Dinwoodie, Graeme B.

English

Chicago-Kent College of Law

Chicago-Kent Law ReviewVolume 77Issue 3 Symposium on Constructing InternationalIntellectual Property Law: The Role of National CourtsArticle 2June 2002Constructing International Intellectual PropertyLaw: The Role of National CourtsGraeme B. DinwoodieIIT Chicago-Kent College of LawFollow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreviewPart of the Law CommonsThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons @ IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusionin Chicago-Kent Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarly Commons @ IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. For more information, pleasecontact dginsberg@kentlaw.iit.edu.Recommended CitationGraeme B. Dinwoodie, Constructing International Intellectual Property Law: The Role of National Courts, 77 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 991(2002).Available at: https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview/vol77/iss3/2INTRODUCTION:CONSTRUCTING INTERNATIONAL INTELLECTUALPROPERTY LAW: THE ROLE OF NATIONAL COURTSGRAEME B. DINWOODIE*The Symposium hosted by the Chicago-Kent Law Review andthe Chicago-Kent Program in Intellectual Property Law in October2001 brought together leading scholars, policymakers, and practitio-ners from the fields of intellectual property and private internationallaw. A rich debate ensued, canvassing numerous topics. But discus-sion centered on two concrete proposals, namely, the draft HagueConvention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgements in Civil andCommercial Matters (the "Hague Convention") and the Draft Con-vention on Jurisdiction and Recognition of Judgments in IntellectualProperty Matters authored by Rochelle Dreyfuss and Jane Ginsburg(the "Dreyfuss-Ginsburg proposal"). These proposals were analyzedand debated not only on their own terms, but also in the broader con-text of how the systems that each proposal would establish might af-fect the role of national courts in the construction of internationalintellectual property law.Since the on-site Symposium, the Hague Conference on PrivateInternational Law has met again to consider further the fate of theproposed Hague Convention. And, as was noted by Symposium par-ticipants intimately involved in the Hague process, further delibera-tion among Hague Conference participants may continue for sometime yet, even as to such basic questions as the scope of any conven-tion. However, the most recent text considered by the Hague confer-ees remains the June 2001 draft that was the subject of discussion atthe Symposium. That draft of the Hague Convention is reproducedin this law review issue along with the articles and commentaries pre-sented at the Symposium. Many of the provisions in the June 2001draft contain bracketed language and numerous footnotes, whichHague Conference participants included to identify the range of al-* Professor of Law and Norman and Edna Freehling Scholar, Chicago-Kent College ofLaw. Copyright 2002, Graeme B. Dinwoodie.CHICA GO-KENT LA W REVIEWternative provisions being debated. Jeff Kovar, head of the US dele-gation to the Hague Conference, has described the June 2001 text as"more honest" than the prior (September 1999) draft. That earlierversion was a simpler, skeletal document that arguably masked thewide difference of opinion that existed on several key provisions. Atthe very least, the June 2001 draft candidly reveals the spectrum ofpossibilities on questions of jurisdiction and recognition of judgments(if, perhaps, at the cost of immediate comprehension).The draft standalone treaty on jurisdiction and recognition ofjudgments in intellectual property matters authored by ProfessorsDreyfuss and Ginsburg is also reproduced in its entirety herein, alongwith an extensive commentary by its authors. Like the Hague Con-ference proposal, the Dreyfuss-Ginsburg proposal is a work in pro-gress. The American Law Institute has recently undertaken a projectto develop principles concerning jurisdiction and recognition ofjudgments in intellectual property matters, and that project will buildupon the draft provisions of the Dreyfuss-Ginsburg proposal and ac-companying commentary published in this issue.Although the outcome of the deliberations taking place both atthe Hague Conference and under the aegis of the American Law In-stitute should represent an evolution beyond the texts that formed thebasis for discussion at the October 2001 Symposium-both in content,and perhaps in form and scope-we have published both the Hagueand Dreyfuss-Ginsburg proposals as they stood at the end of 2001.They represent and record a moment in the process by whichpotentially important advances in international intellectual propertylaw and private international law were pursued. As such, thesedocuments offer insights into the substantive debate as well as thelawmaking process. And both proposals make important contribu-tions to these fields that will be of great value regardless of anyevolutions that occur. Finally, and perhaps most practically, theyprovide a reference for the accompanying articles in this issue thatseek to provide insight into broader thematic questions of interna-tional intellectual property law with which the Symposium was con-cerned: the role of national courts in the construction of internationalintellectual property law.[Vol. 77:991

Constructing International Intellectual Property Law: The Role of National Courts

https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3373&amp;context=cklawreview

Constructing International Intellectual Property Law: The Role of National Courts

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Chicago-Kent College of Law