China: A TMT: Technology & Telecommunications (PRC Firms) Overview

Reshaping and Co-Prosperity: A Cross-Border Framework for Dispute Resolution and a New Landscape for Cross-Border Technology Transactions in the Chinese TMT Sector

Amid the wave of global technological revolution, the international flow of technology within the Technology, Media and Telecommunications (TMT) sector is undergoing structural transformation. The traditional linear model, primarily characterised by one-way transfer dominated by a few major communications equipment giants, is gradually evolving into a multi-centred, networked system of technology flow. The global participation in 5G standard-setting, the rapid development of open-source radio access network technologies, and the transnational deployment of cloud-native communication architectures all mark the innovation in the TMT sector into a new stage of open-innovation.

The deepening of technology flows also brings multiple challenges to legal practice. Issues such as the increasing complexity of cross-border dispute resolution and the hybridisation of transaction models are particularly prominent in the TMT sector. The inherently high-iterative and systemic nature of the technology further increases the difficulty of cross-border legal practice. Against this backdrop, establishing stable and predictable frameworks for technology co-operation and conducting strategic planning for dispute resolution have become key tasks for legal practitioners.

Towards mutual benefit: constructing a cross-border technology and communications dispute resolution framework

Cross-border disputes in the TMT sector often intertwine technical assessments, multi-jurisdictional legal research and commercial strategies, resulting in significant complexity. The types of cases have expanded from traditional intellectual property infringement disputes and technical analyses to include various causes of action such as standard essential patent licensing, cross-border challenges to patent validity, technology contract disputes and product quality disputes, often involving voluminous documentation and intersecting parallel proceedings across multiple forums.

In recent years, the complexity of cross-border technology disputes in the TMT sector has been reflected in various aspects, including litigation tactics and litigation objectives. The flexible use of measures such as injunctions, preliminary injunctions, interim licences, anti-suit injunctions and anti anti-suit injunctions in parallel proceedings in order to gain advantages within the global litigation landscape has become a common practice. In a recent series of technology contract and non-infringement declaratory judgment disputes in the communications sector handled by our team, the client ultimately secured a favourable outcome in the global context by leveraging cross-jurisdictional anti-suit injunctions to compel the opposing party to withdraw lawsuits in other jurisdictions. This outcome was achieved through the legal team’s comprehensive expertise in substantive and procedural laws across multiple jurisdictions, as well as their ability to co-ordinate and strategise across different legal systems.

Regarding overall litigation objectives, parties’ claims exhibit highly case-specific characteristics, depending on the type of case, the technology sector involved and the nature of the commercial relationship. In standard-essential patent (SEP) disputes, the core objective of the parties is often to exert pressure through litigation to facilitate negotiations. This requires a co-ordinated litigation strategy tailored to the judicial trends in each jurisdiction, including the strategic filing of various actions – such as injunction requests, FRAND rate determinations, FRAND compliance declarations, antitrust lawsuits and patent invalidation petitions across different jurisdictions and courts within them. Such strategies rely heavily on the practitioners’ deep research and accumulated experience in the relevant legal practices of each jurisdiction. In patent infringement disputes involving core technologies, rights-holders may directly seek damages and permanent injunctions to exclude competitors’ products from key markets. When disputes arise from technology contracts, the litigation objectives and strategies of rights-holders often become more multifaceted, typically involving the interpretation of ambiguities in collaborative arrangements and the rebalancing of rights and obligations. Key issues in such disputes include:

• the confirmation of intellectual property ownership (eg, disputes over the ownership of subsequent improvements in commissioned or joint development contracts);
• the assessment of whether development milestones or contractual objectives have been met;
• the determination of fault between the parties; and
• the calculation of damages allocation.

Resolving these issues often relies heavily on evidence such as contract texts, factual correspondence, development records and code commit histories. Strategy formulation in such cases requires an in-depth integration of legal interpretation of contract terms, professional understanding of technical facts, commercial insight into industry practices, and long-term consideration of the broader ecosystem impact.

Overall, dispute resolution in the TMT field has evolved into a systematic project encompassing global jurisdictional strategy assessment, selection of the most favourable arbitration venues, and effective management of transnational parallel proceedings. The role of lawyers has expanded beyond traditional courtroom advocacy to become that of an integrator, co-ordinating cross-jurisdictional procedures, synthesising technical facts, and advising on commercial strategy and technology.

Integration and innovation: insights into the new landscape of cross-border technology transactions in tech and communications

Amid technological iteration and shifts in the international political-economic landscape, cross-border technology transactions in the TMT sector exhibit a series of complex new trends. The globalisation of R&D activities has made the innovation chain of “multi-location R&D, transnational integration, and global application” a standard operational model for cross-border technology enterprises.

First, regarding transaction subject matters, there is a gradual shift from single technology and composite technology packages to the external transfer of entire industry chains and system solutions. Past technology transactions typically revolved around single patents, proprietary technologies or a specific product design, whereas in cutting-edge fields such as artificial intelligence, biomedicine, new energy and next-generation communications, due to high levels of technology integration and convergence, the subject matters of the transaction have expanded to include dedicated technology modules, core algorithm models, training datasets, digital twin systems, and even the innovation capabilities of entire R&D teams.

Second, in terms of accompanying transaction models, the proportion of one-time unilateral licensing-in transactions has relatively declined, while long-term co-operation models based on joint R&D and revenue sharing have increased significantly. These long-term transactional models require contract terms to be sufficiently flexible, and the relevant designers of the transaction must skilfully integrate provisions such as non-prosecution, non-challenge, governance mechanisms (eg, joint committees), revenue sharing and subscription services to structure the transactions in a comprehensive manner.

Finally, regarding transaction compliance, geopolitical factors have increasingly become a core variable. As the TMT technology sector becomes a focal point of competition among major powers, policy tools such as export control lists (EAR), entity lists, foreign investment security reviews (eg, mechanisms like FIRB and CFIUS) and restrictions on technology, national or entity co-operation are frequently invoked. Consequently, key issues in such transactions include:

• the drafting of robust compliance commitments;
• the incorporation of relief mechanisms for trade control violations; and
• clauses addressing contract suspension or adjustment due to regulatory shifts.

In summary, in light of the evolving landscape of technology transactions in the TMT sector, transactions should no longer be regarded as incidental or reactive business activities. Instead, companies should elevate the relevant transactions to a strategic level and implement systematic planning, thereby ensuring that major transactions are structurally designed by integrating comprehensive considerations such as commercial, legal, technical and compliance factors.

Path to integration: co-ordinating the new transaction landscape and dispute resolution framework in technology and communications

The emerging landscape of technology transactions and the dispute resolution framework will co-evolve with the growing complexity and convergence within the TMT sector, forming a synergistic force. On one hand, transaction design must be forward-looking to accommodate innovative forms of technological collaboration. On the other hand, dispute resolution mechanisms must also address the practical needs arising from technological integration. Legal practice must integrate preventative contract design with cross-border dispute resolution capabilities through legal arrangements that embody resilience, flexibility and a global perspective, thereby supporting the TMT industry in continuously creating and preserving value amid technological flows, aligning with the reshaping of the global innovation landscape.

重塑与共赢：中国TMT领域跨境争议解决框架与技术交易新图景概览

在全球科技革命浪潮中，科技、媒体与通信（TMT）领域的全球化技术流动正经历结构性重塑。传统以少数通信设备巨头主导、单向输出为主的线性模式，逐渐演变为多中心、网络化的技术流动体系。5G标准制定的全球参与、开源无线接入网技术的快速发展、云原生通信架构的跨国部署等，均标志着TMT创新进入开放式创新的新阶段。

技术流动的深化也带来法律实践的多重挑战。跨境争议解决复杂化、交易模式复合化等问题在TMT领域尤为突出，技术本身的高迭代性与系统性进一步增加了跨境法律实践的难度。在此背景下，构建稳定可预期的技术合作机制，并就争议解决开展策略性规划，成为法律从业者的关键课题。

面向共赢：构建跨境科技通信争议解决框架

TMT领域的跨境争议往往交织技术判断、多法域法律研究与商业博弈，复杂性显著。案件类型从传统的知识产权侵权法律争议及技术分析，扩展至标准必要专利许可、专利有效性跨国挑战、技术合同争议、产品质量纠纷等多种案由，所需处理的法律文件繁杂，诉讼与仲裁程序往往在不同司法管辖区平行推进，相互交错。

近年来的业务实践中，TMT领域跨境技术争议的复合化体现在诉讼手段及诉讼目标等多个方面。当事人在平行诉讼中灵活运用禁令、临时禁令、临时许可、禁诉令与反禁诉令等手段已成为常态，以通过对抗性诉讼策略，在全球诉讼格局中获得优势。在我们近期处理的某通讯领域系列技术合同及确认不侵害知识产权纠纷中，当事人最终通过跨法域的禁诉令压制从而迫使相对方在另一法域中撤诉，从而达到全球格局下的优势结果，而这一结果的促成有赖于相关律师对于多法域实体及程序法律的掌握以及跨法域协调统筹等复合能力。

而在整体诉讼目标方面，根据案件类型、技术领域及商业关系的不同，当事人的诉求呈现出高度个案化的特征。在标准必要专利案件中，当事人的核心目标往往在于通过诉讼施加压力，从而促成谈判，需根据各法域裁判趋势协同规划诉请，统筹设计如何向各法域及法域内各法院分别提起禁令诉、FRAND费率确认诉、FRAND确认之诉、反垄断诉讼及专利无效请求等，更有赖于律师对于各法域法律实践的研究和积累。而在涉及核心技术的专利侵权诉讼中，权利人则可能寻求损害赔偿及永久禁令以排除竞争对手产品进入关键市场。当争议场景转向技术合同纠纷时，权利人的诉讼目标与策略往往呈现更为复杂的维度，常涉及对合作过程中模糊地带的解释与权利义务再平衡，核心争议包括：

• 知识产权归属的确认（例如，委托开发及合作研发合同中关于后续改进技术归属的争议）；
• 开发标的完成情况以及合同根本目的达成的认定；
• 双方过错的认定；以及
• 损害赔偿占比的计算等问题。

此类问题的判断往往高度依赖合同文本、沟通往来、研发记录、代码提交历史等证据、其策略制定需深度融合对合同条款的法律解释、对技术事实的专业把握、对产业规律的商业洞察，以及对后续生态影响的深远考量。

总体而言，TMT领域争议解决已演变为一项系统工程，涵盖全球管辖权策略评估、最有利仲裁地选择、跨国平行程序的有效管理，律师的角色已超越传统的法庭辩护者，成为跨法域程序协调者、技术事实整合者与商业战略及技术顾问的综合体。

创新交融：洞察跨境科技通信技术交易的新图景

随着技术迭代融合与国际政治经济格局变动，TMT技术的跨境技术交易呈现出一系列复杂的新趋势。研发活动的全球化布局向纵深发展使得“多地研发、跨国集成、全球应用”的创新链条已成为跨境技术企业的惯常运营模式。

首先，在交易标的上，逐渐出现从单一技术点、复合技术包，到整套产业链对外移转及系统解决方案的转化。过往的技术交易往往围绕单一专利、专有技术或一个明确的产品设计展开，而在人工智能、生物医药、新能源、下一代通信等前沿领域，由于技术的高度集成与交叉融合，交易标的逐渐扩展到涵盖专用技术模块、核心算法模型、训练数据集、数字孪生系统乃至整个研发团队的创新能力。

其次，在与之配套的交易模式方面，一次性单边License-in等交易模式比例相对下降，而基于共同研发、收益共享等长期合作模式显著增多。此类长期性交易模式要求合同条款具备足够的弹性，交易设计者需灵活运用不起诉、不挑战、治理机制（如联合委员会）、收益共享、订阅服务等约定综合调配交易设计。

最后，在交易合规性方面，地缘政治因素逐渐成为核心变量之一。随着TMT技术领域成为大国竞争的核心焦点，出口管制清单（EAR）、实体清单（Entity List）、外资安全审查（如各国的FIRB、CFIUS类似机制）、各国技术、国家或主体合作限制等政策工具极易被触发，因而交易中需综合运用：

• 合规承诺；
• 贸易管制的救济机制；以及
• 因管制政策变化而导致的合同中止或调整条款成为该领域技术交易的核心议题。

总体而言，面对TMT领域技术交易的新图景，企业不应再以技术交易视为偶发的、被动的业务环节，而应将其提升至公司战略层面进行系统化布局，从而在重大交易中结合商业、法律、技术、合规等综合因素进行结构化的设计。

融合之路：协同科技通信技术领域新交易图景与争议解决框架

新兴技术交易图景与争议解决框架将随着TMT领域的复合化与复杂化协同演进，形成合力。一方面，交易设计需具备前瞻性以适应技术合作的创新形态，另一方面，争议解决机制也必须回应技术融合的现实需求。法律实践需统筹预防性合约设计与跨境争议解决协作能力，通过兼具韧性、灵活性与全球视野的法律安排，助力TMT行业在技术流动中持续创造并保留价值，顺应全球创新格局的重塑。