Resolution

Question Q174

Jurisdiction and applicable law in the case of cross-border infringement
(infringing acts) of intellectual property rights

AIPPI

Recitals:

a) In a world where business is global, infringement may need to be looked at on a global basis and enforcement should be enhanced to become global or at least regional.
b) To achieve this goal, it should be possible in certain cases for courts of a country different from the country where the infringements or the acts leading to infringement ('infringing acts') take place ('affected country') to rule over the infringement. However, to avoid abuse of forum shopping, there should be some nexus (based on serious and objective criteria) between the forum chosen and the infringing acts.

c) The extent to which the courts of a given country can make a ruling over infringing acts in other countries or enforcement of foreign judgments can be enhanced by the existence of international agreements, bilateral, multilateral or regional, which harmonize intellectual property law and/or procedural law between the countries which are parties to these agreements.

d) The public order exception may vary according to the existence and scope of international agreements, bilateral, multilateral or regional, which harmonize intellectual property law and/or procedural law between the country parties to these agreements.

e) It may also vary according to the nature of the intellectual property right involved.

f) As a consequence of the principle of national sovereignty, many countries consider that only their courts or legal authorities may rule over the validity of an intellectual property right granted for this country and reserve exclusive jurisdiction to determine validity of an intellectual property right granted for that country.

g) Some countries consider the issue of jurisdiction in infringement matters to be dependent on whether a validity issue is raised. This resolution is not intended to decide whether validity issues should influence jurisdiction regarding infringement.

h) Although harmonization of substantive law is an important objective, this resolution is not intended to deal with such matters.

i) This resolution is intended to deal with intellectual property issues only and is not intended to influence tort law beyond that scope.

j) This resolution has to be regarded in its entirety. The provisions on enforcement cannot be seen separately from the provisions on jurisdiction.

Resolution:

Article 1 Jurisdiction

[§ 1] The courts of a given country should be allowed to make a ruling over infringing acts regarding certain intellectual property rights which have taken place in any other country, subject to the conditions mentioned in points 2 to 5.

[§ 2] This is not necessarily true for all kind of intellectual property rights as a decision on some of these rights may have a particular impact on public interest matters in the affected country.

[§ 3] The possibility given to a national court to rule over infringing acts committed outside its territorial jurisdiction should be linked to sufficient objective connection with the territory of this court.

[§ 4] The principal circumstance in which such objective connection exists is where the defendant is domiciled in the territory of the court.

[§ 5] Countries should harmonize their rules of conflict of jurisdiction, notably through regional agreements.

Article 2 Conflict of laws

[§1] A clear distinction should be drawn between the conflict of jurisdictions and the conflict of laws.

[§2] The law applicable to the substance of the case, including any available remedies, should be, except in special circumstances, the law of the place for which protection is sought (lex loci protectionis).

[§3] The law of the court seized (lex fori) should govern the conduct of the proceedings.

Article 3 Cross border effect of the remedies

[§1] The court making a judgment should determine which of the available remedies are to be applied.

[§2] However, any enforcement of a judgment in another country shall be subject to the law of that country, including any applicable ordre public considerations, and may require approval by the courts of that country.

[§3] The mere fact that it is a foreign court that has ruled on an infringement which has taken place in the affected country should not be a ground for refusing enforcement.

Article 4 Coordination of proceedings pending in various countries

[§1] When there are substantive actions having the same cause of action and between the same parties in more than one jurisdiction, the courts other than the court first seized should consider staying proceedings.

Article 5 Miscellaneous

[§1] The studies on jurisdiction and applicable law should be continued, particularly in the context of validity of intellectual property law rights.

第174题 决议参考译文

跨境知识产权侵权案件 (侵权行为)的管辖和适用法律

AIPPI

陈述

　　1、 一个贸易是全球贸易的世界，侵权或许需要在全球的基础上考虑，并且，实施也应该提高到全球性，或者至少是地区性的。

　　2．为达到这一目标，一个与侵权发生地或者行为导致侵权(侵权行为)发生的国家(受影响的国家)的法院不同的另一国家的法院，在某些案件中，判决侵权应是可能的。然而，为避免选择法院的滥用，在所选的法院和侵权行为之间应该有一些关联（基于严重的和客观的标准）。

　　3．一个特定国家的法院可以对在其他国家的侵权行为做出裁决的范围，或者外国判决的执行，可以因存在成员国之间国际的、双边的、多边的或者地区性的知识产权法律和/或程序法的协调协议而增强。

　　4．公共秩序的例外可能根据成员国之间国际的、双边的、多边的或者地区性的 知识产权法律和/或程序法的协议的存在和范围而相异。

　　5．它还有可能根据涉及的知识产权的性质而变化。

　　6．由于国家主权原则的影响，许多国家认为，只有它们的法院或法律当局有权对一项授予该国知识产权权利的有效性做出裁定和保留决定授予那个国家的一项知识产权权利有效性的唯一管辖权。

　　7．一些国家认为，侵权事务的管辖取决于是否提出有效性问题。本议不是要决定有效性问题是否应该影响与侵权有关的管辖。

　　8．尽管实体法律的协调是一个重要主题，但本决议无意处理这些事情。

　　9．本决议希望仅仅处理知识产权问题，并不想超出此范围去影响侵权行为法。

　　10. 本协议必须视为一个整体。执行条款不能与管辖条款分离。

决议

第一条 管辖权

　　1．在第2至5 点所述的情况下，一个特定的国家的法院应被允许对发生在任何其他国家的某些知识产权的侵权行为做出裁定。

　　2．虽然对一些知识产权所做的决定，可能在受影响的国家对公共利益事务有特别的影响，但是，各种知识产权权利不必都准确无误。

　　3．给予一个国家的法院对发生在其属地管辖权以外的侵权行为做出裁定的可能性应与该法院属地有足够的客观联系。

　　4．存在这些客观联系的主要情况是被告的居住地在法院属地内。

　　5．国家间应对它们的管辖权冲突的规定加以协调，特别是通过地区协议去协调。

第二条 法律冲突

　　1．应明确区分管辖冲突和法律冲突。

　　2．适用于案件实体的法律，包括任何可能的赔偿， 应该是要寻求得到法律保护地的法律（寻求保护地法），特殊情况除外。

　　3．诉讼地的法律应适用诉讼行为（法院地法）。

第三条 救济的跨境影响

　　1. 受理法院应决定哪种救济可用。

　　2. 然而，任何一项在他国实施的判决，将取决于那个国家的法律，包括公众考虑的任何可适用的法令（译者注：此处原文是including applicable ordre public considerations, 无法翻译，故而，译者只能1，将ordre 看作是order； 2, 姑且假设原文在order 后遗漏了of。），并且，判决的执行也许需要那个国家法院的批准。

　　3. 仅凭外国法院在一个有影响的国家发生的侵权进行裁定的事实不应成为拒绝实施的理由。

第四条 在各国待决诉讼的协调

　　1．在实体诉讼中有相同诉讼理由和相同的当事人间提起一个以上的管辖权时，非首个受理的法庭应考虑中止诉讼。

第五条 杂项

　　1．关于管辖权和适用法律的研究还要继续，特别是知识产权法律权利的有效性的内容。