International Jurisdiction in Intellectual Property Disputes Jurčys Paulius 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. 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 340 periodical academic journal JIPITEC 3 3 2012 174 226 2190-3387 urn:nbn:de:0009-29-35188 jurčys2012