"We all have to agree that we are alive in the most happening times [The IPKat has not come across this term before but rather likes it and thinks he might start using it too ...].
Right: even the best of IP licences can be stumped by unforeseen post-contractual events ...So would I, says the IPKat. Please post your comments below and/or send them to Aaradhana here.
The occurrence of SARS, tsunamis, floods, land slides, storms, H1N1, earthquakes, and (let's not forget) shorter and sharper economic cycles has changed our lives for ever. These events have duly left their impressions on the relevant IP laws all over the world. IP laws were amended to deal with the natural calamities [Some, perhaps ...]. In addition, there have been escalated sensitivities to IP protection, close scrutiny of the provisions of compulsory licensing, parallel imports, use of IPs under national emergencies, use and abuse of monopolies etc. The changing landscape, coupled with this new attitude, has resulted in a lot of jurisdictional peculiarities added to the IP laws.
Therefore a number of questions arise: do these jurisdictional peculiarities find their way into transactional documents at all? Especially when some of the peculiarities could potentially affect the dynamics of transactions, and may even catch the parties involved completely unaware and cause them loss. If jurisdictional peculiarities are not taken into account, then why are they not taken into account? What could be the reasons? How often do the parties affected end up in courts becuase of the omissions of jurisdictional peculiarities in their transactional documents? Is there any relevant caselaw? Or are the elements are covered elsewhere? I would really love to hear readers' experiences".