Dutch judicial entrepreneurship towards legitimizing intellectual property rights

Publication Date01 Oct 2020
AuthorKrishnamani Jayaraman
DOI10.1177/1023263X20954627
SubjectCase Note
Case Note
Dutch judicial entrepreneurship
towards legitimizing intellectual
property rights
Krishnamani Jayaraman*
Abstract
In its recent judgment in the Sisvel v. Xiaomi case, the Court of Appeal of the Hague has
demonstrated how European national legal systems and judiciary therein strive to uphold
legitimacy of the intellectual property system. Involving dimensions of both substantive patent
law and competition law, the case emphasized proportionality etched in European Union law
to determine the legitimate cohesive balance for stakeholder economic interests in the
protection, enforcement and use of intellectual property rights. This case note documents the
salient features of the judgment and further comments on striking legal concepts that marked
the case.
Keywords
Intellectual property law, legitimization, proportionality, competition law and FRAND
1. Introduction
The legal fraternity’s efforts to constitutionalize intellectual property law have increased in the last
two decades.
1
Such efforts are the result of a growing discontent with seemingly brusque efforts to
maximize intellectual property protection and enforcement without due consideration of closely
* Department of International and European Law, Faculty of Law, Maastricht University, 62111LH, The Netherlands
Corresponding author:
Krishnamani Jayaraman, Institute for Globalization and International Regulation (IGIR), Department of International and
European Law, Faculty of Law, Maastricht University, Bouillonstraat 1-3, 6211 LH Maastricht, The Netherlands.
E-mail: k.jayaraman@maastrichtuniversity.nl
1. C. Geiger, ‘‘‘Constitutionalising’’ Intellectual Property Law? The Influence of Fundamental Rights on Intellectual
Property in the European Union’, 37 International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law (2006),
p. 371–406.
Maastricht Journal of European and
Comparative Law
2020, Vol. 27(5) 684–694
ªThe Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1023263X20954627
maastrichtjournal.sagepub.com
MJ
MJ

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT