scholarly journals Beyond Preemption: The Federal Law and Policy of Intellectual Property Licensing

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Lemley
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Public Policies ◽  
Property Law ◽  
State Law ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Intellectual Property Law ◽  
Law And Policy ◽  
Commercial Code ◽  
The Law

Proposed Uniform Commercial Code article 2B, which will govern transactionsin information, will remake the law of intellectual property licensing in aradical way. But federal and state intellectual property policies imposesignificant limits on the ability of states to change these rules bycontract law. One such limit is preemption, but preemption is unlikely toprovide sufficient protection for the established rules of intellectualproperty law. Three other sets of doctrines will limit the ability ofparties to set their terms by contract, even in the UCC 2B world. The firstdoctrine is copyright misuse, which has been applied against restrictivelicensing provisions. The second set of doctrines provides that a number oflicensing rules are decided as questions of federal, not state, law. Thethird doctrines are state public policies that cannot be overriden bycontract. Taken together, these doctrines create a patchwork federal policyof intellectual property law that UCC 2B cannot alter.

scholarly journals Legislation on Intellectual Property in the Russian Federation: Novels Introduced in 2014

2015 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Eduard P. Gavrilov
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Proper Time ◽  
Russian Revolution ◽  
Property Law ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
En Bloc ◽  
Intellectual Property Law ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Law

Abstract Purpose of this article is to tell foreign readers about novels made in Russian intellectual property law in 2014. As is known modern Russian revolution in the field of intellectual property legislation occurred January 1, 2008 when Russian intellectual property legislation was codified, included in the text of part fourth of the Civil Code (CC) of the Russian Federation. Part fourth of the Russian CC (Federal law №230-FZ, 2006) entered into force on January 1, 2008. At the same day seven sectoral intellectual property laws were repealed. Second Revolution in this field took place during 2014: Federal law №35-FZ, 2014, substantially amending the Fourth part on the CC, entered into force on October the 1st of 2014. Scientific aim: The essence and evaluation of these amendments is the subject matter of this paper. Methods: The research is based on the analysis of the new amendments and articles added to the part fourth of the CC. Findings: Codification of the sectoral legislation en bloc in CC is a unique phenomenon. The author believes that such a construction of intellectual property law was made correctly and at the proper time. Factually the Federal Law №35-FZ (2014) is the eleventh law amending the text of the part fourth of the CC. But all previous amendments were small and not substantial. As far as amendments introduced by the law №35-FZ (2014) are concerned, they are numerous and very, very substantial. Before entering into force of the law №35-FZ (2014) (thereafter – law 35-FZ), the Part fourth of the CC contained 328 articles. The law 35-FZ amends 169 articles of it and adds seven new articles. I am convinced that the law is a rather big step towards building a modern system of intellectual property legislation in Russia. Conclusions: More than 150 amendments were introduced by the law №35-FZ. Author estimates about 80% of them as positive and about 20% as negative and erroneous. These amendments do not contradict the international intellectual property agreements signed by the Russian Federation. Generally their purpose is to enhance and clarify the Russian intellectual property legislation and to narrow the gap between Russian and European intellectual property laws. The author of this article deals with intellectual property laws more than 50 years on. This paper is a short English version of various articles on this topic published in Russian, in journals: «The business and the law» (Chozjaistvo i pravo) and «The patents and licenses» (Patenti i licenzii).

The Relationship Between Intellectual Property and Administrative Law

2021 ◽  
pp. 109-120
Author(s):  
Laurent Manderieux
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Direct Consequence ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Property Law ◽  
International Level ◽  
Intellectual Property Law ◽  
Law And Policy ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Research Analysis

Intellectual property and administrative law entertain a long-standing, though ambiguous relationship. Intellectual property rights (IPR) depend on a number of institutions, and primarily from intellectual property offices granting several of them, which fall into the administrative structure of each country. The direct consequence of the relevance of administrative law for the research, analysis, and understanding of intellectual property law is that certain IP-related questions cannot be properly addressed without using the tool provided by administrative law. Indeed, intellectual property and administrative law partly overlap, as both branches of law are nationally characterized and country-specific, changing from country to country, and both have experienced significant changes related to globalization from the national to the international level. The growing regulation of intellectual property at the international level has somehow brought about an expansion of the intersection between intellectual property and administrative law and procedures. Therefore, complete, thorough research on intellectual property law and policy must take into account the conceptual tools and categories elaborated in administrative law.

scholarly journals Intelektinės nuosavybės teisių pažeidimų tyrimai: metodologiniai aspektai.

Teisė ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 68 ◽  
pp. 37-50
Author(s):  
Mindaugas Kiškis ◽  
Mindaugas Krikščionaitis
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Influential Factor ◽  
International Studies ◽  
Property Law ◽  
Damage Awards ◽  
Intellectual Property Law ◽  
Law And Policy ◽  
Study Results

Intelektinės nuosavybės pažeidimų mastas ir pažeidžiamumas apskritai turi stiprią įtaką teisėdarai ir teisei taikyti. Remiantis tarptautinių organizacijų atliktais tyrimais Lietuvos Respublika yra laikoma vals­tybe, kurioje intelektinės nuosavybės teisių pažeidimų mastas yra ypač didelis, todėl, siekiant užkardyti intelektinės nuosavybės pažeidimus, Lietuvoje 1996–2000 m. nustatyta griežta intelektinės nuosavybės įstatyminė apsauga, kuri netgi viršija tarptautinius reikalavimus. Ypač griežta – civilinė atsakomybė, o priteisiamos žalos atlyginimo sumos siekia dešimtis ar net šimtus tūkstančių litų. Kadangi intelektinės nuosavybės pažeidimų tyrimai pateikiami kaip pagrindas nustatyti griežtą teisinę atsakomybę, siekiant išvengti socialinių-ekonominių iškraipymų, svarbu, kad šie tyrimai būtų objektyvūs ir metodologiškai pa­tikimi. Straipsnyje yra nagrinėjamos intelektinės nuosavybės pažeidimų (dažnai įvardijamų – intelektinės nuosavybės piratavimu) masto įtaka teisėdarai ir teisei taikyti, taip pat pažeidimų mastui tirti taikomos metodologijos. Analizuojami svarbiausių tarptautinių organizacijų tyrimai ir esami oficialūs intelektinės nuosavybės pažeidimų tyrimai Lietuvoje. Daroma išvada, kad intelektinės nuosavybės teisė pasikliauja abejotino objektyvumo tyrimais, taip pat pateikiamos sisteminės rekomendacijos dėl intelektinės nuo­savybės pažeidimų tyrimų Lietuvoje perspektyvos, siekiant sumažinti perdėto intelektinės nuosavybės pažeidžiamumo įtaką intelektinės nuosavybės teisei. The article surveys the methodologies used for measuring intellectual property infringements (piracy). The scope and losses from piracy have emerged as influential factor for the intellectual property legisla­tion and case law, causing stricter sanctions and higher damage awards. Thus, the reliability and impar­tiality of the piracy studies becomes increasingly important. Analysis of the methodologies employed by major international studies suggests lack of transparency and reliability, while juxtaposing them with the national piracy study results may suggest unjustified and exaggerated results in the former. The arti­cle concludes with the urge to disown the intellectual property law and policy from unreliable piracy stu­dies, as well as to adopt the uniform and impartial measurement of intellectual property infringements. Systemic criteria for such assessment are also suggested.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document