With regard to the procedures for filing a third-party action before a court, Article 56 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “[t]… considers that he is independently entitled to the object of the action of both parties, who have the right to take legal action.” In addition, Article 2 of the provisions of the Supreme People`s Court on certain matters relating to the application of the law in civil dispute hearings arising from monopoly laws provides that “the People`s Court accepts a civil action filed directly by an applicant or filed by an applicant, after a decision of the anti-monopoly enforcement authority has taken effect , confirming the act in question as monopolistic behaviour. as long as such action meets other statutory case acceptance conditions.” In China`s antitrust system, there are no administrative regulations as in the United States or the EU. However, Article 45 of the Anti-Monopoly Act provides that if the company concerned promises to eliminate the effects of the behaviour by applying concrete measures within the time agreed by the Authority, the Authority may decide to suspend the investigation when considering suspicious monopolistic behaviour. In 2017, a feed company filed a lawsuit against hainan Price Bureau and applied its 200,000 RMB penalty in a vertical monopoly case. The sanction decision was overturned by the trial court, the Haikou Intermediate Court, for finding that the applicant did not have sufficient market influence to limit competition. However, the second instance court, Hainan High Court, overturned the judgment of the first instance and upheld the decision of the Hainan Price Bureau. In December 2018, the Supreme People`s Court rejected the applicant`s request for a review of the procedure on the grounds that the law enforcement authorities would not have to demonstrate anti-competitive effects before declaring an agreement to maintain the resale price (“RPM”) illegal. It is up to the individual to show that the disputed agreement does not limit competition to invoke the exemption under section 15 of the AML.19 On April 7, 2015, SAIC defined the Safe Harbor regime for the first time in the provisions prohibiting the abuse of intellectual property rights to eliminate or restrict competition, which is currently fully applicable.
