This article analyzes the growing use of anti-suit injunctions (ASIs) in standard-essential patent (SEP) disputes and the resulting procedural fragmentation in transnational litigation. It argues that ASIs have been increasingly weaponized by courts to secure jurisdictional advantage, triggering institutional distrust and escalating judicial conflict. Drawing on a comparative study of practices in the UK, US, China, and Germany, the article shows that divergences in ASI issuance reflect deeper legal traditions and judicial role conceptions, rather than purely strategic behavior. Adopting a constructivist approach, the article reframes SEP-related ASI disputes as conflicts of institutional identity, normative constraint, and procedural expectation. It proposes a three-tiered response: refining domestic ASI rules, restoring the normative force of international comity, and fostering judicial self-reflection on cross-border conduct. This framework seeks to restore procedural discipline and rebuild trust in the governance of global SEP litigation.
Kaiheng Hu (Thu,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: