As was foreshadowed in the recent Unwired and Conversant UK Supreme Court case, an issue with global disputes that have no clear single forum to call home is competing jurisdictions (and a race to the courthouse). That has again been illustrated in the SEP / FRAND space by the Interdigital v Xiaomi dispute, with the Munich Court issuing an A4SI. 

Briefly, Xiaomi had obtained an ASI to protect its Chinese global FRAND determination and at the same time obtained an A3SI to prevent interference with its ASI by means of a foreign A2SI. In turn, the Munich Court has held the orders do not apply in Germany - an A4SI (and technically A2SI rolled into one). Xiaomi cannot prevent InterDigital filing SEP infringement suits in Germany, nor may it pursue its ASI. (Just reading that is slightly difficult.)

It is clear that the starting gun was filed on these international jurisdictional disputes by the increased willingness of courts in various jurisdictions to look at FRAND globally (at least where there is a contractual basis), but what is unclear is precisely what this escalation will achieve. Perhaps, ultimately, the answer is nothing, though a lot depends, in my view, on just how concerned one might be about enforcement by a particular court of its order. Parties are likely to be placed in an impossible position where they must breach one order to follow another - in those circumstances, which court would you choose? 

This is only the third time I have heard of a dispute reaching A4SI status (the first being in the English IPCom v Lenovo litigation, in which @BristowsLawFirm acted). That said, it will be interesting to see if the record is beaten, rather than equalled - could an A5SI be incoming?