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 174-226

Download

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.
ER

Download

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

JIPITEC – Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and E-Commerce Law
Article search
Extended article search
Newsletter
Subscribe to our newsletter
Follow Us
twitter