Cross Border Intellectual Property Litigation 
Cross-Border Intellectual Property Litigation
1. What is the territoriality principle and how does it impact cross border intellectual property litigation?
Throughout history, we have witnessed the territorial conception of national and international intellectual property law face an array of global challenges. According to the principle of territoriality, the possibility of protecting an IP right is limited to the territory of the country where the right is granted. In other words, it is fundamentally domestic. As general rule this would signify that a country’s IP laws would not receive application outside of their borders. In the case Aramco, the Supreme Court as a matter of statutory contraction, states that U.S. courts are to presume “that legislation of Congress, unless a contrary intent appears, is meant to apply only within the territorial boundaries of the United States.” The party who makes a claim with respects to extraterritorial application bears the burden of showing the “affirmative intention of Congress clearly expressed”. By establishing this presumption against extraterritoriality the Supreme Court echoes the importance concerning the principle of territoriality. Thus, U.S Congress has authority to assert extraterritoriality of its laws only under exceptional circumstances.
The principle of territoriality forms the basis for both national and international IP laws as well as multilateral treaties on intellectual property protection and this is considered an international standard principle. Furthermore, due to the possibilities of worldwide communication and trade, we have seen a dramatic increase in multi-territorial IP cases. This is one of the reasons why the principle of territoriality is coming under increasing pressure from the international community. In an attempt to harmonize national and international intellectual property, certain treaties such as the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Property, the Paris
1. What is the territoriality principle and how does it impact cross border intellectual property litigation?
Throughout history, we have witnessed the territorial conception of national and international intellectual property law face an array of global challenges. According to the principle of territoriality, the possibility of protecting an IP right is limited to the territory of the country where the right is granted. In other words, it is fundamentally domestic. As general rule this would signify that a country’s IP laws would not receive application outside of their borders. In the case Aramco, the Supreme Court as a matter of statutory contraction, states that U.S. courts are to presume “that legislation of Congress, unless a contrary intent appears, is meant to apply only within the territorial boundaries of the United States.” The party who makes a claim with respects to extraterritorial application bears the burden of showing the “affirmative intention of Congress clearly expressed”. By establishing this presumption against extraterritoriality the Supreme Court echoes the importance concerning the principle of territoriality. Thus, U.S Congress has authority to assert extraterritoriality of its laws only under exceptional circumstances.
The principle of territoriality forms the basis for both national and international IP laws as well as multilateral treaties on intellectual property protection and this is considered an international standard principle. Furthermore, due to the possibilities of worldwide communication and trade, we have seen a dramatic increase in multi-territorial IP cases. This is one of the reasons why the principle of territoriality is coming under increasing pressure from the international community. In an attempt to harmonize national and international intellectual property, certain treaties such as the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Property, the Paris