Document Actions
Citation and metadata
Recommended citation
Paulius Jurčys, International Jurisdiction in Intellectual Property Disputes, 3 (2012) JIPITEC 174 para 1.
Download Citation
Endnote
%0 Journal Article %T International Jurisdiction in Intellectual Property Disputes %A Jurčys, Paulius %J JIPITEC %D 2012 %V 3 %N 3 %@ 2190-3387 %F jurčys2012 %X 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 legislativeproposals in one way or another were drafted witha 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 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. %L 340 %K ALI Principles %K CLIP Principles %K Forum non Conveniens %K GAT v Luk %K Hague Judgments Convention %K In Personam Jurisdiction %K Intellectual property %K Jurisdiction %K Lucasfilm %K Private International Law %K Roche %K Spider in the web %K Transparency Principles %U http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0009-29-35188 %P 174-226Download
Bibtex
@Article{jurčys2012,
author = "Jur{\v{c}}ys, Paulius",
title = "International Jurisdiction in Intellectual Property Disputes",
journal = "JIPITEC",
year = "2012",
volume = "3",
number = "3",
pages = "174--226",
keywords = "ALI Principles; CLIP Principles; Forum non Conveniens; GAT v Luk; Hague Judgments Convention; In Personam Jurisdiction; Intellectual property; Jurisdiction; Lucasfilm; Private International Law; Roche; Spider in the web; Transparency Principles",
abstract = "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 legislativeproposals in one way or another were drafted witha 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 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.",
issn = "2190-3387",
url = "http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0009-29-35188"
}
Download
RIS
TY - JOUR AU - Jurčys, Paulius PY - 2012 DA - 2012// TI - International Jurisdiction in Intellectual Property Disputes JO - JIPITEC SP - 174 EP - 226 VL - 3 IS - 3 KW - ALI Principles KW - CLIP Principles KW - Forum non Conveniens KW - GAT v Luk KW - Hague Judgments Convention KW - In Personam Jurisdiction KW - Intellectual property KW - Jurisdiction KW - Lucasfilm KW - Private International Law KW - Roche KW - Spider in the web KW - Transparency Principles AB - 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 legislativeproposals in one way or another were drafted witha 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 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. SN - 2190-3387 UR - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0009-29-35188 ID - jurčys2012 ER -Download
Wordbib
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <b:Sources SelectedStyle="" xmlns:b="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/bibliography" xmlns="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/bibliography" > <b:Source> <b:Tag>jurčys2012</b:Tag> <b:SourceType>ArticleInAPeriodical</b:SourceType> <b:Year>2012</b:Year> <b:PeriodicalTitle>JIPITEC</b:PeriodicalTitle> <b:Volume>3</b:Volume> <b:Issue>3</b:Issue> <b:Url>http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0009-29-35188</b:Url> <b:Pages>174-226</b:Pages> <b:Author> <b:Author><b:NameList> <b:Person><b:Last>Jurčys</b:Last><b:First>Paulius</b:First></b:Person> </b:NameList></b:Author> </b:Author> <b:Title>International Jurisdiction in Intellectual Property Disputes</b:Title> <b:Comments>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 legislativeproposals in one way or another were drafted witha 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 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.</b:Comments> </b:Source> </b:Sources>Download
ISI
PT Journal AU Jurčys, P TI International Jurisdiction in Intellectual Property Disputes SO JIPITEC PY 2012 BP 174 EP 226 VL 3 IS 3 DE ALI Principles; CLIP Principles; Forum non Conveniens; GAT v Luk; Hague Judgments Convention; In Personam Jurisdiction; Intellectual property; Jurisdiction; Lucasfilm; Private International Law; Roche; Spider in the web; Transparency Principles AB 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 legislativeproposals in one way or another were drafted witha 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 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. ERDownload
Mods
<mods>
<titleInfo>
<title>International Jurisdiction in Intellectual Property Disputes</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="family">Jurčys</namePart>
<namePart type="given">Paulius</namePart>
</name>
<abstract>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 legislativeproposals 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 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.</abstract>
<subject>
<topic>ALI Principles</topic>
<topic>CLIP Principles</topic>
<topic>Forum non Conveniens</topic>
<topic>GAT v Luk</topic>
<topic>Hague Judgments Convention</topic>
<topic>In Personam Jurisdiction</topic>
<topic>Intellectual property</topic>
<topic>Jurisdiction</topic>
<topic>Lucasfilm</topic>
<topic>Private International Law</topic>
<topic>Roche</topic>
<topic>Spider in the web</topic>
<topic>Transparency Principles</topic>
</subject>
<classification authority="ddc">340</classification>
<relatedItem type="host">
<genre authority="marcgt">periodical</genre>
<genre>academic journal</genre>
<titleInfo>
<title>JIPITEC</title>
</titleInfo>
<part>
<detail type="volume">
<number>3</number>
</detail>
<detail type="issue">
<number>3</number>
</detail>
<date>2012</date>
<extent unit="page">
<start>174</start>
<end>226</end>
</extent>
</part>
</relatedItem>
<identifier type="issn">2190-3387</identifier>
<identifier type="urn">urn:nbn:de:0009-29-35188</identifier>
<identifier type="uri">http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0009-29-35188</identifier>
<identifier type="citekey">jurčys2012</identifier>
</mods>
Download
Full Metadata
| Bibliographic Citation | Journal of intellectual property, information technology and electronic commerce law 3 (2012) 3 |
|---|---|
| Title |
International Jurisdiction in Intellectual Property Disputes (eng) |
| Author | Paulius Jurčys |
| Language | eng |
| Abstract | 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 legislativeproposals 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 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. |
| Subject | ALI Principles, CLIP Principles, Forum non Conveniens, GAT v Luk, Hague Judgments Convention, In Personam Jurisdiction, Intellectual property, Jurisdiction, Lucasfilm, Private International Law, Roche, Spider in the web, Transparency Principles |
| DDC | 340 |
| Rights | DPPL |
| URN: | urn:nbn:de:0009-29-35188 |
