Copyright Litigation

Published: 15 July 2010

This publication provides prompt guidance to anyone suddenly involved in a litigation in a foreign country or, even worse, in a multijurisdictional copyright litigation. As the reader will find out, laws and prodecures are so different worldwide, that endless opportunities of forum shopping exist both to bring a claim against infringement or to  counter a third party's claim.

After the great success of the two previous books on Patent Litigation and Trade Mark Litigation, the authors were able to find a record number of top level contributors from all the world's major jurisdictions.

Related publications

SEE ALL

Insights

Insights – 02.08.2025

The EU AI Act: Update on the application timeline and implications for Swiss companies

The EU AI Act: Update on the application timeline and implications for…

Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonised rules on Artificial Intelligence (“AI Act”) marked a significant milestone in the European Union's regulation of AI technologies. Due to its extraterritorial application, also companies based in Switzerland and other non-EU-countries may potentially be subject to the AI Act. The AI Act formally entered into force one year ago, but its substantive rules are applied in a phased approach. Effective 2 August 2025, a significant number of provisions under the AI Act came into force, while the final set of its provisions will only enter into force on 2 August 2026 and 2 August 2027, respectively.

Insights – 15.07.2025

AI cannot be an inventor – Swiss Court clarifies status of AI-generated inventions in patent law

AI cannot be an inventor – Swiss Court clarifies status of AI-generated…

In a landmark ruling, the Swiss Federal Administrative Court has confirmed that artificial intelligence systems cannot be named as inventors under Swiss patent law. The latest decision in the long series of cases related to the DABUS artificial intelligence system aligns Switzerland with the majority of global jurisdictions and reinforces the central role of humans in the patent application process. The Court also clarified under which circumstances human users of an AI system may be considered inventors.
SEE ALL
Lenz & Staehelin {PAGENO}/{nbpg}
{PAGENO}/{nbpg}