Skip to main content

IP and Debt Finance: Cross-Border Considerations

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Security Interests in Intellectual Property

Abstract

Innovation in both technology and finance has greatly changed the definition of national borders in the past decades. This brings vibrant commercial possibilities as well as legal challenges to the age-old loan industry. One relevant question may be: how to stimulate innovative endeavor by providing a globally well-functioning financial infrastructure. As of today, however, not only is it true that national laws rarely address security rights in intellectual property rights (“IPRs”) , but also almost no provisions are provided on the international level to determine the law applicable to these kinds of security interests . On the other hand, the tension between the protecting state (i.e. the underpinning lex loci protectionis principal of traditional IPRs jurisprudence) and the efficiency goal of secured transaction law, has become stalemated. This paper digs into this complexity by exploring more than twenty variants of proposals after five major international meetings at UNCITRAL. The introduction session is divided into two parts: historical analysis and policy-debate review. The first part of the introduction section concentrates on the summarization of each proposal, while the second part provides detailed analysis of the rationales raised to support them. A comparative private international law analysis consisting of four jurisdictions follows in the next section to assist the understanding of the current legal status quo in different countries. Finally, the conclusion reflects what is missing in previous discussions, and proposes harmonization of reforms to solve the “self-duplicating” problem embedded in the current lex loci protectionis intellectual property system.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 89.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    According to State Intellectual Property Office (“SIPO”) of the PRC (People’s Republic of China), there are more than 1.73 million patents granted in China accumulatively by the end of 2006. Among such a huge amount of granted patents, however, only 323 patent pledge contracts were registered with SIPO. See SIPO (2007), p. 499; see also Lu (2007), p. 46.

  2. 2.

    UNCITRAL divides conflict-of-laws rules for IPRs collateral into two classifications: (1) Law Applicable to Property Matters and, (2) Law Applicable to Contractual Matters. See UNCITRAL (2011b), http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/security-lg/e/10-57126_Ebook_Suppl_SR_IP.pdf, pp. 127–147. Accessed 16 May 2017.

  3. 3.

    UNCITRAL keeps very comprehensive documentary of its Working Group meetings and discussion tracks. For this specific issue of security interest and to view from the 1st session to the current 25th session, please see http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/commission/working_groups/6Security_Interests.html. Accessed 16 May 2017.

  4. 4.

    See the 13th session on 19–23 May 2008 in New York, http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/commission/working_groups/6Security_Interests.html and See also UNCITRAL (2008c), https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/V08/539/36/PDF/V0853936.pdf?OpenElement. Accessed 16 May 2017.

  5. 5.

    See, e.g., UNCITRAL (2007), https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/V07/810/60/PDF/V0781060.pdf? OpenElement. Accessed 16 May 2017. Conflict-of-laws issue constitutes the Chapter XIII of the twelfth session Working Group VI Report. See UNCITRAL (2007), https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/V07/810/60/PDF/V0781060.pdf?OpenElement.

  6. 6.

    Even though only briefly, conflict-of-laws has been mentioned since the first traceable record of UNCITRAL meetings, “the conflict-of-laws rules applicable outside insolvency should also be applicable in an insolvency proceeding.” See UNCITRAL (2002), https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/V02/549/74/PDF/V0254974.pdf?OpenElement, p. 22. Accessed 16 May 2017.

  7. 7.

    To be more precise, at the beginning stage, UNCITRAL’s discussion only makes distinction between “tangible” and “intangible” assets (but not “IP” and “non-IP” assets). As a matter of fact, IP was not even originally intended to be part of the legislative guide discussion, “it was also agreed that securities and intellectual property should not be dealt with.” See UNCITRAL (2002), https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/V02/549/74/PDF/V0254974.pdf?OpenElement, p. 3.

  8. 8.

    See, generally, UNCITRAL (2008c), https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/V08/539/36/PDF/V0853936.pdf?OpenElement. Accessed 16 May 2017. See also UNCITRAL (2008d), https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/V08/521/28/PDF/V0852128.pdf?OpenElement. Accessed 16 May 2017.

  9. 9.

    See UNCITRAL (2008d), https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/V08/521/28/PDF/V0852128.pdf?OpenElement, para. 77. Accessed 16 May 2017.

  10. 10.

    See UNCITRAL (2008d), https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/V08/521/28/PDF/V0852128.pdf?OpenElement, para. 77. Accessed 16 May 2017.

  11. 11.

    See UNCITRAL (2008d), https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/V08/521/28/PDF/V0852128.pdf?OpenElement, para. 77. Accessed 16 May 2017.

  12. 12.

    See UNCITRAL (2008d), https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/V08/521/28/PDF/V0852128.pdf?OpenElement, para. 77. Accessed 16 May 2017. See also UNCITRAL (2008d), https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/V08/521/28/PDF/V0852128.pdf?OpenElement, para. 56. Accessed 16 May 2017.

  13. 13.

    See UNCITRAL (2008d), https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/V08/521/28/PDF/V0852128.pdf?OpenElement, para. 78. Accessed 16 May 2017.

  14. 14.

    Since the written conflict-of-laws rules can sometimes be very lengthy and complicated, and it does not seem necessary to replace the original language of UNCITRAL with descriptions, this paper chose to quote the crucial UNCITRAL texts instead of re-phasing them in the following analysis.

  15. 15.

    See UNCITRAL (2008a) https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/V08/562/95/PDF/V0856295.pdf?OpenElement, para. 97. Accessed 16 May 2017.

  16. 16.

    See UNCITRAL (2008a) https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/V08/562/95/PDF/V0856295.pdf?OpenElement, p. 33. Accessed 16 May 2017.

  17. 17.

    There do exist exceptions (and conditions attached to certain exceptions) for Alternative B. However, that situation is applicable only to the priority issue and is quoted as follows:

    “However, the law applicable to a priority conflict involving the right of a [competing claimant] [transferee or licensee] is the law of the State in which the intellectual property is protected [if under that law the intellectual property may be registered in an intellectual property registry] [if under that law a security right may be registered in an intellectual property registry.]” See UNCITRAL (2008a), see UNCITRAL (2008a) https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/V08/562/95/PDF/V0856295.pdf?OpenElement, p. 33. Accessed 16 May 2017.

    However, due to the concerns for uncertainty and searching cost, the bracketed text in the above text was recommended to be deleted. See UNCITRAL (2008b), https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/V08/577/88/PDF/V0857788.pdf?OpenElementat, para. 126. Accessed 16 May 2017.

  18. 18.

    See UNCITRAL (2008a), https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/V08/562/95/PDF/V0856295.pdf?OpenElement, para. 97. Accessed 16 May 2017.

  19. 19.

    To be more precise, in the official text of UNCITRAL, the law applicable for SR-in-IP that is not subject to registration in an intellectual property registry is not clearly provided, but deferred to the contract law principle.

    Grantor’s location, however, seems to be a convincing candidate for cases involving connector factors of this kind, “[…] or, under contract law principles, defers to the law of the State in which the secured creditor, the grantor or a third party is located, in particular where a security right in a specific type of intellectual property may not be registered in an intellectual property registry (e.g. copyright or trade secret).” See UNCITRAL (2008a), https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/V08/562/95/PDF/V0856295.pdf?OpenElement, para. 97. Accessed 16 May 2017.

  20. 20.

    It has to be noted that in the final report of 14th session, Alternative C was not supported and was suggested to be deleted. The stated reason is because of uncertainty and searching cost, “by referring to the law of the State under whose authority the registry was maintained, alternative C would introduce uncertainty as to the law applicable or, at least, increase the time and cost of a transaction, since a secured creditor would need to undertake a search to identify the relevant registry in which the intellectual property to be encumbered was registered.” See UNCITRAL (2008b), https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/V08/577/88/PDF/V0857788.pdf?OpenElement, para. 124. Accessed 16 May 2017.

  21. 21.

    See UNCITRAL (2009a), https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/V09/808/23/PDF/V0980823.pdf?OpenElement, para. 20. Accessed 16 May 2017.

  22. 22.

    See UNCITRAL (2009a), https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/V09/808/23/PDF/V0980823.pdf?OpenElement, para. 20. Accessed 16 May 2017.

  23. 23.

    See UNCITRAL (2009a), https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/V09/808/23/PDF/V0980823.pdf?OpenElement, para. 20. Accessed 16 May 2017.

  24. 24.

    In each of these five meeting sessions at UNCITRAL, the basic recorded documents are: one General Report and one Draft Supplement (also known as “Note by the Secretariat”). In the sixteenth session, however, there is one more proposal prepared by the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law. All of these documents are of crucial importance for further analysis.

  25. 25.

    See also UNCITRAL Third International Colloquium on Secured Transactions (March 1–3, 2010; Vienna), papers on-line available at http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/commission/working_groups/6Security_Interests.html. Accessed 16 May 2017.

  26. 26.

    See UNCITRAL (2009e), https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/V09/877/38/PDF/V0987738.pdf?OpenElement, para. 3. Accessed 16 May 2017.

  27. 27.

    See UNCITRAL (2009b), https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/V09/855/76/PDF/V0985576.pdf?OpenElement. Accessed 16 May 2017.

  28. 28.

    See UNCITRAL (2009c), https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/V09/855/16/PDF/V0985516.pdf?OpenElement, para. 21. Accessed 16 May 2017.

  29. 29.

    See UNCITRAL (2009c), https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/V09/855/16/PDF/V0985516.pdf?OpenElement, pp. 7–8. Accessed 16 May 2017.

  30. 30.

    See UNCITRAL (2009c), https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/V09/855/16/PDF/V0985516.pdf?OpenElement, p. 8. Accessed 16 May 2017.

  31. 31.

    See UNCITRAL (2009c), https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/V09/855/16/PDF/V0985516.pdf?OpenElement, p. 8. Accessed 16 May 2017.

  32. 32.

    See UNCITRAL (2009b) https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/V09/855/76/PDF/V0985576.pdf?OpenElement, para. 14. Accessed 16 May 2017.

  33. 33.

    Hague Conference addressed their concern on this issue and provided reasoning as below:

    “The application of the law of the State in which the grantor is located is nevertheless subject to two important limitations. First, as stated above, the transferability of the intellectual property right is a preliminary issue to be addressed before the creation of a security in intellectual property. Accordingly, it is important to reiterate the importance of the law governing the intellectual property as the legal framework for the creation of a security right in intellectual property [omitted].” See UNCITRAL (2009b), https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/V09/855/76/PDF/V0985576.pdf?OpenElement, paras. 13–14. Accessed 16 May 2017.

  34. 34.

    See UNCITRAL (2010a), https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/V10/511/34/PDF/V1051134.pdf?OpenElement, paras. 43, 47 and 49. Accessed 16 May 2017.

  35. 35.

    See generally, UNCITRAL (2010a), https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/V10/511/34/PDF/V1051134.pdf?OpenElement. Accessed 16 May 2017.

  36. 36.

    See UNCITRAL (2009d), https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/V09/885/80/PDF/V0988580.pdf?OpenElement, paras. 39–40 and below. Accessed 16 May 2017.

  37. 37.

    See UNCITRAL (2009d), https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/V09/885/80/PDF/V0988580.pdf?OpenElement, paras. 39–40 and below. Accessed 16 May 2017.

  38. 38.

    See UNCITRAL (2009d), https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/V09/885/80/PDF/V0988580.pdf?OpenElement, paras. 39–40 and below. Accessed 16 May 2017.

  39. 39.

    See UNCITRAL (2009d), https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/V09/885/80/PDF/V0988580.pdf?OpenElement, paras. 39–40 and below. Accessed 16 May 2017.

  40. 40.

    See UNCITRAL (2010a), https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/V10/511/34/PDF/V1051134.pdf?OpenElement, para. 43. Accessed 16 May 2017.

  41. 41.

    See UNCITRAL (2010a), https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/V10/511/34/PDF/V1051134.pdf?OpenElement, para. 47. Accessed 16 May 2017.

  42. 42.

    See UNCITRAL (2010a), https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/V10/511/34/PDF/V1051134.pdf?OpenElement, para. 49. Accessed 16 May 2017.

  43. 43.

    UNCITRAL (2010a), https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/V10/511/34/PDF/V1051134.pdf?OpenElement, para. 43. Accessed 17 May 2017.

  44. 44.

    However, if the issue is priority, then one exception exists: lex protectionis applies to priority as against competing claimants and; in particular, it applies to the priority of a security right in intellectual property as against the right of a transferee or a licensee of the encumbered intellectual property.

  45. 45.

    About CLIP, see http://www.cl-ip.eu/_www/en/pub/home.html. Accessed 17 May 2017.

  46. 46.

    European Max Planck Group on Conflict of Laws in Intellectual Property (2013) (hereafter “CLIP Principles and Commentary”).

  47. 47.

    Latest full text of CLIP Principles can be found on-line.

    See CLIP (2011), http://www.cl-ip.eu/_www/files/pdf2/Final_Text_1_December_2011.pdf. Accessed 17 May 2017. However, commentary of the Principles is accessible only through the above-mentioned book. See CLIP (2013).

  48. 48.

    Paragraph (2) of Article 3:801 further provides that “in the absence of a choice of law the mutual rights and obligations of the parties shall be governed by the law of the State where the grantor of the security has her/his habitual residence at the time of conclusion of the contract. Where it is clear from all the circumstances of the case that the contract is manifestly more closely connected with another State, the law of that other State shall apply.” See CLIP (2013), p. 352.

  49. 49.

    See CLIP Principles and Commentary, p. 354.

  50. 50.

    Paragraph (2) (d) of Article 3:802. See also CLIP (2013), p. 354.

  51. 51.

    CLIP (2013), p. 354.

  52. 52.

    Paragraph (2) (e) of Article 3:802. See also CLIP (2013), p. 354.

  53. 53.

    See UNCITRAL (2011b), http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/security-lg/e/10-57126_Ebook_Suppl_SR_IP.pdf, p. 147.

  54. 54.

    The law applicable to priority issue, however, is limited to the law of the state in which the intellectual property is protected (i.e. lex protectionis).

  55. 55.

    This includes the twenty-two proposals and the final Recommendation 248.

  56. 56.

    Some details of the proposals may require further attention and will be discussed from a more analytical perspective in the coming session. There are underline emphases in this table and these are functioning as careful reminders.

  57. 57.

    See UNCITRAL (2011b), http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/security-lg/e/10-57126_Ebook_Suppl_SR_IP.pdf, para. 298. Accessed 17 May 2017.

  58. 58.

    See also UNCITRAL (2009e), https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/V09/877/38/PDF/V0987738.pdf?OpenElement, para. 90.

  59. 59.

    See UNCITRAL (2011b), http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/security-lg/e/10-57126_Ebook_Suppl_SR_IP.pdf, para. 298. Accessed 17 May 2017.

  60. 60.

    See UNCITRAL (2011b), http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/security-lg/e/10-57126_Ebook_Suppl_SR_IP.pdf, para. 297. Accessed 17 May 2017.

  61. 61.

    “[…] the appropriate connecting factor is the place of protection of the relevant intellectual property right. In other words, according to this view, States parties to any of these international conventions are required to apply the lex protectionis to issues arising with respect to security rights in intellectual property.” See UNCITRAL (2011b), http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/security-lg/e/10-57126_Ebook_Suppl_SR_IP.pdf, para. 298. Accessed 17 May 2017. The only exclusion to lex loci protectionis is “purely contractual matters between the grantor and secured creditor,” as it is left to lex contractus. See UNCITRAL (2011b), http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/security-lg/e/10-57126_Ebook_Suppl_SR_IP.pdf, para. 299. Accessed 17 May 2017.

  62. 62.

    See UNCITRAL (2011b), http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/security-lg/e/10-57126_Ebook_Suppl_SR_IP.pdf, para. 299. Accessed 17 May 2017.

  63. 63.

    See UNCITRAL (2011b), http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/security-lg/e/10-57126_Ebook_Suppl_SR_IP.pdf, para. 297. Accessed 17 May 2017.

  64. 64.

    UNCITRAL (2011b), http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/security-lg/e/10-57126_Ebook_Suppl_SR_IP.pdf, at para. 30. Accessed 17 May 2017.

  65. 65.

    UNCITRAL (2011b), http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/security-lg/e/10-57126_Ebook_Suppl_SR_IP.pdf, at para. 30. Accessed 17 May 2017.

  66. 66.

    UNCITRAL (2011b), http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/security-lg/e/10-57126_Ebook_Suppl_SR_IP.pdf, at para. 304. Accessed 17 May 2017.

  67. 67.

    UNCITRAL (2011b), http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/security-lg/e/10-57126_Ebook_Suppl_SR_IP.pdf, at para. 304. Accessed 17 May 2017.

  68. 68.

    UNCITRAL (2011b), http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/security-lg/e/10-57126_Ebook_Suppl_SR_IP.pdf, para. 300. Accessed 17 May 2017. See more in the following “Hybrid Approach” part.

  69. 69.

    Example (a). See UNCITRAL (2011b), http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/security-lg/e/10-57126_Ebook_Suppl_SR_IP.pdf, para. 300. Accessed 17 May 2017.

  70. 70.

    Example (b). See UNCITRAL (2011b), http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/security-lg/e/10-57126_Ebook_Suppl_SR_IP.pdf, para. 300. Accessed 17 May 2017.

  71. 71.

    Example (c). See UNCITRAL (2011b), http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/security-lg/e/10-57126_Ebook_Suppl_SR_IP.pdf, para. 300. Accessed 17 May 2017.

  72. 72.

    See UNCITRAL (2011b), http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/security-lg/e/10-57126_Ebook_Suppl_SR_IP.pdf, para. 300. Accessed 17 May 2017.

  73. 73.

    See UNCITRAL (2011b), http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/security-lg/e/10-57126_Ebook_Suppl_SR_IP.pdf, para. 300. Accessed 17 May 2017. See also Recommendation 222 of the Legislative Guideline. UNCITRAL (2010b), https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/security-lg/e/09-82670_Ebook-Guide_09-04-10English.pdf, at p. 408. Accessed 22 May 2017.

  74. 74.

    Subparagraph (b) of Recommendation 4 provides:

    “Notwithstanding recommendation 2, the law should not apply to:

    […] (b) Intellectual property in so far as the provisions of the law are inconsistent with national law or international agreements, to which the State is a party, relating to intellectual property.” See UNCITRAL (2010b), https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/security-lg/e/09-82670_Ebook-Guide_09-04-10English.pdf, at p. 62. Accessed 22 May 2017.

  75. 75.

    See also UNCITRAL (2011b), http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/security-lg/e/10-57126_Ebook_Suppl_SR_IP.pdf, para. 289. Accessed 17 May 2017.

  76. 76.

    See also UNCITRAL (2011b), http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/security-lg/e/10-57126_Ebook_Suppl_SR_IP.pdf, para. 300. Accessed 17 May 2017. Note that the recommendation 4, subparagraph (b) requirement was not included in the final IP Supplement.

  77. 77.

    See UNCITRAL (2011b), http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/security-lg/e/10-57126_Ebook_Suppl_SR_IP.pdf, para. 291. Accessed 17 May 2017.

  78. 78.

    See also UNCITRAL (2011b), http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/security-lg/e/10-57126_Ebook_Suppl_SR_IP.pdf, para. 291. Accessed 17 May 2017.

  79. 79.

    See also UNCITRAL (2011b), http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/security-lg/e/10-57126_Ebook_Suppl_SR_IP.pdf, para. 291. Accessed 17 May 2017.

  80. 80.

    See also UNCITRAL (2011b), http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/security-lg/e/10-57126_Ebook_Suppl_SR_IP.pdf, para. 291. Accessed 17 May 2017.

  81. 81.

    See also UNCITRAL (2011b), http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/security-lg/e/10-57126_Ebook_Suppl_SR_IP.pdf, para. 291. Accessed 17 May 2017.

  82. 82.

    See UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency, Articles 2, Subparagraph (b), and 16, para. 3. http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/insolven/1997-Model-Law-Insol-2013-Guide-Enactment-e.pdf. Accessed 17 May 2017.

  83. 83.

    See also UNCITRAL (2011b), http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/security-lg/e/10-57126_Ebook_Suppl_SR_IP.pdf, para. 292. Accessed 17 May 2017.

  84. 84.

    See also UNCITRAL (2011b), https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/security-lg/e/10-57126_Ebook_Suppl_SR_IP.pdf, para. 292. Accessed 17 May 2017.

  85. 85.

    See also UNCITRAL (2011b), https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/security-lg/e/10-57126_Ebook_Suppl_SR_IP.pdf, para. 292. Accessed 17 May 2017.

  86. 86.

    See UNCITRAL (2011b), http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/security-lg/e/10-57126_Ebook_Suppl_SR_IP.pdf, para. 292. Accessed 17 May 2017.

  87. 87.

    See UNCITRAL (2011b), http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/security-lg/e/10-57126_Ebook_Suppl_SR_IP.pdf, para. 305. Accessed 17 May 2017.

  88. 88.

    In a commercial IP contract, an exclusive licensee is also very likely to be treated as a transferee, e.g., para. 306 of the UNCITRAL (2011b), https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/security-lg/e/10-57126_Ebook_Suppl_SR_IP.pdf, para. 292. Accessed 17 May 2017.

  89. 89.

    See also UNCITRAL (2011b), https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/security-lg/e/10-57126_Ebook_Suppl_SR_IP.pdf, para. 30, 87–88, 222 and 306. Accessed 17 May 2017.

  90. 90.

    See UNCITRAL (2011b), https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/security-lg/e/10-57126_Ebook_Suppl_SR_IP.pdf, para. 315. Accessed 17 May 2017.

  91. 91.

    See also UNCITRAL (2011b), https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/security-lg/e/10-57126_Ebook_Suppl_SR_IP.pdf, para. 312–313. Accessed 17 May 2017.

  92. 92.

    See also UNCITRAL (2011b), https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/security-lg/e/10-57126_Ebook_Suppl_SR_IP.pdf, para. 312–313. Accessed 17 May 2017.

  93. 93.

    See Legislative Guideline Recommendation 222, UNCITRAL (2010b), https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/security-lg/e/09-82670_Ebook-Guide_09-04-10English.pdf. Accessed 22 May 2017. See also UNCITRAL (2011b), https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/security-lg/e/10-57126_Ebook_Suppl_SR_IP.pdf, para. 289. Accessed 17 May 2017.

  94. 94.

    In a previous seminar discussion, I indicated that only the grantor’s location is determined at the time when the security right is to be created “on future IP.” Therefore, taking the lex loci protectionis may impede the realization of what Lorin Brennan called the “Working Capital Financing” (or the “Fluid IP Financing Model” in the presentation).

    While it is true that when creating the SR on future IP, the location of the asset may be undetermined. However, the grantor’s location also has its vital disadvantage in that the grantor (or an IP holding company in the previous example) may find it very easy to change its location too. In this way, the applicable law can be way too arbitrary.

  95. 95.

    To respond to this problem, one way is acknowledging that the IP Supplement proposed to determine the location of the grantor by “the place of central administration (real seat), not where the legal entity is incorporated (statutory seat). Note also, that this is a different approach from the US Uniform Commercial Code Article 9, which stipulates all secured transactions in the US.

    However, it remains true that it is relatively easier to change the location of the grantor than the IP assets. The problem proposed by this character is how to determine the grantor’s location when he/she moves frequently (i.e. the problem of “timing of determination”). The comprised solution of UNCITRAL is determining the location at the time “a priority conflict arose (not when the transaction is completed).” Besides, any following transferee of an encumbered asset would take the asset subject to a pre-existing security right [except for “a short period of time” exception]. See also UNCITRAL (2011b), https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/security-lg/e/10-57126_Ebook_Suppl_SR_IP.pdf, para. 260, 263, 274, 276, 294 and 296. Accessed 17 May 2017.

  96. 96.

    See also UNCITRAL (2011b), https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/security-lg/e/10-57126_Ebook_Suppl_SR_IP.pdf, para. 260, 263, 274, 276, 294 and 296. Accessed 17 May 2017.

  97. 97.

    See Legislative Guideline, recommendations 208 and 220, subpara (b). UNCITRAL (2010b), https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/security-lg/e/09-82670_Ebook-Guide_09-04-10English.pdf, pp. 405 and 408. Accessed 17 May 2017.

  98. 98.

    See Legislative Guideline, recommendations 79–82. UNCITRAL (2010b), https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/security-lg/e/09-82670_Ebook-Guide_09-04-10English.pdf, pp. 230 and 231. Accessed 17 May 2017.

  99. 99.

    See UNCITRAL (2011b), https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/security-lg/e/10-57126_Ebook_Suppl_SR_IP.pdf, para. 307. Accessed 17 May 2017.

  100. 100.

    See UNCITRAL (2011b), https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/security-lg/e/10-57126_Ebook_Suppl_SR_IP.pdf, paras. 307–308. Accessed 17 May 2017.

  101. 101.

    See UNCITRAL (2011b), https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/security-lg/e/10-57126_Ebook_Suppl_SR_IP.pdf, para. 309. Accessed 17 May 2017.

  102. 102.

    See UNCITRAL (2011b), https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/security-lg/e/10-57126_Ebook_Suppl_SR_IP.pdf, para. 310. Accessed 17 May 2017.

  103. 103.

    See UNCITRAL (2011b), https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/security-lg/e/10-57126_Ebook_Suppl_SR_IP.pdf, para. 310. Accessed 17 May 2017.

  104. 104.

    See UNCITRAL (2011b), https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/security-lg/e/10-57126_Ebook_Suppl_SR_IP.pdf, para. 310. Accessed 17 May 2017.

  105. 105.

    See UNCITRAL (2011b), https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/security-lg/e/10-57126_Ebook_Suppl_SR_IP.pdf, para. 310. Accessed 17 May 2017.

  106. 106.

    See UNCITRAL (2011b), https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/security-lg/e/10-57126_Ebook_Suppl_SR_IP.pdf, para. 310. Accessed 17 May 2017.

  107. 107.

    See UNCITRAL (2011b), https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/security-lg/e/10-57126_Ebook_Suppl_SR_IP.pdf, paras. 309–310. Accessed 17 May 2017.

  108. 108.

    See UNCITRAL (2011b), https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/security-lg/e/10-57126_Ebook_Suppl_SR_IP.pdf, paras. 309–310. Accessed 17 May 2017.

  109. 109.

    See also UNCITRAL (2011b), https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/security-lg/e/10-57126_Ebook_Suppl_SR_IP.pdf, para. 309. Accessed 17 May 2017.

  110. 110.

    See also UNCITRAL (2011b), https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/security-lg/e/10-57126_Ebook_Suppl_SR_IP.pdf, para. 309. Accessed 17 May 2017.

  111. 111.

    UNCITRAL (2011b), https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/security-lg/e/10-57126_Ebook_Suppl_SR_IP.pdf, para. 310. Accessed 17 May 2017.

  112. 112.

    UNCITRAL (2011b), https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/security-lg/e/10-57126_Ebook_Suppl_SR_IP.pdf, para. 310. Accessed 17 May 2017.

  113. 113.

    UNCITRAL (2011b), https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/security-lg/e/10-57126_Ebook_Suppl_SR_IP.pdf, para. 310. The example given is that under such a rule, the law applicable to a security right in copyright will have to depend on whether “the copyright may be registered in a copyright registry or not.”

  114. 114.

    See UNCITRAL (2011b), https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/security-lg/e/10-57126_Ebook_Suppl_SR_IP.pdf, para. 311. Accessed 17 May 2017.

  115. 115.

    See UNCITRAL (2011b), https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/security-lg/e/10-57126_Ebook_Suppl_SR_IP.pdf, para. 311. Accessed 17 May 2017.

  116. 116.

    It is literally cited as this approach is influential and constitutes the important part of the final adopted Recommendation 248. See UNCITRAL (2010b), https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/security-lg/e/10-57126_Ebook_Suppl_SR_IP.pdf, pp. 147–149. Accessed 17 May 2017.

  117. 117.

    See also UNCITRAL (2011b), https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/security-lg/e/10-57126_Ebook_Suppl_SR_IP.pdf, para. 311. Accessed 17 May 2017.

  118. 118.

    UNCITRAL (2011b), https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/security-lg/e/10-57126_Ebook_Suppl_SR_IP.pdf, para. 311. Accessed 17 May 2017.

  119. 119.

    UNCITRAL (2011b), https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/security-lg/e/10-57126_Ebook_Suppl_SR_IP.pdf, para. 312. Accessed 17 May 2017.

  120. 120.

    See Legislative Guideline, recommendation 10, which does not provide any party autonomy for applicable law issues other than for the mutual rights and obligations of the parties. UNCITRAL (2010b), https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/security-lg/e/09-82670_Ebook-Guide_09-04-10English.pdf, p. 63. Accessed 17 May 2017.

  121. 121.

    See also UNCITRAL (2011b), https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/security-lg/e/10-57126_Ebook_Suppl_SR_IP.pdf, para. 313. Accessed 17 May 2017.

  122. 122.

    UNCITRAL (2011b), https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/security-lg/e/10-57126_Ebook_Suppl_SR_IP.pdf, para. 313. Accessed 17 May 2017.

  123. 123.

    UNCITRAL (2011b), https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/security-lg/e/10-57126_Ebook_Suppl_SR_IP.pdf, para. 313. Accessed 17 May 2017.

  124. 124.

    See the Legislative Guideline, recommendation 218.

  125. 125.

    UNCITRAL (2011b), https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/security-lg/e/10-57126_Ebook_Suppl_SR_IP.pdf, para. 314. Accessed 17 May 2017.

  126. 126.

    UNCITRAL (2011b), https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/security-lg/e/10-57126_Ebook_Suppl_SR_IP.pdf, para. 314. Accessed 17 May 2017.

  127. 127.

    UNCITRAL (2011b), https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/security-lg/e/10-57126_Ebook_Suppl_SR_IP.pdf, para. 314. Accessed 17 May 2017.

  128. 128.

    UNCITRAL (2011b), https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/security-lg/e/10-57126_Ebook_Suppl_SR_IP.pdf, para. 315. Accessed 17 May 2017.

  129. 129.

    For example, at the 13th session it was described as “register-able SR-in-IP”; at the 14th session it became “SR-in-IP which is subject to registration at IP registry”; as to the last meeting, it is “SR-in-IP register-able at IP registry”, and “IP registered in a specialized registry” (there are two proposals in this meeting).

  130. 130.

    Nat’l Peregrine, Inc. v. Capitol Fed. Savs. & Loan Ass’n, 116 B.R.194 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 1990); In re Avalon Software, 209 B.R. 517 (Bankr. D. Ariz. June 6, 1997); World Auxiliary Power Co. v. Silicon Valley Bank, 303 F.3d 1120 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2002).

  131. 131.

    See Nat’l Peregrine, Inc., In re Avalon Software and World Auxiliary Power Co., id.

  132. 132.

    Preemption debate is more common in federal countries.

  133. 133.

    “Special versus general rule” is the main issue in the unitary countries.

  134. 134.

    For more of this feature of the US law, see Haemmerli (1996), Nguyen (2002), Lui (2011).

  135. 135.

    See Collins et al. (2006), p. 37.

  136. 136.

    See Collins et al. (2006), p. 37.

  137. 137.

    See Collins et al. (2006), pp. 37–38.

  138. 138.

    See Collins et al. (2006), p. 37.

  139. 139.

    See Collins et al. (2006), p. 38.

  140. 140.

    See Collins et al. (2006), p. 48.

  141. 141.

    MacMillan v. Branch Banking & Trust Co., 221 N.C. 352 (N.C. 1942).

  142. 142.

    See Japan METI Intellectual Property Policy Office (2009), http://www.meti.go.jp/policy/intellectual_assets/english.html. Accessed 18 May 2017.

  143. 143.

    See Japan METI Intellectual Property Policy Office (2009), http://www.meti.go.jp/policy/intellectual_assets/english.html. Accessed 18 May 2017.

  144. 144.

    See also Collins et al. (2006), p. 48.

  145. 145.

    See Collins et al. (2006), p. 48.

  146. 146.

    Due to space constraint, for a more general understanding of the US secured transaction law structure, please see Whaley and McJohn (2014).

  147. 147.

    Whaley and McJohn (2014). See also § 9-102 & § 9-109 of Uniform Commercial Code (2010).

  148. 148.

    Part 3. Perfection and Priority, Subpart 1: Law Governing Perfection and Priority. See U.C.C. §§ 9-301~9-316 (amended 1999).

  149. 149.

    See American Law Institute (1988).

  150. 150.

    Please see U.C.C. §1-301 (d).

  151. 151.

    Please see U.C.C. §1-301 (e) (1).

  152. 152.

    Please see U.C.C. §1-301 (e) (2).

  153. 153.

    Please see U.C.C. §1-301 (f).

  154. 154.

    Please see U.C.C. §1-301 (d).

  155. 155.

    Please see U.C.C. §1-301 (g).

  156. 156.

    U.C.C. § 9-301 is titled as “Law Governing Perfection and Priority of Security Interests” and provides:

    “(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, while a debtor is located in a jurisdiction, the local law of that jurisdiction governs perfection, the effect of perfection or nonperfection, and the priority of a security interest in collateral.

    (2) While collateral is located in a jurisdiction, the local law of that jurisdiction governs perfection, the effect of perfection or nonperfection, and the priority of a possessory security interest in that collateral.”

  157. 157.

    As to why UCC chooses such an approach as the indication for law applicable in a multi-state transaction or conflict-of-laws situation, reasons are provided that:

    “Documents, instruments, and ordinary goods are physical objects that have identifiable geographic locations. In this respect, they are unlike accounts and general intangibles. Further, they are inherently less mobile than motor vehicles, airplanes, shipping containers and the other certificate-of-title and mobile goods that are covered by 9-103(2) and (3).” See Nordstrom et al. (1987), p. 199.

  158. 158.

    Please note the reason stated below as to why the UCC 1999 version started to take a different approach (i.e. shifted to a central filing system) regarding where the place of filing a financing statement should be determined: “Former Article 9 afforded each State three alternatives approaches, depending on the extent to which the State desires central filing (usually with the Secretary of State), local filing (usually with a county office), or both. … Local filing increases the net costs of secured transactions … by increasing uncertainty and the number of required filing.” See Comment 2 to 1999 § 9-501, extracted from Hagedorn (2007), p. 159. The reasons provided for central filing (i.e. duplicated registrations and multiple costs) under UCC, though only at a nation-wide level, serves as an importance reference for this international secured transaction law reform undertaken at UNCITRAL.

  159. 159.

    It is not from the beginning when UCC was firstly drafted that its conflict-of-laws rules were designed this way. Scholars have indicated that throughout the historical exploration, it can be found that the 2001 version of UCC brought a major change in philosophy from its earlier 1972 version. “While the 1972 version generally looked to the law of the state of the situs of the collateral, the 2001 version looks to the debtor’s “location” for nonpossessory security interests. For possessory security interests (i.e. those security interests that are perfected by the creditor taking possession of the collateral), the 2001 version retains the situs nexus.” See Hay et al. (2009), p. 824.

  160. 160.

    To examine how the UCC conflict-of-laws section moves from the law of the state of the situs of the collateral (“lex situs”) to a debtor-location nexus and, most importantly, its implications for international transactions, see Borchers (1998).

  161. 161.

    See Session 1.2 (analysis of UNCITRAL proposals) and footnotes 2–44.

  162. 162.

    Please see U.C.C. §9-307 (2010). Besides, in the older version, UCC Article used to phrase this as “(where the organization) is incorporated.” For states that has not yet adopted the latest U.C.C. §9 (2010), this could cause further serious conflicts.

  163. 163.

    Please see U.C.C. §9-303 (c) (2010).

  164. 164.

    See Legislative Guideline, UNCITRAL (2010b), https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/security-lg/e/09-82670_Ebook-Guide_09-04-10English.pdf, at pp. 391–392. Accessed 22 May 2017.

  165. 165.

    While employing a not so precise term of “uniform,” two things have to be brought up as reminders in advance.

    One, the meaning of “uniform” under UCC is a relative rather than an absolute feature. For examples, scholars have indicated earlier that “Article 9 is still in force in its 1962 version in seven states, and only a minority of the states has adopted the new (1977) version of Article 9.” See Nordstrom et al. (1987), p. 9.

    Even in States that have adopted the same version of the UCC, variations may still be existent. See Legislative Guideline. UNCITRAL (2010b), https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/security-lg/e/09-82670_Ebook-Guide_09-04-10English.pdf, at pp. 391–392. Accessed 22 May 2017.

  166. 166.

    The other thing is: in addition to the fact that different states may modify the language of their promulgated versions of secured transaction law, even if the uniform statutory language were adopted, it does not automatically leads to uniformity in judicial interpretation. See Nordstrom et al., p. 9.

  167. 167.

    See UNCITRAL Legislative Guideline, UNCITRAL (2010b), https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/security-lg/e/09-82670_Ebook-Guide_09-04-10English.pdf, at p. 56. Accessed 22 May 2017.

  168. 168.

    It, however, needs to be pointed out that some issues that exist in one category may be found in another. For example, UCC may not be 100% applicable to intellectual property-related collaterals in the US since federal law dominates some aspects of it and due to the preemption principle rooted in the US Constitution. Therefore, this vacancy may be left out in UCC, but nonetheless has to be addressed in the international level.

  169. 169.

    Act on General Rules for Application of Laws, Act No. 78 of 2006. Entry into force on January 1, 2007.

  170. 170.

    This English translation was made by Masato Dogauchi et al. See Dogauchi et al. (2007). I would like to express my sincere gratitude here. The translation is also available in Asian-Pacific Law & Policy Journal. See Anderson and Okuda (2006).

  171. 171.

    See Dogauchi et al. (2007). See also Anderson and Okuda (2006).

  172. 172.

    See Dogauchi et al. (2007). See also Anderson and Okuda (2006).

  173. 173.

    Act on General Rules for Application of Laws, Act No. 78 of 2006. Entry into force on January 1, 2007.

  174. 174.

    Act No. 78 of 2006, Entry into force on January 1, 2007.

  175. 175.

    See Kanzaki et al. (2006), p. 200. Other scholars also argue that this control has to be exclusive for anyone who wishes to exercise the same right, see e.g. Matsuoka and Kougi (2008), p. 149.

  176. 176.

    Article 581 of Japanese Civil Code: If the special agreement on redemption is registered simultaneously with the contract for sale, the redemption shall also be effective against third parties.

  177. 177.

    Article 605 of Japanese Civil Code: A lease of immovable property, when registered, shall also be effective against a person who subsequently acquires real rights with respect to the immovable property.

  178. 178.

    See Kanzaki et al. (2006), p. 200. See also Matsuoka and Kougi (2008), p. 153.

  179. 179.

    See Kanzaki et al. (2006), p. 200.

  180. 180.

    See Kanzaki et al. (2006), p. 200. See also Matsuoka and Kougi (2008), p. 153.

  181. 181.

    The law is passed on October 28, 2010 and effective since April 1, 2011.

  182. 182.

    So far, there is limited literature written in non-Chinese language on the legislative history and legal interpretation of the new Chinese private international law. For readers who can read German, this article may provide much information. See Pissler (2012).

  183. 183.

    See Pissler (2012).

  184. 184.

    See Pissler (2012).

  185. 185.

    See Pissler (2012). See also Lee (2011), pp. 87–89.

  186. 186.

    See Pissler (2012). See also Lee (2011), pp. 87–89.

  187. 187.

    See Pissler (2012). See also Lee (2011), pp. 87–89.

  188. 188.

    See Article 37 of Law of the Application of Law for Foreign-related Civil Relations.

  189. 189.

    See Article 37 of Law of the Application of Law for Foreign-related Civil Relations.

  190. 190.

    See Article 38 Law of the Application of Law for Foreign-related Civil Relations.

  191. 191.

    See Article 40 Law of the Application of Law for Foreign-related Civil Relations.

  192. 192.

    See Article 48 Law of the Application of Law for Foreign-related Civil Relations.

  193. 193.

    See Article 49 Law of the Application of Law for Foreign-related Civil Relations.

  194. 194.

    See Lee (2011).

  195. 195.

    Paragraph 3 also provides a provision on when the location of a right in rem is changed. Paragraph 4, on the other hand, is about the applicable for rights in rem for ships and aircrafts.

  196. 196.

    Ke (2010), p. 250

  197. 197.

    See also Article 42, Act Governing the Choice of Law in Civil Matters Involving Foreign Elements.

  198. 198.

    Another issue here would be “how do we define where the right is created?” Does it refer to the IP registry or the general secured transaction registry?

  199. 199.

    See Restatement (First) of Conflict of Laws § 225 (Am. Law Inst. 1934).

  200. 200.

    See Restatement (First) of Conflict of Laws § 226 (Am. Law Inst. 1934).

  201. 201.

    See Restatement (First) of Conflict of Laws § 227 (Am. Law Inst. 1934).

  202. 202.

    Burr v. Beckler, 106 N.E. 206 (Ill. 1914).

  203. 203.

    Act No. 78 of 2006, Entry into force on January 1, 2007.

  204. 204.

    This English translation was made possible by Dogauchi et al. (2007). I would like to express my sincere gratitude here. The translation is also available in Asian-Pacific Law & Policy Journal. See Anderson and Okuda (2006).

  205. 205.

    See CLIP (2013), p. 35. See also UNCITRAL (2011b), http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/security-lg/e/10-57126_Ebook_Suppl_SR_IP.pdf, para. 298. Accessed 17 May 2017.

    Rationales raised for and against the Grantor’s Location approach and its accompanying footnotes 77–128.

  206. 206.

    “Many people assume that a patented medicine is protected by one particular patent. Unfortunately, it is not as straight-forward as that. Patents do not protect medicines as such, but “inventions”. In the pharmaceutical sector, such an invention may for example relate to a product (e.g. a specific molecule), a process (e.g. the process to manufacture this molecule), a medical indication (e.g. the effect of this molecule on a human body), or a combination of products (e.g. a fixed dose combination of two molecules.)” See e.g. Boulet et al. (2003), http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/en/d/Js4913e/, p. 40. Accessed 18 May 2017.

  207. 207.

    See UNCITRAL (2011a), https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/V11/859/00/PDF/V1185900.pdf?OpenElement. Accessed 18 May 2017.

  208. 208.

    See UNCITRAL (2013), https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/V13/803/11/PDF/V1380311.pdf?OpenElement. Accessed 18 May 2017.

  209. 209.

    See UNCITRAL (2015b), https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/V15/080/04/PDF/V1508004.pdf?OpenElement. Accessed 18 May 2017.

  210. 210.

    See UNCITRAL (2015a), https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/V15/083/78/PDF/V1508378.pdf?OpenElement. Accessed 18 May 2017.

  211. 211.

    See UNCITRAL (2011a), https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/V11/859/00/PDF/V1185900.pdf?OpenElement, para. 18. Accessed 18 May 2017.

  212. 212.

    See UNCITRAL (2011a), https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/V11/859/00/PDF/V1185900.pdf?OpenElement, para. 21. Accessed 18 May 2017.

  213. 213.

    See UNCITRAL (2011a), https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/V11/859/00/PDF/V1185900.pdf?OpenElement, para. 52. Accessed 18 May 2017.

  214. 214.

    At Preface. See UNCITRAL (2011a), https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/V11/859/00/PDF/V1185900.pdf?OpenElement, p. 3. Security interest of intellectual property licensing is nevertheless included in the Draft Model Law. See UNCITRAL (2015b), https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/V15/080/04/PDF/V1508004.pdf?OpenElement, p. 4 and Article 13-4(b), p. 11. Accessed 18 May 2017.

  215. 215.

    See UNCITRAL (2013), https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/V13/803/11/PDF/V1380311.pdf?OpenElement, para. 38. Accessed 18 May 2017.

  216. 216.

    See UNCITRAL (2015a), https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/V15/083/78/PDF/V1508378.pdf?OpenElement, para. 36. Accessed 18 May 2017.

References

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Claire Wan-Chiung Cheng .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Kono, T., Cheng, C.WC. (2017). IP and Debt Finance: Cross-Border Considerations. In: Kono, T. (eds) Security Interests in Intellectual Property. Perspectives in Law, Business and Innovation. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5415-0_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5415-0_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-10-5414-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-10-5415-0

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics