Events

SpicyIP Events: 6th Annual IP Teaching/Research Workshop, 2017


Date : July 2, 2017 - July 3, 2017
Nature : Workshop
Location : NLSIU, Bangalore
Contact : As mentioned in the post below


We are pleased to announce that the Centre for Innovation, Intellectual Property and Competition (CIIPC), National Law University, Delhi and Centre for Intellectual Property Rights & Advocacy (CIPRA), National Law School of India University, Bangalore are organising the 6th Annual IP Teaching/Research Workshop, 2017 on July 2-3, 2017. For further details, please read their post below:

Centre for Innovation, Intellectual Property and Competition (CIIPC)

National Law University, Delhi

&

Centre for Intellectual Property Rights & Advocacy (CIPRA)

National Law School of India University, Bangalore

VI Annual IP Teaching/Research Workshop- 2017

Theme: IP Remedies

2-3 July, 2017, NLSIU, Bangalore

The scope and appropriateness of IP remedies has acquired significant attention in scholarly literature and case-law jurisprudence owing to dynamic changes in their conceptualization in a knowledge-based economy. Most arguments in favor of strong/weak or broad/narrow remedies spring from a teleological interpretation, or, as often seen, may be rooted in consequentiality. From a historical perspective, certain remedies available for violation of real property (land and chattels) have found their application in IP disputes and hence changes in the structure of remedies may be viewed as a necessary adjustment to suit the IP environment. However, there is little consensus on the many diverse goals that IP remedies may seek to foster, or how much deference must be given to specific effects of a certain remedy on parties involved in the dispute.

While remedies in intellectual property law (civil, criminal and/or administrative) are generally available at the preliminary stage or as a permanent measure, the right to exclude conferred by the IP laws has a strong exclusionary component. This makes exclusionary/prohibitive form of injunctive relief as the most favourable remedy sought by IP owners.  Other remedial measures, including account for profits, reasonable royalties and/or compensatory damages may also be preferred by IP owners. Alternative remedies may be preferable to certain parties that license widely or where injunctive relief may not be obtained in certain limited circumstances. Remedies do take different forms in different IP rights due to specific nature of the market. However, little consensus exists in theory, evidence and policy to arrive at the right heuristics. What courts are often left with to decide is the propriety of providing specific remedies based on equitable principles in each individual case, especially where there is very little consistency and guidance in the case-law jurisprudence. It is still unclear how best to factor in specific issues in evaluating the populist four-factor test or how best to apportion the value of IP in providing monetary damages. Furthermore, the issue of enhanced or exemplary damages is a fertile ground for contestation. While courts in India have devised unique principles, they have often referred to comparative jurisdictions to draw on specific principles. And yet, there is a seeming lack of consistency in how different courts and judges have approached similar issues in different jurisdictions.

With reference to the above, the following aspects may be particularly explored:

  • What theoretical underpinnings may offer a holistic understanding of the structure of IP remedies?
  • Is there a need to situate IP remedies in the context of broader innovation policy? Are IP remedies the end in themselves?
  • What economic dimensions of IP could contribute to the heuristics of IP remedies?
  • How empirical research on IP Remedies informs IP policy? Could courts factor in such research in awarding remedies or is there a need for legislative intervention?
  • Are interim remedies granted without the adequate application of equitable principles? Is there consistency in applying these principles?
  • How should permanent remedies be structured for different kinds of IP or for different forms of infringement?
  • Is there a need to tailor remedies in specific cases such as FRAND, multi-component products?
  • What is the interface between civil liberties and criminal remedies in IP and how best to balance them?
  • What principles are applicable in calculating IP damages? What are the rules for apportionment of IP damages if such apportionment is required in specific cases?
  • How should abuse of remedies be prevented? What is the role of competition law in correcting abuse of remedies that cause competitive harm?
  • How should countries defer to international IP rules in designing remedies in a situation where regulatory autonomy is increasingly defined by international and regional trade and investment agreements?

The Research Conference on IP Remedies as part of the VI Annual IP Teaching Workshop invites full-time faculty members or PH.D researchers associated with an Indian university from any discipline (law and social sciences) to apply by submitting a short research proposal of 500 words on any pertinent issue involving IP remedies along with their brief CV.

Please send in the proposal latest by 5th June 2017 to events-ciipc@nludelhi.ac.in Candidates will be informed by 8th June, 2017. Late submissions will not be accepted. CIIPC at NLU, Delhi and CIPRA at NLSIU, Bangalore will fully cover the travel (economy) and stay at NLSIU, Bangalore during the event. It may be noted that some eminent scholars/ practicing lawyers from India and abroad have been specifically invited to contribute to the discussions.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.