IP and applicable law in recent international proposals: report for the International Law Association (original) (raw)
Related papers
JIPITEC (2012) pp. 174-226, 2012
""The recent controversy between two tech giants, Apple and Samsung, illustrates the practical limitations of multi-state IP litigation: the territorial nature of IP rights virtually means that most of the complex IP disputes have to be adjudicated before the courts of every state for which protection is sought. In order to streamline the adjudication of multi-state disputes, a number of legislative proposals have been prepared (including the ALI Principles, CLIP Principles, Japanese Transparency Proposal, Waseda Proposal and the Korean KOPILA Principles). These proposals contain detailed provisions concerning matters of international jurisdiction, choice of law and recognition and enforcement in IP cases. Moreover, these legislative proposals in one way or another were drafted with a vision to facilitate cooperation between the courts and thus make the adjudication more efficient. However, the actual practices of national courts remain different; moreover, the approaches adopted in the legislative proposals also vary. This paper was presented at the International Law Association 'Intellectual Property and Private International Law' Committee meeting which took place in March 2012 in Lisbon. The paper provides for a comparative study of the abovementioned legislative proposals insofar as matters concerning the competence of courts to adjudicate cross-border IP disputes is concerned. In particular, this paper touches upon the following matters: personal/in personam jurisdiction, jurisdiction to grant provisional or protective measures, jurisdiction in IP-related contract disputes, choice of court agreements, multiple defendants and coordination of parallel proceedings. ""
2021
The chapter “Applicable Law” of the International Law Association’s Guidelines on Intellectual Property and Private International Law (“Kyoto Guidelines”) provides principles on the choice of law in international intellectual property matters. The Guidelines confirm the traditional principle of the lex loci protectionis for the existence, transferability, scope and infringement of intellectual property rights. The law applicable to the initial ownership of registered rights is governed by the lex loci protectionis whereas the law of the closest connection is applied to determine the ownership of copyright. For contracts, freedom of choice is acknowledged. With regard to ubiquitous or multi-state infringement and collective rights management in the field of copyright, the Guidelines suggest innovative solutions. Finally, the chapter contains a Guideline on the law applicable to the arbitrability of disputes.<br>
Chapter 5 Intellectual Property Rights: International Arena
It has already been discussed that the IP has an international character. Due to its international character it demands international cooperation in its protection. Several international treaties has been adopted in this respect and different international institution has been working for the promotion and the protection of IP throughout the world. 1
Principles for Intellectual Property Provisions in Bilateral and Regional Agreements
IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 2013
For several years, research at the Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law (MPI) -in collaboration with experts from all over the world -has examined the trend of bilateral and regional agreements that include provisions on the protection and enforcement of intellectual property (IP) rights. By building on this research, the following principles -express core concerns regarding the use of IP provisions as a bargaining chip in international trade negotiations, the increasing comprehensiveness of international IP rules and the lack of transparency and inclusiveness in the negotiating process; and -recommend international rules and procedures that can achieve a better, mutually advantageous and balanced regulation of international IP.
International Intellectual Property: Law and Policy (with W. Hennessey, S. Perlmutter & G. Austin)
2008
The TRIPS Agreement can be read to reflect a static view of the structure of intellectual property law. In this paper, we address whether-and how-the TRIPS Agreement can, on the other hand, be read with more fluidity, and thus to allow adjustments in national intellectual property regimes designed to reflect the dynamic nature of information production. To focus that inquiry, we concentrate on efforts to ensure a broader public domain for 'upstream' inventions by modifying various elements of US patent law. The paper considers three stylized examples and asks whether each approach could be adopted by the United States without falling afoul of the TRIPS Agreement as it is currently understood. Our purpose is to identify interpretive approaches that allow member states to keep their laws attuned to the developments and needs of science. But in so doing, we also raise broader questions regarding the level of formalism generated by the WTO dispute settlement system, and the extent to which the TRIPS Agreement allocates power between supranational and national institutions, and between international and national laws. introduction The size and content of a rich public domain are affected by a constellation of national intellectual property rules. Since 1995, these domestic rules have, in WTO-member states, been subject to the requirements of the Agreement on