The Unpopular club: places where you hate to litigate

The IPKat's poll on the question "In which country would you least like to litigate your IP rights?" brought some remarkable results. There was some suspicion that China, long criticised for the opacity of its enforcement procedures, would have been the forum to avoid - but it was Russia that came out on top with 89 of the 281 votes cast. Equally surprising - and very hurtful to some readers who emailed the IPKat to complain - was the unpopularity of the United States, with 58 votes (21%). While the US is a very popular forum for US-based litigants, who know the system and often factor its vicissitudes into their business plans, it is far less popular with non-US defendants. This may be both because the damages awards often appear to be out of all proportion to any damage done through an infringement and because of perceptions of plaintiff-favouritism in East Texas.

A further surprise is the popularity of the previously much-disliked UK courts. Although they are often rightly criticised for their expense, the quality of the final decision is generally praised and it should be remembered that the vast majority of IP claims launched in the UK are efficiently settled long before trial. And we must not forget to congratulate Australia, for picking up only one unpopularity vote.
The Unpopular club: places where you hate to litigate The Unpopular club: places where you hate to litigate Reviewed by Jeremy on Monday, July 30, 2007 Rating: 5

No comments:

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here:

Powered by Blogger.