The Newly Adopted Hague Judgments Convention: A Missed Opportunity for Intellectual Property

Lundstedt, Lydia

doi:10.1007/s40319-019-00862-5

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…257 Increasingly, economic justification and the maintenance of the internal market have become major concerns for the EU regarding IP rights, including patent rights. 258 How decisive the differences in the historical underlying theoretical justifications are in practical and modern terms can be questioned since, after all, both systems are mainly concerned with encouraging the creation and dissemination of new inventions. 259 The purpose of China's patent system combines elements of both utilitarian as well as distributive justice arguments, as the PRC's patent law is to 'promote the advancement of science and technology' as well as to 'promote the economic and social development'.…”

Section: Explaining Differences and Similaritiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…282 Additionally, the EU views IPs as a legal tool to enhance the functioning of the internal market. 283 Convergence through pressure, on the other hand, refers to the influence of international and regional organizations and lobbying efforts. 284 Similarities between patent laws in the EU, the US and China can be at least partly explained by international harmonization of IP law through the formation of various organizations and agreements governing intellectual property commodities.…”

Section: B Similarities In Patent Lawmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Patent law in comparative context: Differences and similarities of patent law in the European Union, the United States and China

Hutukka

2023

Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study presents the main features of patent law in the European Union, the United States and China, with a special focus on patentability. Each patent regime is reviewed in its historical context, exploring the stages leading to the given jurisdiction's contemporary patent law. After mapping the differences and similarities of patent law in the EU, the US and China, possible reasons for the detected divergence and convergence will be explored. This study reveals that the differences in codified patent law between the EU, the US, and China are for the most part a matter of nuance and much of the convergence stems from international harmonization efforts and common historical roots as well as external pressure to convergence in patent law for mainly economic reasons. Whereas patent laws in the EU and US are more established, China's patent law has been moulded into its contemporary form only recently. Differences across the chosen jurisdictions are explained not only by cultural factors but also by underlying theoretical differences in patent doctrine and differing aims of patent protection, as well as the divide concerning the role of statutory law and case law between the common law and Romano-Germanic law.

show abstract

Section: Explaining Differences and Similaritiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: B Similarities In Patent Lawmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patent law in comparative context: Differences and similarities of patent law in the European Union, the United States and China

Hutukka

2023

Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Unless otherwise specified, intellectual property rights are particularly applicable within the borders of the jurisdiction that issued the rights (Lundstedt, 2016). The territoriality principle permits governments to adapt their domestic laws to their respective levels of technical and economic development.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Harmonization of Geographical Indication (GI) Registration: A Case Study of Doi Tung Coffee

Suksomboon

2023

ABAC J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Coffee is one of the world’s most valuable commodities. However, both the refining procedure and the growing environment make each source of coffee unique. Recognizing this, the concept of geographical indication has emerged as a vital legal instrument to safeguard the intellectual property rights associated with specific products. Since this protection is jurisdiction-based, each nation can customize its own safeguarding measures and registration procedures to its internal policies and preferences, resulting in differing costs to producers. Multiple registrations in different jurisdictions are required for obtaining protection under the geographical indication realm, consequently creating a complex landscape to certain producers. This article aims to delve into the issues surrounding multiple registrations by examining the experiences of Doi Tung Coffee’s registrations in Thailand, the European Union, and Japan. Furthermore, harmonization of registration is proposed as a potential solution. By streamlining the registration process across territories, the harmonization approach seeks to minimize the costs associated with multiple registrations and ultimately bolster the competitive edge of producers in the global market. It also underscores the significance of providing adequate protection to promote the growth and success of coffee producers worldwide.

show abstract

“…Territoriality of IP protection, on the other hand, also highlights that IP rights, their inception, historical development and scope can be explained by the policy goals to be achieved within that jurisdiction. 30 Thus, the territoriality principle can to a certain degree explain the historically divergent approaches and different levels and forms of protection provided by IP. Their rationale to incentive or reward creative enterprise which was explained above suggests that legislators sought to devise laws suiting the level of industrialisation and development of their national industry.…”

Section: Intellectual Property and Tradementioning

confidence: 99%

Digital trade and intellectual property

D. Mimler

2023

Research Handbook on Digital Trade

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objects of digital trade are often subject to intellectual property ( IP) protection. The exclusionary nature of IP rights which is deemed to incentivise and reward the creation of new goods, however, is a mechanism developed in the a pre-digital era and can therefore not be seamlessly transposed to digital goods and services. This chapter outlines the Janus-headed nature of IP rights for digital trade, as, on the one hand enabling it while also having the ability to hamper it. It first looks at the interfaces of IP with digitization and trade in order to set the scene and then outlines its effects on digital trade and how regulators have sought to address the issues. The chapter also looks at some current issues of the interface of digital trade and IP, such as digital exhaustion, intermediary liability and the impact of new technologies, e.g. Blockchain technology and NFTs as well as 3D printing.

show abstract

The Newly Adopted Hague Judgments Convention: A Missed Opportunity for Intellectual Property

Cited by 4 publications

References 0 publications

Patent law in comparative context: Differences and similarities of patent law in the European Union, the United States and China

Patent law in comparative context: Differences and similarities of patent law in the European Union, the United States and China

Harmonization of Geographical Indication (GI) Registration: A Case Study of Doi Tung Coffee

Digital trade and intellectual property

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About