FS Medical Supplies LLC v. Zhejiang Orient Gene Biotech Co., Ltd., 4:25-cv-01332

FS Medical Supplies (FSMS) and Zhejiang Orient Gene Biotech/Healgen Scientific (Defendants) are parties to a contract with a Texas choice-of-law clause.
After FSMS filed suit in Texas federal court for breach of contract, Defendants promptly filed a parallel action in China seeking to invalidate the same contract under Texas law and the UCC.
FSMS moved for an anti-suit injunction to prevent Defendants from prosecuting duplicative and potentially conflicting litigation in China.
The Chinese legal system presents procedural and substantive hurdles, including evidentiary roadblocks and extremely rare application of U.S. law.
The Texas court considered whether the Chinese proceedings would cause hardship, frustrate efficient resolution, lead to inconsistent outcomes, or undermine core Texas policies.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether anti-suit injunction should issue	Chinese case imposes hardship, conflicts with Texas law, will duplicate claims, and risk inconsistency	Chinese action focuses on regulatory issues, not contract; Plaintiff can handle foreign litigation	Injunction granted: Chinese case is duplicative, oppressive, and undermines agreed Texas law
Whether Chinese litigation is vexatious/oppressive	Plaintiff faces procedural/evidentiary burdens and unfair hardship	Plaintiff's principals know Chinese business, not unduly burdensome	Court finds Chinese litigation would be inequitable hardship
Whether parallel cases risk judicial inefficiency or conflicting rulings	Parallel actions could lead to inconsistent outcomes and waste resources	Chinese claims styled as regulatory, not breach; not duplicative	Court finds significant overlap leading to likely conflicts
Whether forum policy and comity concerns preclude relief	Upholding Texas choice-of-law clause and preventing forum shopping are important	Comity should bar U.S. court from interfering in foreign action	Texas policy and private nature outweigh comity; injunction appropriate

Kaepa, Inc. v. Achilles Corp., 76 F.3d 624 (5th Cir. 1996) (sets standard for when anti-suit injunctions are proper in the Fifth Circuit)
Bethell v. Peace, 441 F.2d 495 (5th Cir. 1971) (mirror-image claims as basis for anti-suit injunction)
In re Unterweser Reederei, Gmbh, 428 F.2d 888 (5th Cir. 1970) (early foundation for considering anti-suit injunctions under federal law)
Ganpat v. E. Pac. Shipping PTE Ltd., 66 F.4th 578 (5th Cir. 2023) (comity minimum in private commercial disputes, anti-suit factors)