This article provides and analyzes data based on a study\u00a0conducted by the author (the \u201cStudy\u201d) on copyright infringement\u00a0cases filed in U.S. federal district courts in 2013. It focuses on\u00a0infringement cases involving activity on the Internet and discusses\u00a0actual and potential conflict-of-laws issues that the cases raised or\u00a0could have raised. The article complements the report entitled\u00a0Private International Law Issues in Online Intellectual Property\u00a0Infringement Disputes with Cross-Border Elements: An Analysis of\u00a0National Approaches (the \u201cReport\u201d), which was published by the\u00a0World Intellectual Property Organization in September 2015. In\u00a0the Report, its author, Professor Andrew F. Christie, discusses his\u00a0empirical findings about the intersection of intellectual property\u00a0(\u201cIP\u201d) law and conflict of laws and concludes that training\u00a0activities, further research, and development of soft law would be\u00a0the optimal means to address conflict-of-laws issues associated\u00a0with cross-border IP infringements. This article arrives at a\u00a0different conclusion: while training activities, further research,\u00a0and the development of soft law may raise awareness of the issues,\u00a0they will not solve the core problems that IP rights holders face\u00a0when they strive to protect their rights against infringements on the\u00a0Internet. Development and coordination of conflict-of-laws rules,\u00a0improvements in judicial cooperation, and streamlining of judicial\u00a0proceedings in cross-border cases will be indispensable for\u00a0addressing the issues effectively.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
This article provides and analyzes data based on a study\u00a0conducted by the author (the \u201cStudy\u201d) on copyright infringement\u00a0cases filed in U.S. federal district courts in 2013. It focuses on\u00a0infringement cases involving activity on the Internet and discusses\u00a0actual and potential conflict-of-laws issues that the cases raised or\u00a0could have raised. The article complements the report entitled\u00a0Private International …<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[5,74,75],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4718"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4718"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4718\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7158,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4718\/revisions\/7158"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4718"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4718"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4718"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}