The panel “Towards Better Mutual Understanding in Global Patent Disputes” addressed one of the most sensitive questions in international patent litigation: what can courts do when proceedings in different countries begin to block, restrain or undermine each other?
The discussion brought together judicial perspectives from Europe, Brazil and China. The focus was not only on cooperation in the abstract, but on the practical problem of anti-suit injunctions, anti-anti-suit injunctions and the risk that courts become drawn into jurisdictional conflict.
A central theme was judicial modesty. In global patent disputes, no court operates in isolation. A decision in one jurisdiction may affect proceedings elsewhere, especially where injunctions, interim licences, FRAND determinations or global settlement pressure are involved. The panel therefore asked whether courts should pause before issuing orders that effectively interfere with the work of another court.
This concern is not theoretical. Large corporations can shape litigation strategy across multiple jurisdictions. As was noted in the discussion, powerful companies may “move the needle” by tryig to play countries, governments and courts against each other in order to obtain the most favourable outcome. In that environment, courts can feel overwhelmed.
The panel’s most important point was that courts should avoid becoming instruments in that strategy. Anti-suit injunctions may appear attractive in an individual case, but they can escalate quickly into a chain of retaliatory measures. Once one court blocks another, the dispute is no longer only about patents. It becomes a conflict between legal systems.
Several possible responses were discussed. These included judicial dialogue before interference, greater use of coordination mechanisms, respect for parallel proceedings, and institutional channels that allow courts to understand what is happening elsewhere before acting. International insolvency was mentioned as proof that cross-border judicial coordination is possible. The mechanism exists; the harder question is whether there is enough political and institutional will.
The strongest practical takeaway was modest but significant. The judges on the panel indicated that, in future, they would seek to avoid anti-suit orders against each other where possible and would try to talk first. That commitment to dialogue may sound simple, but in the current patent environment it matters.
The session also touched on institutional initiatives such as the UPC and the Patent Mediation and Arbitration Centre. These may provide useful platforms, although the deeper issue remains judicial culture: courts must be willing to act with restraint when global disputes create pressure for aggressive procedural moves.
The panel’s message was clear. Better mutual understanding is not a soft aspiration. It is a safeguard against escalation. In global patent litigation, judicial modesty may be one of the most important tools courts have to prevent parties from turning national legal systems against each other.
Disclaimer: This article is based on the author’s recollection of the panel discussion. It reflects comments made by speakers in their personal capacity and should not be read as a verbatim or complete factual summary of the debate, nor as representing the views of the organiser.