dispute has an appropriate connection with China (reasons, point I). Parallel proceedings are governed by Article 533(1) of the Supreme People’s Court Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law, under which a foreign action does not prevent a competent Chinese court from hearing the case (reasons, point III).

Question

Do the Chinese courts have jurisdiction over a licensing dispute concerning a foreign holder’s standard essential patents, and may they set worldwide terms without any agreement of the parties on the forum?

Decision

An SEP licensing dispute has features of both contract and infringement, but its core is the request that the court set the licence terms; it is a special type of dispute of a relatively more contractual nature (reasons, point I). An appropriate connection with China is assessed by reference to the place where the patents were granted, the place of implementation, the place where the licence was concluded or negotiated, the place of performance and the location of attachable assets; a single one of these in China suffices. Here the portfolio includes Chinese patents, manufacturing takes place in China and the parties negotiated in Shenzhen (ibid.). The Shenzhen court has jurisdiction as the court of the place of implementation by OPPO’s Shenzhen branch and of the place of negotiation (reasons, point II).

It may also set worldwide terms: the parties wanted a worldwide licence, Sharp having proposed one itself, which supplies the factual basis; the dispute is more closely connected with China, where most of the patents, the bulk of implementation and revenue, the place of negotiation and OPPO’s enforceable assets are found. A forum agreement would suffice but is not a necessary condition (reasons, point III). Sharp’s foreign actions concern infringement of local patents and can only lead to damages, which differs from setting licence terms; they do not exclude Chinese jurisdiction (ibid.). ScienBiziP Japan, which took part in the negotiations, is a proper defendant, its other defences being for the merits (reasons, point IV).

Key points for practice

• A Chinese court will accept jurisdiction as soon as a single connecting factor, a Chinese patent, implementation, negotiation or attachable assets, is located in China (reasons, point I).
• A shared willingness to negotiate a worldwide licence, evidenced by the patentee’s own offer, supports the setting of worldwide terms (reasons, point III).
• Infringement actions brought abroad by the patentee do not bar a Chinese action to set licence terms (ibid.).
• Practical point: a worldwide licence offer made in China to an implementer whose business is concentrated there exposes the patentee to a worldwide rate set by a Chinese court (reasons, point III).

Provisions applied

National law

Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, Arts 18, 119, 127, 170(1)(i), 171 and 265; Supreme People’s Court Interpretation on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law, Art. 533(1)

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the text of the decision (website of the Intellectual Property Tribunal of the Supreme People’s Court, full Chinese text), consulted on 11 October 2026. Only the official text is authoritative.