Intelektinė nuosavybė ir tarptautinė privatinė teisė: iššūkiai ateinančiam dešimtmečiui (Intellectual Property and Private International Law: Challenges for the Forthcoming Decade)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Private international law issues concerning intellectual property rights have become subject of vivid discussions both among practitioners and academics. This article provides for a comparative legal analysis of how cross-border intellectual property disputes are adjudicated in 20 major jurisdictions (US, Canada, selected European countries, Japan, Korea, India, and Taiwan). The first part of the focuses in particular on various issues concerning international jurisdiction over cross-border intellectual property disputes (general venue, infringement jurisdiction, exclusive/subject-matter jurisdiction, possibilities of consolidation, parallel proceedings, jurisdiction to grant provisional measures as well as choice of court agreements). The analysis of the court practice of different states highlighted inefficiencies related to adjudication of cross-border intellectual property disputes. Namely, the overview of landmark decisions rendered by the courts of different states highlighted the fact that in many cases IP disputes can be adjudicated only before the courts of the protecting states. This is the result of the principle of territoriality of IP rights. Hence, in practice, the proprietor of parallel IP rights must initiate proceedings before the courts of every state where the protection is sought. Such situation is neither effective nor desirable. Being aware of the difficulties which may be faced trying to establish a more flexible cross-border IP dispute settlement regime, the authors of this paper provide a brief overview of the legislative proposals (the ALI Principles, the CLIP Principles, the Transparency Proposal and the Korean Proposal). Meanwhile, if any legislative initiatives to draft an international instrument are to be revived, it is proposed, that one of the possible starting points could be the 1999/2001 Drafts of the Hague Judgments Convention.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".