Conflict of Laws
  • About
  • Editorial board
  • Subscription
  • Submission
  • Materials
  • Contact
  • Click to open the search input field Click to open the search input field Search
  • Menu Menu

Exclusive Jurisdiction, Cross-Border IP Infringement and the Brussels I Regulation

April 7, 2007/in /by Martin George
image_pdfimage_print

Paul Torremans (Nottingham University) has published “Exclusive jurisdiction and cross-border IP (patent) infringement: suggestions for amendment of the Brussels I Regulation” in the European Intellectual Property Review (E.I.P.R. 2007, 29(5), 195-203). Here’s the abstract:

Calls for amendments to Council Regulation 44/2001 (the Brussels I Regulation) concerning cross-border patent infringement claims, in the light of European Court of Justice rulings on claims of invalidity raised in infringement proceedings, and the consolidation of claims against related defendants in more than one Member State. Suggests reform proposals to facilitate the effective enforcement of patents.

The ECJ ruling in question is, of course, Gat v Luk. The article is available to those with a subscription to the EIPR.

Share this entry
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on X
  • Share on WhatsApp
  • Share on Pinterest
  • Share on LinkedIn
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Share on Vk
  • Share on Reddit
  • Share by Mail
https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png 0 0 Martin George https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png Martin George2007-04-07 21:39:302007-04-07 21:50:11Exclusive Jurisdiction, Cross-Border IP Infringement and the Brussels I Regulation

Categories

  • Views
  • News

Most Recent Posts

  • Recognition of a Kosovar Judgment in Greece October 28, 2026
  • The Philippines: Recognition of Foreign Divorces and Recent Amendments to the Rules of Court October 21, 2026
  • Mozambican Supreme Court Recognises an Indian Adoption: A Teleological Approach to the Recognition of Foreign Acts October 19, 2026
  • Egyptian Supreme Court Enforces Italian Judgment: The Right Outcome despite Some Reservations October 14, 2026
  • Talaq Divorce Cases in the United States October 7, 2026
  • Book Review: Choice of Forum Clauses in Asia (Lemuel L Lopez) October 5, 2026
  • Zamzam on Egyptian Private International Law (in Arabic): Towards Reviving the Golden Age of Egyptian Private International Law October 2, 2026
  • Maintenance Duties for a Gestational Surrogate Following Non-Recognition – An Unreported Spanish Judgment September 22, 2026
  • From Symbolism to Substance: Comity and Judicial Reform in South Africa’s Foreign Judgments Regime September 15, 2026
  • Persistent and Reasonable Efforts in the Field of Cross-Border Service of Documents. Continuation or Stay of Proceedings? September 12, 2026
  • Speaking for the Dead: Idziski and the Forum for Post-Mortem Likeness Claims September 7, 2026
  • Book Review: Andrew Dickinson and Alexander Thompson, The State Immunity Act 1978 (OUP, 2025) September 7, 2026
  • Political Immobilisation of Iranian Diaspora Property: Lex Situs, Human Rights and Public Policy August 22, 2026
  • The Demise of the Lex Domicilii Matrimonii in South African Private International Law August 18, 2026
  • Support in cross-border transactions by Adults: Contract law vs capacity law August 12, 2026
Link to: GEDIP: Working Sessions of the Sixteenth Annual Meeting (2006) Link to: GEDIP: Working Sessions of the Sixteenth Annual Meeting (2006) GEDIP: Working Sessions of the Sixteenth Annual Meeting (2006) Link to: Conflict of Laws in Mexico Link to: Conflict of Laws in Mexico Conflict of Laws in Mexico
Scroll to top Scroll to top Scroll to top