The international experience of damages valuation criteria application for measuring losses through intellectual property illegal exploitation

33
3
Article(UKR)(.pdf)

One of the main goals of intellectual property rights is to ensure financial protection of intellectual property rights of the rightsholder in case of violation. The article analyses the international experience of damages valuation criteria application for measuring losses through illegal exploitation of intellectual property (patents, trademarks, copyrights, etc.). The ability to make preliminary damage measuring due to the illegal use of intellectual property helps make better litigation choices. It is crucial to understand the basic approaches and damages valuation criteria in determining material loss. On the one hand, it helps the rightsholder make an informed and optimal decision to recover a reasonable amount of compensation in court. On the other hand, understanding the approach to determining damages affects the type and number of witnesses, facts, and experts involved in defending the case. Authors consider approaches and damage criteria for assessing the loss caused to rightsholders on the example of the European Union, the United States, and Colombia. It is shown that the same criteria are used in different countries for damages: lost benefit of the rightsholder; the profit of the offender; lump sum damage and/or hypothetical (“reasonable”) royalties; compensation established by law; coverage of other indirect losses. However, applying these criteria in different countries is different for the reimbursement of different types of intellectual property rights. The international experience analysis of damages valuation criteria application for measuring losses through intellectual property illegal exploitation allows to improve the normative-legal field in Ukraine and create a national methodology of damages measuring caused by illegal exploitation of the intellectual property.

  1. Weil, R.L., Lentz, D.G., Evans, E.A. (2017). Litigation Services Handbook: The Role of the Financial Expert, Sixth Edition. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.

  2. The Quantification of Damages in Cases of IP Infringements. (2018). WIPO/ACE/13/9. URL: https://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/doc_details.jsp?doc_id=412490

  3. Seuba, X. (2017). The Award of Damages. In The Global Regime for the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights (pp. 223-255). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  4. Russell, L. Parr. (2018). Infringement damages. In Intellectual Property: Valuation, Exploitation, and Infringement Damages (pp. 401-495).

  5. Adamov, D., Fazekas, B., Tivadar, K. (2009, May). Damages in trade mark infringement litigation: a comparative analysis of the Hungarian, other European, and US jurisdictions. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 4, 5, 341-346.

  6. Directive 2004/48/EC of the European parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights. (2004, April 30). Official Journal of the European Union, 157, 47. URL: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32004L0048R%2801%29

  7. Finkelstein, W.A., Sims, J.R. (2005). The Intellectual Property Handbook: A Practical Guide for Franchise, Business, and IP Counsel. Chicago: American Bar Association.

  8. Kuyk, C.F., Perdue, G. (2008, January 11). Early Assessment Of IP Damages Can Prove Beneficial (United States). Crowe Horwath LLP. URL: https://www.mondaq.com/Author/412656/Crowe-Horwath-LLP-Charles-F-Kuyk?article_id=56070

  9. García, D. (2009). Manual de responsabilidad civil y del Estado. Bogotá: Librería ediciones del profesional Ltda [in Spanish]

  10. Valencia Zea, A., Ortiz Monsalve, A. (2010). Derecho Civil. Vol. III. De las obligaciones, tenth edition. Bogotá: Temis [in Spanish]

  11. Pino Emhart, A. (2016). La restitución de ganancias y la acción de provecho por dolo ajeno. Ius et Praxis. 22 (1), 227-270 [in Spanish]

Full text