Jacques de Werra is professor of contract law and intellectual property law at the Law School of the University of Geneva, Switzerland. He was appointed as vice-rector of the University of Geneva in 2015. He researches, publishes and speaks on topics related to various aspects of intellectual property law, contract law, particularly on the commercialization of intellectual property assets by way of transfer of technology, licensing and franchising, IT and Internet law, as well as on alternative dispute resolution mechanisms for IP and technology disputes. He is the organizer of the Internet l@w summer school (www.internetlaw-geneva.ch) and the coordinator for the University of Geneva of the WIPO - University of Geneva Summer school on Intellectual Property.
... OF ACCESS AND BENEFIT SHARING (2006), available at http://www.edmonds-institute.org/ outofafr... more ... OF ACCESS AND BENEFIT SHARING (2006), available at http://www.edmonds-institute.org/ outofafrica.pdf (explaining a month long study of biopiracy and benefit sharing agreements in Africa); World Trade Organization, Combating BiopiracyThe Peruvian Experience, IP/C ...
... OF ACCESS AND BENEFIT SHARING (2006), available at http://www.edmonds-institute.org/ outofafr... more ... OF ACCESS AND BENEFIT SHARING (2006), available at http://www.edmonds-institute.org/ outofafrica.pdf (explaining a month long study of biopiracy and benefit sharing agreements in Africa); World Trade Organization, Combating BiopiracyThe Peruvian Experience, IP/C ...
La Faculté de droit de l’Université de Genève est heureuse de perpétuer la tradition et d’offrir ... more La Faculté de droit de l’Université de Genève est heureuse de perpétuer la tradition et d’offrir à la Société Suisse des Juristes le présent recueil de contributions à l’occasion de la tenue du Congrès 2012 à Genève. En écho à la thématique du Congrès qui est « Le droit suisse face aux défis du droit international », cet ouvrage présente quelques illustrations originales de l’interaction entre le droit interne et le droit international comme de l’apport du droit comparé et du droit international à la réflexion en droit interne, et ce, dans une perspective suisse, voire genevoise, démontrant ainsi que Genève, par son interaction naturelle avec le droit étranger et international, a le privilège d’être située au confluent du droit interne et du droit international. Cet ouvrage rassemble des contributions rédigées par des professeurs de la Faculté sur des thèmes d’une grande variété (parmi lesquels figurent notamment le droit fiscal, le droit de la personnalité ainsi que le droit international privé et public) mais qui reflètent toutes une approche de la recherche et de l’enseignement juridiques caractérisée par l’ouverture sur le droit international et étranger. Il confirme la place occupée par Genève sur l’échiquier juridique mondial.
In spite of the growing risks posed by cyber-attacks, the legal fallout and, specifically , the c... more In spite of the growing risks posed by cyber-attacks, the legal fallout and, specifically , the civil liability resulting from such attacks is still unclear and raises complex legal issues namely because of the diversity of potentially applicable liability regimes (which include personal data and product liability regulations). It may thus be that legislative action on this issue will be warranted at some point in the future.
L'arrêt du Tribunal fédéral 4A_317/2016 du 15 septembre 2016 confirme qu'un preneur de licence de... more L'arrêt du Tribunal fédéral 4A_317/2016 du 15 septembre 2016 confirme qu'un preneur de licence de marque qui n'a pas inscrit la licence au registre des marques ne peut pas faire valoir cette licence à l'encontre du tiers qui a acquis la marque dans la faillite de la société titulaire de celle-ci. Contrat de vente d'actifs.
This paper discusses the potential of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms for solving Inter... more This paper discusses the potential of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms for solving Internet-related disputes and for addressing the challenges of Massive Online Micro-Justice, i.e. an online justice system that aims at solving a massive amount of micro Internet-related disputes affecting citizens and companies alike around the globe that are presently submitted to online platforms and decided by them. In particular, this paper discusses the challenges faced by online platforms to deal with the myriad of micro cases they are confronted with on a daily basis by reference to the massive (and ever-growing) amount of removal requests which have been submitted to Google following the (highly mediatised) confirmation by the Court of Justice of the European Union of the Right to Be De-indexed (better known under a misnomer, i.e. the Right to Be Forgotten). On this basis, this paper pleads for the development of global policies governing online alternative dispute resolution mechanisms which is critical to avoid fragmentation and which is necessary to maintain equitable access to justice in cyberspace. In this respect, this paper discusses the use of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) as a possible source of guidance for such global dispute resolution mechanism.
Keywords: Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), Online Dispute Resolution (ODR), cyberlaw, right to be forgotten, right to be des-indexed, Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP)
In its recent decision ATF 140 III 134, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court held that certain claims ... more In its recent decision ATF 140 III 134, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court held that certain claims raised by patent licensors against their exlicensee after the termination of their patent license agreement were within the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal notwithstanding a contractual provision which seemed to limit the submission to arbitration of only pretermination disputes. This interesting decision confirms that courts can consider adequate to confer to arbitral tribunals the jurisdictional powers to decide on patent-related claims after the termination of the patent license agreement at issue, even in the presence of contractual limits to the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal. This note further discusses the opposite scenario in which certain disputes arising before the conclusion of a patent license agreement can be submitted to arbitration. This peculiar situation arises in connection with so called standard essential patents (which are quite common in the information technology / telecommunication industries) which must be made available to willing licensees under fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and conditions (FRAND) and for which arbitration can be used in order to determine the FRAND-compliant terms and conditions of the patent license agreement (specifically the royalties to be paid by the licensee for the use of the standard essential patents). This note analyses this scenario in the light of the recent commitments made by Samsung (in its high profile dispute with Apple) which were validated by the European Commission on April 29, 2014 and which contains very interesting arbitration-related features which deserve to be presented. In sum, this note illustrates the expanding significance of arbitration for patent licensing disputes with respect to both post-termination disputes (as decided in ATF 140 III 134) and pre-licensing disputes (as contemplated for FRAND disputes).
The growing importance of intellectual property assets in today’s economy and transnational busin... more The growing importance of intellectual property assets in today’s economy and transnational business transactions, the complexities and disadvantages of intellectual property litigation before state courts as well as the attractiveness of ADR solutions as such (particularly in terms of confidentiality of expertise) explain why arbitration and other alternative dispute resolution systems (particularly mediation) are increasingly perceived as attractive methods for solving intellectual property disputes at the global level. This trend is also perceivable in Europe as a result of the new patent court system that shall be established on the basis of the recent adoption of the European Patent with Unitary Effect and of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court signed in February 2013 which will include the creation of a new patent mediation and arbitration center (which will have its seat in Lisbon and in Ljubljana). These developments make it necessary to analyze what are the traps and promises of the new patent arbitration and mediation landscape that will be available in Europe on the basis of this new regulatory environment.
The complexities of international intellectual property litigation (including jurisdictional issu... more The complexities of international intellectual property litigation (including jurisdictional issues, choice of law, lis pendens, and the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments) contribute to explain why arbitration and alternative dispute resolution systems constitute an attractive method for solving intellectual property disputes. At a time when the European Union has created a new patent court system (as a result of the recent adoption of the European Patent with Unitary Effect and of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court signed in February 2013) which will include the setting up of a new patent arbitration and mediation center, it is critical that this new institution shall take into account the best practices and the experience developed in these fields in other parts of the world, particularly in Korea which has gained considerable experience on these issues. On this basis, the goal of this article is to present the recent developments relating to the use of arbitration and alternative dispute resolution mechanisms for solving intellectual property disputes in Korea and in Europe from a comparative perspective.
Under the TRIPS Agreement (Art. 41 para. 5) countries are given the option to create specialised ... more Under the TRIPS Agreement (Art. 41 para. 5) countries are given the option to create specialised intellectual property (IP) courts. On this basis, countries are free to decide what types of judicial body or bodies have the jurisdiction to hear IP disputes. Although IP disputes are sometimes primarily viewed as relating to the enforcement of intellectual property rights against counterfeiters (specifically in the copyright and trademark areas), the reality and the landscape of IP disputes are much more complex. The diversity of IP disputes makes it difficult to give a simple and unique answer to the question of whether it is advantageous or necessary to establish specialised IP courts. This diversity is also reflected in the way in which national or regional lawmakers and regulators have structured their IP dispute resolution systems. While recent studies demonstrate that there is no unique global system or even a prevailing system, a trend towards specialisation or centralisation of certain types of IP disputes seems perceivable at the global level. However, this trend does not eliminate the differences which remain, particularly regarding the scope of the jurisdictional power of specialised IP courts. There are various advantages and disadvantages in establishing a specialised IP court. Improvements in the quality of justice, time and cost efficiencies of the proceedings, as well as consistency and uniformity, are among the advantages that are generally identified. In terms of disadvantages, reference is generally made to the costs of establishing and of operating a specialised IP court. In addition, some have expressed concerns that such a court may become subject to political or economic influences and may develop ‘tunnel vision’ deriving from mainstream legal and societal movements. Given the diversity of legal systems and regimes, there is no single method for establishing an efficient IP court system that promotes innovation and social welfare. Similarly, there is no clear evidence that specialised IP courts more effectively promote innovation vis-à-vis non-specialised courts in all circumstances. However, it is clear that a sufficient level of experience and expertise among the courts and judges can significantly improve the quality of justice in IP disputes. How advantageous or necessary it is to establish specialised IP courts in a given jurisdiction depends on a number of factors which are not limited to IP issues. Rather, this determination will take into account more general factors, including economics, the legal system and societal characteristics. Thus, the creation of specialised IP courts cannot be recommended in all circumstances. A decision relating to the establishment of specialised IP courts must consequently be made on the basis of a fully informed, transparent and unbiased analysis of the situation which prevails in the relevant territory.
Cet ouvrage constitue le septième volume de la collection propriété intellectuelle – intellectual... more Cet ouvrage constitue le septième volume de la collection propriété intellectuelle – intellectual property (www.pi-ip.ch) éditée à la Faculté de droit de l’Université de Genève (par le Prof. Jacques de Werra). Il rassemble les contributions (présentées ci-dessous) qui ont été rédigées à l’occasion de la Journée de Droit de la Propriété Intellectuelle (www.jdpi.ch) organisée le 14 février 2014 à l’Université de Genève sur le thème « Défis du droit de la concurrence déloyale / Challenges of Unfair Competition Law ».; This book is the seventh volume in the book collection propriété intellectuelle – intellectual property (www.pi-ip.ch) which is edited at the Law School of the University of Geneva (by Prof. Jacques de Werra). It collects the papers (listed below) which have been written for the intellectual property law conference (« Journée de Droit de la Propriété Intellectuelle », www.jdpi.ch) which was organized on February 14, 2014 at the University of Geneva on the topic « Défis du droit de la concurrence déloyale / Challenges of Unfair Competition Law ».
Actes de la Journée de droit de la propriété intellectuelle organisée le 8 février 2010 par l'Ass... more Actes de la Journée de droit de la propriété intellectuelle organisée le 8 février 2010 par l'Association internationale pour la protection de la propriété intellectuelle (AIPPI Suisse) et le Centre d'arbitrage et de médiation de l'Organisation mondiale de la propriété intellectuelle.
Actes de la Journée de droit de la propriété intellectuelle, organisée à Genève le 2 février 2009... more Actes de la Journée de droit de la propriété intellectuelle, organisée à Genève le 2 février 2009, regroupant des contributions de Marianne Chappuis, François Gindrat, Ivan Cherpillod, Heijo Ruijsenaars/Pranvera Këllezi, Nick White et Henry Peter/Jacques de Werra
Uploads
Papers by Jacques de Werra
Keywords: Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), Online Dispute Resolution (ODR), cyberlaw, right to be forgotten, right to be des-indexed, Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP)