Toshiyuki Kono, who is a professor of law at Kyushu University – Graduate School of Law, has posted Jurisdiction and Applicable Law in Matters of Intellectual Property on SSRN.

The Hague Judgments Project, initiated in the early 1990 sat the Hague Conference on Private International Law, aimed to harmonize rules on international jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. As this project faltered, supporters continued this work under an American Law Institute Project that developed comprehensive rules on international jurisdiction, particularly in cross-border intellectual property (IP) disputes. Other initiatives in Europe and Asia worked to harmonize the settlement of multi-state IP disputes. This report synthesizes reports enforcement of judgments in IP matters. It also presents 12 hypothetical cases to determine how a given jurisdiction deals with various matters, including: personal jurisdiction and jurisdiction over infringement actions, subject-matter jurisdiction, consolidation of proceedings, choice of court agreements, Parallel proceedings, territoriality principle of IP rights, and applicable law regarding transfer of IP rights and agreements.

It is an abbreviated version of the General Report on Intellectual Property and Private International Law for the XVIIth Congress of the International Academy of Comparative Law (Washington, 2010) .

On 9 and 10 February 2012, the European Law Academy will host a conference on the Optional European Sales Law in Trier, Germany. The objective of the conference is to discuss the Proposal for a Common European Sales Law, which was published by the EU Commission in October 2011. Registration and further information can be found on the ERA website. The programm reads as follows:

Thursday, 9 February 2012

08:30 Arrival and registration
09:00 Welcome, Angelika Fuchs
Chair: Hugh Beale

I. SETTING THE SCENE

09:05 The ongoing political debate
• European Parliament: Diana WallisPolish
• EU Presidency: Aneta Wiewiórowska
• Danish EU Presidency: Morten Fogt

09:45 Discussion

II. LEGAL CHALLENGES FOR THE CESL

10:00 Legal basis, content and scope
Christiane Wendehorst

10:20 CESL and the conflict of laws
Gilles Cuniberti
• CESL and Rome I
• How to fill the gaps? Set-off, assignment, representation and other issues

10:45 Discussion
11:00 Coffee break

Chair: Diana Wallis

III. CESL RULES FOR B2C SALES CONTRACTS

11:30 Pre-contractual information
Eric Clive
• Distance / off-premises contracts
• Contents and sanctions

11:50 Making a binding contract
Anna Veneziano
• Offer and acceptance
• Defects in consent
• Right of withdrawal

12:15 Discussion

12:30 Unfair contract terms: assessing unfairness
Friedrich Graf von Westphalen

12:50 Discussion
13:00 Lunch

Chair: Friedrich Graf von Westphalen

14:00 Obligations and remedies of the parties
Hugh Beale
• Consumer choices
• Requirements
• Prescription periods

14:25 Discussion

14:40 Goods, supply of digital content and pprovision of related services
Matthias Storme

15:00 Discussion

IV. WORKSHOP (with coffee & tea)

15:15 Life-cycle of a contract: a case study on the CESL in legal practice
Martin Schmidt-Kessel

17:00 End of the first conference day
19:00 Evening programme and dinner

Friday, 10 February 2012

Chair: Anna Veneziano

V. CONSUMER AND COMMERCIAL CONTRACTS

09:00 Comparing B2C and B2B contracts, Dora Szentpaly-Kleis
Ursula Pachl
• Which rules are different
• Why?

09:40 What is required to make the optional instrument work in practice?
Dirk Staudenmayer

10:00 Discussion
10:30 Coffee break

Chair: Morten Midtgaard Fogt

VI. PANEL DISCUSSION

11:00
B2C: Added value for consumers or cost driver for enterprises?
Hanne Melin
Bob Schmitz

B2B: What does the CESL offer to businesses?
Tina Sommer
Andreas Dietzel

13:00 Lunch and end of the conference

The list of speakers at the workshop on Private International Law as Global Governance at the Law School of the Paris Institute of Political Science (Sciences Po) has been updated and is available on the PILAGG website.

The speakers for January and February will be:

• 20th January: Mads ANDENAS (“External effects of national ECHR judgments”)
• 25th January (doctoral workshop): Shotaro HAMAMOTO (“L’arbitrage investisseur-État est-il hostile aux intérêts publics?”)
• 27th January: Ingo VENZKE (“On words and deeds: How the practice of interpretation develops international norms”)
• 9th February (doctoral workshop): Benoit FRYDMAN (“Approche pragmatique du droit global”)
• 11th February (doctoral workshop): David KENNEDY (“The renewal of political economy and global governance”)
• 16th February: Michael WEIBEL (“Privatizing the adjudication of sovereign defaults”)

PILAGG has also launched a new stream on epistemology and methodology of human-rights in transnational context.

A Bill for International Litigation was presented to the Congress of Peru in November 2011. Based on the Latin American Model Bill for International Litigation of 2004, it is an apparently simple draft – just ten articles-, which nevertheless covers some of the most important topics in cross-border litigation: service of process; evidence; damages (compensation); appeals; settlements; lis pendens; actionability; and mass claims.

 The Peruvian project aims to provide a practical tool for Peruvians plaintiffs in Peruvian cross-border conflicts. Article 1 makes this task easier by accepting summons in any form admitted in the country where the documents are to be served, therefore allowing an enormous saving of time and money.

 Article 2 declares the admissibility of evidence already used in a foreign proceeding; such materials will nevertheless be considered again by the Peruvian judge “according to the principles of sound criticism.” Only the relevant part of the foreign documents needs translation: again, a measure to save time and money.

 Article 3 deals with damages, which will be awarded (calculated) following the parameters of the relevant foreign law. Though the conflict rule is adequate, it could still be improved through a favor laesi.

 Appeal as a delaying tactic is prevented by Article 4. Appeal will normally deploy only suspensive effect, thus allowing the international procedure to be carried out speedily.

 Article 5 prevents defendant and plaintiff from reaching an agreement without the latter’s counsel being informed. The purpose of the rule is to protect both the lawyer who has invested time and money in the process and the actor who, pressed by necessity, accepts an inconvenient settlement.

 Article 6 recalls an already existing rule: in cases of concurrent international proceedings the court where the lawsuit was filed first keeps jurisdiction, just as it happens in domestic cases.

 Article 7 of the Bill provides with  a separate action against all unjustifiable harm committed abroad. The rule tends to the protection of Peruvians interests when no other remedy is available.

 The project includes a ten-year statute of limitations that can be extended to fifteen years in case of debtor’s bad faith. Prescription is interrupted under several circumstances: for instance, when the creditor did not know about the damage or its source; the fact of filing overseas also suspends the limitation period. This is reasonable and should be welcomed in view of the technical development that has led, for example, to diseases with a long period of latency, as it happens with exposure to chemicals products.

Consolidation of claims in cases involving a large number of actors or defendants is provided for in Article 9. It is for the judge to take “practical steps for the case to develop rapidly within the limits of due process.” It seems that this Article contains the seeds of mass action or class actions.

 The overall conclusion is that the Bill, if approved, will certainly help cross-border litigation to be easier and more efficient in Peru.

Many thanks to Henry Saint Dahl, Inter-American Bar Foundation, for the hint.

 

See these posts here and here over at Opiniojuris.