中國成國際企業案件重要訴訟地
Multinational companies are accustomed to fighting epic legal battles against each other in US or EU courts, often with global consequences.
跨國公司已經習慣於在美國或歐盟法院打漫長而艱難的法律戰，而且這些官司通常會帶來全球后果。
They should brace themselves for the opening of a third front — in China.
如今，它們應該爲新出現的第三個戰場做好準備——中國。
Two weeks ago a little-known Canadian company, Wilan Inc, sued Sony in the eastern Chinese city of Nanjing for alleged patent infringement involving technologies used in the Japanese group’s LTE-standard smartphones.
兩週前，名不見經傳的加拿大公司Wilan Inc在中國東部南京市對索尼(Sony)提起訴訟，指控這家日本集團的LTE標準智能手機使用的技術涉嫌專利侵權。
Wilan is what critics call a patent troll, a company that collects payments from other companies on its intellectual property but produces little if anything itself.
Wilan正是批評者口中的專利流氓——利用知識產權向其他公司收取費用而自己不從事生產的公司。
If Wilan wins, Sony could be barred from selling and exporting its LTE handsets as early as next summer.
如果Wilan獲勝，索尼可能最早在明年夏天被禁止銷售和出口其LTE手機。
The potential ban on exports is the real threat, given China’s pivotal role in almost all global manufacturing chains.
考慮到中國在全球製造業幾乎所有鏈條中的關鍵作用，潛在的出口禁令將是索尼面臨的真正威脅。
Imagine a similar suit with the same potential consequences, only with an Apple or a Samsung cast as the defendant.
設想一起可能帶來相同後果的類似訴訟，只是將被告換成蘋果(Apple)或三星(Samsung)。
The impact on consumers would be enormous.
這將對消費者造成巨大沖擊。
A new corporate era beckons in which a Chinese judge could conceivably cut off the lifeblood of some of the world’s most valuable companies.
企業將面臨一個新時代，在這個時代，一名中國法官就能夠切斷一些全球最具價值公司的命脈。
It was not so long ago that China’s legal system just did not factor into the risk calculus of most global companies.
就在不久前，中國的法律體系還未進入多數跨國公司的風險計算。
When entering into contracts with Chinese parties, foreign companies tended to insist that disputes be heard in overseas arbitration venues — including Hong Kong.
在與中方夥伴簽訂合同時，外國公司傾向於堅持在海外（包括香港）對爭端進行仲裁。
Then they hoped that they never had cause to resort to arbitration given the difficulty of enforcing judgments back in China.
鑑於中國內地執行判決的難度，它們希望永遠不要有爭端訴諸仲裁。
August 2013 is arguably when this began to change.
可以說，這種情況發生變化始於2013年8月。
That was when the National Development and Reform Commission fined six baby formula manufacturers — five of them foreign — more than $100m in a landmark enforcement of China’s young anti-monopoly law.
那時，中國國家發展和改革委員會對6家嬰兒配方奶粉製造商（其中5家爲外國公司）開出了逾1億美元的罰單，對於中國出臺時間不長的《反壟斷法》，這是一次具有里程碑意義的執法。
The NDRC announced its decision in a terse statement that shed little light on the reasons underpinning its findings.
發改委在一份簡短聲明中宣佈了該決定，聲明對支撐其調查結果的理由語焉不詳。
It basically said the six companies were guilty of various infractions, had confessed their guilt and would not contest the fines.
聲明籠統地表示，這6家公司犯有多種違法行爲，已經承認違法，不會對罰款提出異議。
The announcement reinforced the impression of China as a jurisdiction where such decisions were capricious — and credible legal appeals not an option.
這份聲明強化了這樣一種印象：在作爲司法管轄區的中國，這樣的決定隨心所欲，且無法進行可靠的法律上訴。
In that same month, however, a much lower profile case in Shanghai highlighted how quickly China’s legal system was evolving, making it a much more serious jurisdiction for dealing with corporate disputes.
然而，就在同一個月，上海一起不那麼引人注意的案件凸顯了中國法律體系的飛快發展，意味着中國成爲處理企業糾紛的一個嚴肅得多的司法管轄區。
Once again the foreign defendant lost.
在這起案件中，外國被告方再次輸掉了訴訟。
The Shanghai High Court ruled that Johnson & Johnson’s medical devices arm had, in contravention of China’s anti-monopoly law, set a minimum retail price for its local distributors.
上海高級人民法院判決，強生(Johnson & Johnson)的醫療設備公司對當地經銷商限制最低轉售價格，此舉違反了中國反壟斷法。
But the court also issued a voluminous ruling detailing the reasons for its verdict.
但是，該法院也公佈了篇幅較長的判決書，詳細解釋了作出該判決的原因。
In doing so, it overruled a similarly detailed lower-court ruling in favour of the US company.
如此一來，它推翻了下級法院作出的同樣詳細、但有利於強生的判決。
The legal back-and-forth was as substantive as any coming out of a US or EU case.
這場法律拉鋸戰，與美國或歐盟案件的判決結果一樣意義重大。
It quickly became fodder for equally dense analyses by lawyers expert in the field.
它很快受到該領域法律專家同樣密集的分析。
Nor was it a simple matter of a foreign plaintiff ending up on the wrong side of a Chinese court judgment.
它也不是外國原告在中國的法院判決中結果變成被告這樣簡單的事情。
While J&J lost, it was ordered to pay only a fraction of the damages sought — Rmb530,000 ($77,300) against a claim of Rmb14.4m.
儘管強生輸掉了官司，但它只被判決向原告支付53萬元人民幣（合7.73萬美元）的賠償，與原告索賠的1440萬元人民幣相比只是很小的金額。
The manner in which the J&J case was adjudicated also hints at a potential miscalculation by Wilan, which filed its suit against Sony in the city that was the scene of the worst Japanese war crime in China during the second world war — the Rape of Nanking.
強生案審判的方式也暗示了Wilan可能的誤算，後者針對索尼提起訴訟的城市正是二戰時日本在華犯下最嚴重的戰爭罪行——南京大屠殺——的地方。
Some would say that’s clever but I wouldn’t be surprised if the Nanjing courts, which have a good reputation, bend over backwards to be nice to Sony, says Joe Simone, a Hong Kong-based intellectual property rights specialist.
有人會說此舉很聰明，但如果擁有良好聲譽的南京法院努力公正對待索尼，我也不會感到意外，常駐香港的知識產權專家喬.西莫內(Joe Simone)表示:
They don’t want to be seen as a place to go and spear Japanese companies.
他們不想被視爲人們可以去攻擊日本企業的地方。
The NDRC baby formula ruling remains instructive.
發改委對嬰兒配方奶粉案的裁決仍然具有啓發性。
It would be a foolish multinational that dared to take on a Chinese government regulator in the country’s Communist party-controlled court system and expect to win.
只有愚蠢的跨國企業，纔敢在中國共產黨控制的法院系統中挑戰政府監管部門、並且期望贏得訴訟。
But when it comes to corporate litigation, the Wilan and J&J cases show that China is an increasingly important jurisdiction that multinationals ignore at their peril.
但是，當涉及公司訴訟時，Wilan和強生案表明，中國是一個越來越重要的司法管轄區，而跨國企業危險地忽視了這點。
