81 FR 81741 - Request for Comments and Notice of Public Meeting on a Preliminary Draft Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Currently Being Negotiated at The Hague Conference on Private International Law
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Patent and Trademark Office Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 223 (November 18, 2016)
Patent and Trademark Office
Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 223 (November 18, 2016)
| Page Range | 81741-81744 | |
| FR Document | 2016-27799 |
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 223 (Friday, November 18, 2016)] [Notices] [Pages 81741-81744] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2016-27799] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Patent and Trademark Office [Docket No.: PTO-P-2016-0046] Request for Comments and Notice of Public Meeting on a Preliminary Draft Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Currently Being Negotiated at The Hague Conference on Private International Law AGENCY: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of public meeting; request for comments. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Hague Conference on Private International Law (``The Hague Conference''), an international organization in the Netherlands, is sponsoring negotiations for a convention on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in civil and commercial matters. In February 2016, the Council on General Affairs and Policy of The Hague Conference created a Special Commission on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments (``the Special Commission'') to prepare a preliminary draft text of the convention, which is subject to a formal diplomatic negotiation open to member States of The Hague Conference. At its first session in June 2016, the Special Commission produced a Preliminary Draft Convention that contains general and specific provisions that would apply to the recognition and enforcement of judgments arising from transnational intellectual property disputes. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) seeks public comments on the June 2016 Preliminary Draft Convention (the ``Preliminary [[Page 81742]] Draft'') as it relates to intellectual property matters. To assist the USPTO in determining the best way to address this topic, the USPTO will host a public meeting to obtain public input. The meeting will be open to the public and will provide a forum for discussion of the questions identified in this notice. Written comments in response to the questions set forth in this notice also are requested. DATES: The public meeting will be held on January 12, 2017, beginning at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST) and ending at 4:00 p.m. EST. Public Meeting Registration Deadline: Registration to attend the public meeting in person or via webcast is required by January 5, 2017. Additionally, requests to participate in the public meeting as a speaker must be submitted in writing no later than December 29, 2016. See the ``Event Registration Information'' section of this notice for additional details on how to register and how to request to present as a speaker. Written Comments: Written comments must be received on or before January 9, 2017. ADDRESSES: Event Address: The public meeting will be held in the USPTO Headquarters, Global Intellectual Property Academy (GIPA), Madison Building (East), Second Floor, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314. Written Comments: Interested parties are encouraged to file written comments electronically by email to [email protected]. Comments submitted by email should be machine-searchable and should not be copy-protected. Written comments also may be submitted by mail to the Office of Policy and International Affairs, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Mail Stop International Affairs, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450. Responders should include the name of the person or organization filing the comment, as well as a page number, on each page of their submissions. Paper submissions should also include a CD or DVD containing the submission in MS Word[supreg], WordPerfect[supreg], or pdf format. CDs or DVDs should be labeled with the name and organizational affiliation of the filer, and the name of the word processing program used to create the document. All personally identifiable information (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business information or otherwise sensitive or protected information. The USPTO will accept anonymous written comments (enter ``N/A'' in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous). All comments received are part of the public record and will be available for public inspection without change via the USPTO's Web site at www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/ip-policy/hague-conference-private-international-law and at the Office of the Director, Policy and International Affairs, located in Madison West, Tenth Floor, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314, upon request. Because comments will be available for public inspection, information that is not desired to be made public, such as name, an address or phone number, etc., should not be included in the written comments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information should be directed to the attention of Michael Shapiro, Senior Counsel, Office of Policy and International Affairs, USPTO, by telephone at 571- 272-9300, or by email to [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Hague Conference is sponsoring negotiations for a convention on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. Following preparatory work on the draft convention by a Working Group beginning in 2012, in February 2016, the Council on General Affairs and Policy of The Hague Conference established a Special Commission to prepare a preliminary draft convention on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in civil and commercial matters. The first meeting of the Special Commission took place June 1-9, 2016, at The Hague, Netherlands. The second meeting of the Special Commission is scheduled to take place February 16-24, 2017, at The Hague. The text of the Preliminary Draft produced at the first session of the Special Commission, along with other documents relating to the convention is available at: https://www.hcch.net/en/projects/legislative-projects/judgments/special-commission1. Brief Summary of the Draft Convention The Preliminary Draft currently contains 16 articles organized into two chapters. Chapter I (Articles 1-3) sets forth the scope and definitions for the draft treaty. Chapter II (Articles 4-16) sets forth the basic rules governing the recognition and enforcement of judgments under the treaty. Scope, Exclusions From Scope, and Definitions The Preliminary Draft applies to the recognition and enforcement of judgments in a Contracting State of judgments relating to civil or commercial matters in another Contracting State (Article 1). The term ``judgment'' means any decision on the merits, including determinations of costs or expenses related to such decisions (Article 3). Judgments related to revenue, customs, and administrative matters are excluded from the scope of the Convention (Article 1) as well as more specific subject matter such as family law matters, wills and succession, and insolvency, but judgments related to intellectual property matters (Article 2) are not excluded. Bases for Recognition and Enforcement The Preliminary Draft requires that a judgment of a court in a Contracting State (the ``State of origin'') be recognized and enforced in another Contracting State (the ``requested State'') without reviewing its merits (Article 4). Recognition and enforcement, however, may be refused but only under the grounds set forth in the treaty. The Preliminary Draft sets forth the bases for recognition and enforcement of judgments (Article 5). Of particular importance to the intellectual property community are paragraphs 5(1)(k) and 5(1)(l), which set forth the bases for the recognition and enforcement of judgments for infringements of a patent, trademark, design, or other similar right, and judgments on the validity or infringement of a copyright or a related right, respectively. It should also be noted (subject to Article 6, discussed below), a judgment in such an infringement case might also be enforceable if one of the other bases for recognition and enforcement of the judgment set forth in Article 5 exists (for example, the person against whom recognition or enforcement is sought brought the claim on which the judgment is based) applies. Exclusive Bases for Recognition and Enforcement Notwithstanding Article 5, a judgment on the registration or validity of patents, trademarks, designs, or other similar rights that are required to be deposited or registered is eligible for recognition and enforcement in a requested State ``if and only if'' the State of origin is the State where the deposit or registration took place, or is deemed to have taken place under an international or regional [[Page 81743]] instrument (Article 6). Judgments on the validity of copyrights or related rights, however, are not subject to the exclusive jurisdiction rule in Article 6. The Preliminary Draft also lists several bases on which a court of a Contracting State may refuse to recognize and enforce foreign judgments (Article 7). Preliminary Questions The Preliminary Draft bars the recognition and enforcement of rulings on the registration or validity of patents, trademarks, and designs, or other similar rights that arose as a preliminary question in courts other than those with exclusive jurisdiction under Article 6 (Article 8(1)). The Explanatory Note Providing Background on the Proposed Draft Text and Identifying Outstanding Issues (Prel. Doc. No. 2) provides the following example of a preliminary question: a ruling on the validity of a patent raised as a defense to an infringement claim (Prel. Doc. No. 2, para. 111). In such instances, however, a court may refuse or postpone the recognition or enforcement of a ruling on validity only (1) where the ruling is inconsistent with a judgment or a decision of a competent authority on the matter or (2) where the proceedings on validity took place in the State with exclusive jurisdiction under Article 6 (Article 8(3)). A court may refuse to recognize a judgment ``if, and to the extent that, it was based on'' a ruling on registration or validity as a preliminary question by in courts other than those with exclusive jurisdiction under Article 6. Damages and Other Remedies The Preliminary Draft allows the court of the requested State to refuse recognition and enforcement of judgment awarding damages if and to the extent that those damages (including exemplary or punitive damages) do not compensate a party for actual loss or harm suffered (Article 9). The Preliminary Draft does not expressly address enforcement of judgments for injunctive relief. However, the Explanatory on the Preliminary Draft notes, without expressly mentioning injunctive relief, that ``non-money judgments have been included in the scope of the Proposed Draft Text'' (Prel. Doc. No 2, para. 52). Questions Posed The USPTO is seeking comments on the Preliminary Draft as it relates to intellectual property. Interested members of the public are invited to present written comments on any issues they believe to be relevant to protection of intellectual property or any aspect of the proposed Convention as it relates to intellectual property. Comments also are invited on any or all of the questions listed below. As used in the Preliminary Draft, the term ``intellectual property rights'' includes patents, trademarks, designs, and copyrights or related rights. If your response does not apply to all of these intellectual property rights, please state the specific intellectual property right, or rights, to which your response applies. Other intellectual property rights that are outside the scope of the current text of the Preliminary Draft, such as trade secrets, are identified separately in this notice where appropriate. With respect to these and any other issues raised by the Preliminary Draft, in your responses, please: (1) Clearly identify the matter being addressed; (2) provide examples where appropriate; (3) identify any relevant legal authorities to support your comment; (4) indicate approaches and provisions that are unacceptable; and (5) express preferences for approaches, effective solutions to specific challenges, and drafting recommendations to address the matter being addressed. 1. What are your experiences in having U.S. judgments involving intellectual property matters recognized and enforced in foreign courts? 2. What are the benefits, if any, of increasing the recognition and enforcement of U.S. judgments involving intellectual property matters in foreign courts through joining a multilateral treaty? 3. What are your experiences in having foreign judgments recognized in U.S. courts, including on the basis of comity or under state statutes? 4. What are the risks, if any, of increasing the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments involving intellectual property matters by U.S. courts through joining a multilateral treaty? 5. Are uniform rules for international enforcement of intellectual property judgments desirable? 6. What impact, if any, would the territorial nature of intellectual property rights have on enforcing rights across borders? 7. What impact, if any, would differences in procedural practices across borders have on enforcing intellectual property rights across borders? 8. What impact, if any, would differences in substantive law have on enforcing intellectual property rights across borders? 9. Would this convention have any disproportionate effects on a particular technology sector? If so, which ones and how? 10. Please identity problems that could occur from recognizing or enforcing judgments rendered on intellectual property matters in other Contracting States that have policies or laws that are inconsistent with U.S. intellectual property laws and policies. 11. Please identify any challenges with respect to enforcement in foreign courts of U.S. judgments, or in U.S. courts of foreign judgments, involving intellectual property matters. 12. How often are U.S. nationals also foreign intellectual property owners who would then be able to use this Convention to have judgments they obtain in foreign courts enforced by U.S. courts? Would that be useful for U.S. nationals? 13. What changes, if any, to U.S. law would be needed to implement the proposed convention? Please identify any drawbacks and/or advantages to such changes. 14. What effect, if any, would the Preliminary Draft have on the enforcement of intellectual property rights in the digital environment? In particular, should the language in the Preliminary Draft be revised to take into account issues that arise in connection with infringement and enforcement of intellectual property rights on the Internet? Exclusions From Scope 15. Should judgments on the validity and/or the infringements of intellectual property rights, other than copyright and related rights, be excluded from the scope of the treaty under Article 2(2)? Please identify the specific intellectual property right at issue and the specific concerns, if any, raised by including it within the scope of this convention? 16. Should judgments on the validity, ownership, subsistence, and/ or the infringement of copyright and related rights be excluded from the scope of the treaty under Article 2(2)? Please state the specific concerns, if any, raised by including copyrights or related rights within the scope of this convention. 17. Should judgments on the validity or misappropriation and/or theft of trade secrets be excluded from the scope of the treaty under Article 2(2)? Please state the specific concerns, if any, raised by including judgments on the validity or misappropriation and/or theft of trade secrets within the scope of this convention. Bases for Recognition and Enforcement 18. Should judgments on the infringement of intellectual property rights, other than copyright and related [[Page 81744]] rights, be included as bases for recognition and enforcement in Article 5(1)(k)? 19. Should judgments on the infringements of plant breeders' rights be included in Article 5(1)(k)? 20. Should judgments on the infringements of service marks, trade dress, and geographical indications rights be expressly included in Article 5(1)(k)? 21. Should judgments on the validity or infringement of unregistered designs and trademarks be included in Article 5(1)(l)? 22. Should judgments on the validity or the misappropriation and/or theft of trade secrets be included in Article 5(1)(l)? 23. Should the bracketed language in Article 5(1)(l) be included? 24. Should judgments on the validity, ownership, subsistence or infringement of copyright or related rights be included in Article 5(1)(l) in cases where the right arose under the law of the State of origin? 25. Should such judgments be included in Article 5(1)(l) where the right did not arise under the law of the State of origin but where another basis for jurisdiction set forth in Article 5 is satisfied? Exclusive Jurisdiction 26. With respect to a judgment on the registration or validity of patents, trademarks, designs, or other similar rights that are required to be deposited, registered, or issued, the Preliminary Draft provides for exclusive jurisdiction of the court in the State of origin where the right issued or registration took place, or is deemed to have taken place under an international or regional instrument (Article 6). Please comment on the appropriateness of this rule. 27. Should a judgment on the registration or validity of mask works or vessel designs that are required to be deposited, registered, or issued be included in Article 6? Preliminary Matters 28. What are your experiences in having U.S. rulings on preliminary questions, or judgments based on such rulings, involving the registration or validity of patents, trademarks, and designs, or other similar rights, by courts other than those with exclusive jurisdiction recognized and enforced by a foreign court? 29. Should a judgment on the registration or validity of mask works or vessel designs that are required to be deposited, registered, or issued be included in Article 8? 30. Does Article 8 provide an appropriate framework for resolving problems, if any, related to recognition and enforcement of rulings on preliminary questions and judgments based on such rulings? 31. How much discretion should a court in the requested State have to refuse or postpone the recognition or enforcement of a ruling on the validity of a patent, trademark, design, and other similar rights raised as preliminary matter in a court in the State of origin? Remedies 32. Article 9 provides that recognition or enforcement of a judgment may be refused if, and to the extent that, the judgment awards damages, including exemplary or punitive damages, that do not compensate a party for actual loss or harm suffered. Should the court in a requested State be allowed to recognize and enforce non- compensatory damages in judgments involving intellectual property matters? 33. Does Article 9 include the types of damages that would provide effective relief for intellectual property right owners? If not, what other types of damages or other remedies ought to be included? Why? 34. How should statutory damages for copyright infringement be treated under this Article, and should Article 9 be amended to address statutory damages expressly? 35. When a judgment for infringement of an intellectual property covered by the convention includes injunctive relief, should a court in the requested State be required to recognize and enforce the award of injunctive relief? 36. If so, should there be any limitation on the circumstances under which such awards should be recognized and enforced (for example, by specifying the limitation in Article 5)? If not, should a judgment for infringement of an intellectual property right covered by the convention that includes injunctive relief be excluded as a basis for recognition and enforcement, or whole or in part, under Article 5? Event Registration Information: To register to attend or to request to present as a speaker, please send an email message to [email protected] and provide the following information: (1) Your name, title, company or organization (if applicable), address, phone number, and email address; (2) whether you wish to attend in person or via webcast; and (3) whether you wish to make an oral presentation at the meeting and, if so, which question(s) identified in the supplementary information section of this notice will be addressed and the approximate desired length of your presentation. Each attendee, even if from the same organization, must register separately. In order to give all speakers a meaningful opportunity to speak, the USPTO may not be able to accommodate all persons who wish to make a presentation. However, the USPTO will attempt to accommodate as many persons as possible who wish to make a presentation. After reviewing the speaker requests and the information regarding the presentations provided in the requests, the USPTO will contact each speaker prior to the event with the amount of time available and the approximate time that the speaker's presentation is scheduled to begin. The amount of time available for each speaker presentation and selected speakers without a formal presentation may be limited to ensure that all persons selected to speak will have a meaningful opportunity to do so. Speakers who opt to employ slides as part of their presentation must send final electronic copies of the slides in Microsoft PowerPoint[supreg] to [email protected] by January 5, 2017, so that the slides can be displayed at the meeting. Additionally, and only if time allows, the USPTO will provide an opportunity for persons in the audience, who did not register as speakers or were not selected as speakers, to speak at the meeting without a formal presentation. For more information on the meeting, including webcast access instructions, agenda, and a list of speakers, please visit USPTO's Web site at www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/ip-policy/hague-conference-private-international-law. If special accommodations due to a disability are needed, please inform the contact person(s) identified under the heading FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Dated: November 14, 2016. Michelle K. Lee, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. [FR Doc. 2016-27799 Filed 11-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-16-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 223 / Friday, November 18, 2016 / Notices 81741
information security systems, facilities Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public clarity of the information to be
and procedures in place to protect the ACAB Systems Safeguards Attestation collected; and (d) ways to minimize the
security of the Limited Access DMF, as Form: NTIS expects to receive burden of the collection of information
required under Section 1110.102(a)(2) of approximately 500 ACAB Systems on respondents, including through the
the final rule. The AG or IG Systems Safeguards Attestation Forms annually use of automated collection techniques
Safeguards Attestation Form collects at a fee of $525 per form, for a total cost or other forms of information
information based on an assessment by of $262,500. This total annual cost technology.
the state or local government AG or IG reflects the cost to the Federal Comments submitted in response to
conducted within three years prior to Government for the ACAB Systems this notice will be summarized and/or
the date of the Person or Certified Safeguards Attestation Forms, which included in the request for OMB
Person’s submission of a completed consists of the expenses associated with approval of this information collection;
certification statement under Section NTIS personnel reviewing and they also will become a matter of public
1110.101(a) of the final rule. This processing these forms. NTIS estimates record.
collection includes specific that it will take an ACAB’s senior Sheleen Dumas,
requirements of the final rule, which the auditor three hours to complete the form
state or local government AG or IG must PRA Departmental Lead, Office of the Chief
at a rate of approximately $135 per Information Officer.
certify are satisfied, and the provision of hour, for a total additional cost to the [FR Doc. 2016–27707 Filed 11–17–16; 8:45 am]
specific information by the state or local public of $202,500 (1500 burden hours
government AG or IG, such as the date BILLING CODE 3510–13–P
× $135/hour = $202,500). NTIS
of the assessment. estimates the total annual cost to the
III. Data public for the ACAB Systems DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Safeguards forms to be $465,000
OMB Control Number: [0692–XXXX]. ($262,500 in fees + $202,500 in staff Patent and Trademark Office
Form Number(s): NTIS FM100A and time = $465,000).
NTIS FM100B. [Docket No.: PTO–P–2016–0046]
AG or IG Systems Safeguards
Type of Review: New information Attestation Form: NTIS expects to Request for Comments and Notice of
collection. receive approximately 60 AG or IG Public Meeting on a Preliminary Draft
Affected Public: Accredited Systems Safeguards Attestation Forms Convention on the Recognition and
Conformity Assessment Bodies and state annually at a fee of $525 per form, for Enforcement of Foreign Judgments
or local government Auditors General or a total cost of $31,500. This total annual Currently Being Negotiated at The
Inspectors General attesting that a cost reflects the cost to the Federal Hague Conference on Private
Person seeking certification or a Government for the AG or IG Systems International Law
Certified Person seeking renewal of Safeguards Attestation Forms, which
certification under the final rule for the consists of the expenses associated with AGENCY: United States Patent and
‘‘Certification Program for Access to the NTIS personnel reviewing and Trademark Office, Department of
Death Master File’’ has information processing these forms. NTIS estimates Commerce.
security systems, facilities and that it will take an AG or IG senior ACTION: Notice of public meeting;
procedures in place to protect the auditor three hours to complete the form request for comments.
security of the Limited Access DMF, as at a rate of approximately $100 per
required by the final rule. hour, for a total additional cost to the SUMMARY: The Hague Conference on
public of $18,000 (180 burden hours × Private International Law (‘‘The Hague
Estimated Number of Respondents $100/hour = $18,000). NTIS estimates Conference’’), an international
ACAB Systems Safeguards Attestation the total annual cost to the public for organization in the Netherlands, is
Form: NTIS expects to receive AG or IG Systems Safeguards sponsoring negotiations for a
approximately 500 ACAB Systems Attestation Forms to be $49,500 convention on the recognition and
Safeguards Attestation Forms from ($31,500 in fees + $18,000 in staff time enforcement of foreign judgments in
Persons and Certified Persons annually. = $49,500). civil and commercial matters. In
AG or IG Systems Safeguards NTIS estimates the total annual cost February 2016, the Council on General
Attestation Form: NTIS expects to to the public for both the ACAB Systems Affairs and Policy of The Hague
receive approximately 60 AG or IG Safeguards Attestation Forms and the Conference created a Special
Systems Safeguards Attestation Forms AG or IG Systems Safeguards Commission on the Recognition and
from Persons and Certified Persons Attestation Forms to be $514,500 Enforcement of Foreign Judgments (‘‘the
annually. ($465,000 for ACAB Systems Safeguards Special Commission’’) to prepare a
Attestation Forms + $49,500 for AG or preliminary draft text of the convention,
Estimated Time per Response IG Systems Safeguards Attestation which is subject to a formal diplomatic
Forms. negotiation open to member States of
ACAB Systems Safeguards Attestation
The Hague Conference. At its first
Form: 3 hours. IV. Request for Comments session in June 2016, the Special
AG or IG Systems Safeguards Comments are invited on: (a) Whether Commission produced a Preliminary
Attestation Form: 3 hours. the proposed collection of information Draft Convention that contains general
Estimated Total Annual Burden is necessary for the proper performance and specific provisions that would
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Hours: 1680. of the functions of the agency, including apply to the recognition and
ACAB Systems Safeguards Attestation whether the information shall have enforcement of judgments arising from
Form: 1500 (500 × 3 hours = 1500 practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the transnational intellectual property
hours). agency’s estimate of the burden disputes. The United States Patent and
AG or IG Systems Safeguards (including hours and cost) of the Trademark Office (USPTO) seeks public
Attestation Form: 180 (60 × 3 hours = proposed collection of information; (c) comments on the June 2016 Preliminary
180 hours). ways to enhance the quality, utility, and Draft Convention (the ‘‘Preliminary
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:21 Nov 17, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\18NON1.SGM 18NON1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_81964/page/1.svg)
![81744 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 223 / Friday, November 18, 2016 / Notices
rights, be included as bases for 30. Does Article 8 provide an Each attendee, even if from the same
recognition and enforcement in Article appropriate framework for resolving organization, must register separately. In
5(1)(k)? problems, if any, related to recognition order to give all speakers a meaningful
19. Should judgments on the and enforcement of rulings on opportunity to speak, the USPTO may
infringements of plant breeders’ rights preliminary questions and judgments not be able to accommodate all persons
be included in Article 5(1)(k)? based on such rulings? who wish to make a presentation.
20. Should judgments on the 31. How much discretion should a However, the USPTO will attempt to
infringements of service marks, trade court in the requested State have to accommodate as many persons as
dress, and geographical indications refuse or postpone the recognition or possible who wish to make a
rights be expressly included in Article enforcement of a ruling on the validity presentation. After reviewing the
5(1)(k)? of a patent, trademark, design, and other speaker requests and the information
21. Should judgments on the validity similar rights raised as preliminary regarding the presentations provided in
or infringement of unregistered designs matter in a court in the State of origin? the requests, the USPTO will contact
and trademarks be included in Article Remedies each speaker prior to the event with the
32. Article 9 provides that recognition amount of time available and the
5(1)(l)?
or enforcement of a judgment may be approximate time that the speaker’s
22. Should judgments on the validity
refused if, and to the extent that, the presentation is scheduled to begin. The
or the misappropriation and/or theft of
judgment awards damages, including amount of time available for each
trade secrets be included in Article exemplary or punitive damages, that do
5(1)(l)? speaker presentation and selected
not compensate a party for actual loss or speakers without a formal presentation
23. Should the bracketed language in harm suffered. Should the court in a
Article 5(1)(l) be included? may be limited to ensure that all
requested State be allowed to recognize persons selected to speak will have a
24. Should judgments on the validity, and enforce non-compensatory damages
ownership, subsistence or infringement meaningful opportunity to do so.
in judgments involving intellectual Speakers who opt to employ slides as
of copyright or related rights be property matters?
included in Article 5(1)(l) in cases part of their presentation must send
33. Does Article 9 include the types
where the right arose under the law of final electronic copies of the slides in
of damages that would provide effective
the State of origin? Microsoft PowerPoint® to
relief for intellectual property right
25. Should such judgments be judgmentsproject@uspto.gov by January
owners? If not, what other types of
included in Article 5(1)(l) where the 5, 2017, so that the slides can be
damages or other remedies ought to be
right did not arise under the law of the displayed at the meeting. Additionally,
included? Why?
State of origin but where another basis 34. How should statutory damages for and only if time allows, the USPTO will
for jurisdiction set forth in Article 5 is copyright infringement be treated under provide an opportunity for persons in
satisfied? this Article, and should Article 9 be the audience, who did not register as
amended to address statutory damages speakers or were not selected as
Exclusive Jurisdiction speakers, to speak at the meeting
expressly?
26. With respect to a judgment on the 35. When a judgment for infringement without a formal presentation. For more
registration or validity of patents, of an intellectual property covered by information on the meeting, including
trademarks, designs, or other similar the convention includes injunctive webcast access instructions, agenda, and
rights that are required to be deposited, relief, should a court in the requested a list of speakers, please visit USPTO’s
registered, or issued, the Preliminary State be required to recognize and Web site at www.uspto.gov/learning-
Draft provides for exclusive jurisdiction enforce the award of injunctive relief? and-resources/ip-policy/hague-
of the court in the State of origin where 36. If so, should there be any conference-private-international-law. If
the right issued or registration took limitation on the circumstances under special accommodations due to a
place, or is deemed to have taken place which such awards should be disability are needed, please inform the
under an international or regional recognized and enforced (for example, contact person(s) identified under the
instrument (Article 6). Please comment by specifying the limitation in Article heading FOR FURTHER
on the appropriateness of this rule. 5)? If not, should a judgment for INFORMATION CONTACT.
27. Should a judgment on the infringement of an intellectual property Dated: November 14, 2016.
registration or validity of mask works or right covered by the convention that Michelle K. Lee,
vessel designs that are required to be includes injunctive relief be excluded as Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual
deposited, registered, or issued be a basis for recognition and enforcement, Property and Director of the United States
included in Article 6? or whole or in part, under Article 5? Patent and Trademark Office.
Event Registration Information: To [FR Doc. 2016–27799 Filed 11–17–16; 8:45 am]
Preliminary Matters
register to attend or to request to present BILLING CODE 3510–16–P
28. What are your experiences in as a speaker, please send an email
having U.S. rulings on preliminary message to judgmentsproject@uspto.gov
questions, or judgments based on such and provide the following information:
rulings, involving the registration or (1) Your name, title, company or COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM
validity of patents, trademarks, and organization (if applicable), address, PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR
designs, or other similar rights, by phone number, and email address; (2) SEVERELY; DISABLED
courts other than those with exclusive whether you wish to attend in person or
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
jurisdiction recognized and enforced by via webcast; and (3) whether you wish Procurement List; Proposed Deletions
a foreign court? to make an oral presentation at the AGENCY: Committee for Purchase From
29. Should a judgment on the meeting and, if so, which question(s) People Who Are Blind or Severely
registration or validity of mask works or identified in the supplementary Disabled.
vessel designs that are required to be information section of this notice will
ACTION: Proposed Deletions from the
deposited, registered, or issued be be addressed and the approximate
Procurement List.
included in Article 8? desired length of your presentation.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:21 Nov 17, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\18NON1.SGM 18NON1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_81964/page/4.svg)
Document Created: 2018-02-14 08:32:12
Document Modified: 2018-02-14 08:32:12
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Notices | |
| Action | Notice of public meeting; request for comments. | |
| Dates | The public meeting will be held on January 12, 2017, beginning at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST) and ending at 4:00 p.m. EST. | |
| Contact | Requests for additional information should be directed to the attention of Michael Shapiro, Senior Counsel, Office of Policy and International Affairs, USPTO, by telephone at 571- 272-9300, or by email to [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 81 FR 81741 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR