Authors and performers tend to be in the weaker contractual position when they grant a licence or transfer their rights for the purposes of exploitation in return for remuneration. Directive 2019/790 on the Digital Single Market Directive (DSM) therefore aims to strengthen the contractual position of authors and performers so they are “able to fully benefit from the rights harmonised under Union law”. In light of this aim, the EU legislator made certain rules mandatory in purely intra-EU situations. Some Member States have made these rules mandatory even in situations having a connection to a third country. Mandatory rules can only be effectively enforced if a dispute is brought before a court in a Member State obligated to apply them. A court in a third country is not obligated to apply EU or national Member State mandatory rules and may be restricted from doing so by the third country’s choice of law rules if the agreement specifies a third country law as governing law. This article examines the application of the DSM contract rules in a cross-border context, in particular, whether a Swedish court must refuse to give effect to choice of court agreements, in contracts between a Swedish author or performer and their contractual partner, that grant exclusive jurisdiction to third country courts and are coupled with the choice of third country law.

This entry describes the  theoretical and historical underpinnings of the principle of exhaustion in intellectual property law as well as its internationel legal framework.

When the Swedish Instrument of Government was adopted in 1974, popular sovereignty and a strong Parliament (Riksdag) prevailed. The courts played a subordinate role, individual rights were less prominent, and constitutional cases were rarely adjudicated. Fifty years later, Sweden has moved from a separation of functions to a de facto separation of powers. Popular sovereignty remains firmly entrenched, but it has taken on a different meaning as a result of Sweden’s membership in the European Union (EU). In 2010, therefore, the Instrument of Government was reformed which strengthened the position of the Swedish courts. The significance of individual rights has also increased as a result of Sweden’s membership in the EU, the incorporation of the European Convention of Human Rights into Swedish law, and the expansion of Chapter 2 on Fundamental Rights and Freedoms in the Instrument of Government. 

This volume is a collaboration between Swedish and other Nordic researchers to celebrate the anniversary of the Swedish Instrument of Government. The events of our recent past, characterised by pandemics, terrorist threats and repressive legislation to deal with serious crime, demonstrate that Constitutional issues are even more relevant today than ever. 

The right of priority established in the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property allows a patent applicant to claim the filing date of a first application for any subsequent applications for the same invention filed within twelve months in another Paris Convention Contracting State. This right may be claimed by the person who has filed an application or their successor in title. If priority is not validly claimed, patent applications and patents relying on the right may be rejected, revoked or invalidated. National and regional rules governing who may claim priority, whether a priority right may be divided or shared, whether it may be transferred independently of the priority application and the rights to the invention, and the requirements for a valid transfer differ from country to country. The issue of whether priority has been validly claimed may therefore depend on which country’s law applies, which depends on the characterisation of the issues. The aim of this article is to provide a European perspective on the law applicable to the right of priority.

In today’s data-driven economy, it is essential for companies to protect their trade secrets against unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure; with the ease of digital communications, employee migration and international trade, trade secret violations now often occur across national borders. This book examines how trade secret protection can differ across jurisdictions, where trade secret holders can bring proceedings, and which country’s law is applicable.

The book provides a European perspective, analysing how the EU’s rules on jurisdiction and applicable law relate to the EU’s wider objectives of encouraging cross-border innovation activities. Using common trade secret scenarios as a springboard for analysis, this book questions whether EU private international law rules can be interpreted to facilitate the objectives of the EU Trade Secret Directive and in doing so it sets out a detailed examination of both regimes.