| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Lundstedt, Lydia
(författare)
-
Concurrent Claims against Licensee: Which Courts have International Jurisdiction?
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Magna Mater Marianne Levin 2022. - Stockholm : Jure förlag AB. - 9789172238879 ; , s. 131-141
-
Bokkapitel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- A breach of certain clauses in a license agreement may give rise to ‘concurrent liability' in contract and in intellectual property (IP) law. For instance, if a licensor discovers that its licensee uses the registered design or trademark for a range of products not covered by the license, these uses of the design or the trademark may constitute both a breach of contract and an infringement of the right holder’s exclusive right protected by the applicable design or trademark law. Under the law of many legal systems, the licensor (who is also the right holder) may be permitted to frame its action as one in contract or one in IP law, or both, in order to increase its chances of success on the merits and to obtain the most effective remedy. If the dispute between the licensor and the licensee has cross-border elements questions arise concerning which courts have international jurisdiction. Pursuant to Article 7(1) BIa, ‘a matter relating to a contract’ may be brought ‘in the courts for the place of performance of the obligation in question´ (forum solutionis) and pursuant to Article 7(2) BIa, ‘matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict’ may be brought ‘in the courts for the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur’ (forum delicti). As these rules have different connecting factors, they might be located in different Member States. The CJEU has held that a matter might fall under Article 7(1) or Article 7(2) but it cannot fall under both. In addition, the CJEU has declined to interpret Article 7 so as to confer accessory jurisdiction (Annex Kompetenz) so that a court having jurisdiction pursuant to Article 7(2) over the IP claim will not have jurisdiction over related contract claim (and vice versa). The purpose of this article is to analyse whether the licensor can choose its preferred Member State by the way it frames its cause of action (i.e. in contract or in IP law).
|
|
| 7. |
- Lunell, Erika, 1966-
(författare)
-
Positionsmärken – vad skyddas och varför?
- 2022. - 1
-
Ingår i: Magna Mater Marianne Levin 2022. - Stockholm : Jure. - 9789172238879 ; , s. 143-158
-
Bokkapitel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)
|
|
| 8. |
- Nordberg, Ana, et al.
(författare)
-
Creative Machines, Orphan Inventions: AI and the concept of inventor at the EPO
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Magna Mater Marianne Levin 2022 : Festskrift till Marianne Levin - Festskrift till Marianne Levin. - 9789172238879 ; , s. 159-180
-
Bokkapitel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- In 2018, an AI system named by its creator DABUS (Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience) was credited by its creator to have independently invented a neural flame and a fractal container. According to its creator, DABUS is a ‘sentient artificial general intelligence can replicate all aspects of human cognition, including perception, creativity, consciousness, and sentience’ and these creative machines are capable of having ‘subjective feelings about their cognitive products.’ (Thaler, 2021). This chapter analyses the ongoing attempts to patent the output of this AI system at the EPO, the decision of the receiving section and legal board of appeal (JBA), discussing a selection of relevant points of law raised by this case. Several decisions concerning the DABUS case have also been issued at national level, a few will be very briefly analyzed to provide context to the ensuing discussion on de lege ferenda proposals for legislative interventions regarding orphan inventions.
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
- Wennersten, Ulrika, et al.
(författare)
-
Avtalsbrott alternativt intrång
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Magna Mater Marianne Levin 2022. - 9789172238879 ; , s. 315-315
-
Bokkapitel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)
|
|
