Events

Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich, Room E10

Eine klare Trennung von exekutiver und judikativer Gewalt ist ein Kernmerkmal des modernen Rechtsstaates und grundlegende Voraussetzung für einen fairen und effektiven Rechtsschutz. Dass eine solche Trennung im Rahmen des auf dem EPÜ basierenden Verfahrens zur Erteilung Europäischer Patente hinreichend verwirklicht ist, wird zuweilen bezweifelt. Auch das Bundesverfassungsgericht hat sich mit der Thematik bereits auseinandergesetzt (vgl. Az. 2 BvR 2368/99). Im vergangenen Jahr hat das Europäische Patentamt (EPA) nun eine Reform umgesetzt, wonach die Beschwerdekammern einschließlich ihrer Geschäftsstellen und Unterstützungsdienste als gesonderte Einheit organisiert und vom Präsidenten der Beschwerdekammern geleitet werden. Parallel dazu steht das Einheitliche Patentgericht (EPG) in den Startlöchern, welches ebenfalls als völkerrechtlich verselbständigtes Rechtssubjekt konzipiert ist. Auch dessen Entscheidungen erzeugen gegenüber den Grundrechtsberechtigten in der innerstaatlichen Rechtsordnung Rechtswirkungen und müssen sich folglich an den wesentlichen grundgesetzlichen Gewährleistungen messen lassen.
Der Vortrag wird die jüngste Reform der Beschwerdekammern des EPA vor dem Hintergrund der für internationale Organisationen geltenden rechtsstaatlichen Anforderungen beleuchten. Dabei werden zugleich Bezüge zum Verfahren vor dem EPG hergestellt. Insbesondere die im Grundsatz vorgesehene Parallelität von Einspruchs- und Nichtigkeitsverfahren zeigt neue prozessuale Gestaltungsmöglichkeiten aber auch Herausforderungen auf.

Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich, Room 313

US doctrine on international trademark disputes is founded on a precedent from 1952. Steele v. Bulova Watch Co. is the first and only Supreme Court decision on the question of how far US trademark law should be extended beyond the US’s national borders when an international infringement is at issue. Even though cases have drastically multiplied there has been no comprehensive account of the actual state of the law. Courts and commentators continue to rely on a small set of leading cases, Steele and a few appellate court decisions, neglecting the landscape of lower courts’ decision-making. An empirical study of the field’s complete case law from 1952 until 2016 helps to address this blind spot. The results show that much of the conventional wisdom is questionable, if not incorrect. The analysis not only provides new and unexpected insights into the actual extension of US trademark law but also explains which factors drive the outcome in practice, how these factors interact with one another, and how each factor has been micro-shaped over time. Based on these findings, several crucial corrections to existing doctrine can be suggested. Most succinctly put, one can say that, in the interest of aligning judicial practice with the realities of socioeconomic globalization, the current overextension of the Lanham Act must be curbed. The doctrine of trademark extraterritoriality that has evolved in the wake of Steele v. Bulova is an anticompetitive detriment rather than a right-owner panacea.

Contact person: Dr. Fabian Gaessler

Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich, Room E10

Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich, Room 313

We study the impact of a new nationally advertised six-month intensive training program to encourage leadership in social entrepreneurship among youth. Program costs were on the order of 12,000 euros per participant. We conduct a randomized field experiment where 50 applicants were randomly allocated to the program and 50 similar applicants were rejected. Despite large training efforts we find no robust treatment effects on leadership motivation, leadership style, social entrepreneurial aspirations and intentions, skills, sustainable behaviour, entrepreneurial actions and venture progression. Those that had made more progress on their venture prior to the start of the program were more likely to make progress afterwards, irrespective of treatment. There were also large Hawthorne effects. Those having the highest expectations before selection to treatment, as measured by their self-ratings on a battery of scores, experienced the biggest drop across all scores after selection, irrespective of treatment. Training people to become entrepreneurs seems to be difficult and costly (co-authored with Florian Hoos).

Contact Person: Dr. Fabian Gaessler

Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich, Room 313

How is law structured? How does it change over time? These questions lie at the heart of legal scholarship, but they are mostly answered in narratives. Network science opens an alternative avenue, leveraging concepts from graph theory to quantify, visualize, and model legal structures and legal change. This talk draws on an original dataset of Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) decisions to illustrate how the network science perspective can enhance our understanding of German constitutional jurisprudence and to carve out more generally the promises and perils of measuring the law.

Contact person: Dr. Fabian Gaessler

Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich, Room E10

Technical interoperability and standards will play a key role for the functioning and the further development of the digital economy in times of the Internet of Things (IoT). Standardization is placed at the interface of technology, economics and the law. While the IoT is currently emerging as a technology paradigm, economists and lawyers will gradually grasp its regulatory implications. The Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition will hold a series of workshops that pursues a dual goals:

• to discuss with experts in which direction the IoT will develop with regard to specific areas where the Institute sees a need for standardization; and
• to identify and discuss the economic and regulatory implications of these changes.

Each workshop will address the different kinds of standards which in the Institute’s view are relevant for the IoT. The focus of the first workshop will be the IoT connectivity standards.

Without devices being able to connect and communicate to each other, the IoT will not succeed. Yet, the increased need for connectivity and interoperability creates numerous challenges. The workshop seeks to advance the discussion on these challenges by focusing on three areas:

• Technology and Market Landscape
• Standardization Landscape
• IPRs Landscape

The workshop will be held at the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition on April 25, 2017. Participation is by invitation only.

See Program

Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich, Room E10

European Patent Office, Isar Building, Bob-van-Benthem-Platz 1, 80469 Munich,
Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Marstallplatz 1, 80539 Munich

Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich, Room E10

From March 16 to 18, 2017, the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition will organize the workshop “European Intellectual Property Rights and Jurisdiction in Need of a Grand Design?” which will focus on four areas:

• Legal Aspects: Union-wide IP Rights plus Copyrights: The Status Quo including the Role of the ECJ (chair: Matthias Leistner); Patents: The Status Quo including EPO and UPC and the Role of the ECJ (chair: Axel Metzger),
• Empirical Insights (chair: Annette Kur): EU Trade Mark Infringement Litigation; Patent Litigation,
• Deficits and Perspectives in the Jurisdiction of IP Rights (chair: Paul Torremans), and
• Conclusions: In Need of a Grand Design? (chair: Reto Hilty).

The goal of the workshop is to identify deficits and research perspectives for further developing the EU jurisdiction scheme.

The workshop will be held at the Harnackhaus in Berlin. Participation is by invitation only.

See Program