Functional Analysis of Private International Law Rules for Security Interests in Intellectual Property

  • Toshiyuki KonoEmail author
  • Kazuaki Kagami
Part of the Perspectives in Law, Business and Innovation book series (PLBI)


This article aims at contributing to academic debates on PIL rules on security interest in IP using functional analysis. Functional analysis here means a method to take a legal rule as a mechanism which brings about certain effects, to analyze conditions under which the effects would be produced, and to seek possible directions to improve the legal rule. Security interests in IP represent a convergence of three fields of law, i.e. IP, PIL and security interest law. Therefore, an integral platform where these three fields could be analyzed on an equal level would be needed. Functional analysis provides such a platform. For this purpose, this article first clarified the functions of security interest and its conditions, then identified which option as a PIL rule would be appropriate for each condition of the individual function of security interest in IP. Perspectives from both states’ and parties’ interests should be properly integrated in the analytical process. Lastly, the scope and conditions of party autonomy as well as objective connecting factors were identified. The outcome of this analysis provides tools to clarify not fully conceived parts of previous discussions. The CLIP Principles were compared with our proposals from this perspective.


  1. Adler BE (1998) Secured credit contracts. In: Newman P (ed) The new palgrave dictionary of economics and the law, pp 405–410Google Scholar
  2. Akseli NO (2011) International secured transactions law: facilitation of credit and international conventions and instruments. Routledge, AbingtonGoogle Scholar
  3. Armour J (2008) The law and economics debate about secured lending: lessons for European lawmaking? Eur Co Financ Law Rev Spec 2:3–29Google Scholar
  4. Baird DG (2004) Secured lending and its uncertain future. Cardozo Law Rev 25:1789–1800Google Scholar
  5. Baird DG, Gertner RH, Picker RC (1994) Game theory and the law. Harvard University Press, Boston, p 314Google Scholar
  6. Basedow J, Kono T, Rühl G (eds) (2006) An economic analysis of private international law. Mohr Siebeck, TubingenGoogle Scholar
  7. Bebchuck LA, Fried JM (1996) The uneasy case for the priority of secured claims in bankruptcy. Yale Law J 105:857–934CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bebchuk LA, Guzman AT (1999) An economic analysis of transitional bankruptcies. J Law Econ 42(2):775–808CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Borchers PJ (2008) Categorical exceptions to party autonomy. Priv Int Law Tulane Law Rev 82(5):1645–1661Google Scholar
  10. Bowers JW (2000) Security interests: creditors’ priorities and bankruptcy. In: Bouckaert B, De Geest G (eds) Encyclopedia of Law and Economics, vol II. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 90–128Google Scholar
  11. Bradley CA (1997) Territorial intellectual property rights in an age of globalism. Va J Int Law 37:505–586Google Scholar
  12. Buxbaum HL (2009) Territory territoriality and the resolution of jurisdictional conflict. Am J Comp Law 57:631–676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Castellano GG (2015) Reforming non-possessory secured transactions laws: a new strategy? Mod Law Rev 78(4):611–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Coco G (2000) On the use of collateral. J Econ Surv 14(2):191–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cook T (2014) Territoriality and jurisdiction in EU IP law. J Intellect Prop Rights 19:293–297Google Scholar
  16. Dinwoodie GB (2009) Developing a private international intellectual property law: The Demise of Territoriality? William Mary Law Rev 51(2):711–800Google Scholar
  17. Dornis TW (2017) Trademark and unfair competition conflicts. Cambridge University, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  18. European Max-Planck Group on Conflict of Laws in Intellectual Property (CLIP) (2013) Conflict of laws in intellectual property the clip principles and commentary. Oxford University, Oxford, pp 354–369Google Scholar
  19. Feng M, Gramlich JD, Gupta GS (2009) Special purpose vehicles: empirical evidence on determinants and earnings management. Acc Rev 84(6):1833–1876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Flint GL Jr (1999) Secured transactions history: the fraudulent myth. New Mexico Law Rev 29:363–405Google Scholar
  21. Gullifer L, Akseli NO (2016) Secured transactions law reform: principles policies and practice. Hart Publishing, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  22. Guzman AT (2001) Choice of law: new foundations. Geo LJ 90:883–940Google Scholar
  23. Harris SL, Mooney CW Jr (1994) A property-based theory of security interests: taking debtors’ choices seriously. Va Law Rev 80:2021–2072CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jackson TH (1982) Bankruptcy, non-bankruptcy entitlement and the creditors’ bargain. Yale Law Rev 91(5):857–907CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jackson TH, Kronman AT (1979) Secured financing and priorities among creditors. Yale Law J 88:1143–1182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kagami K (2006) The systematic choice of legal rules for private international law: an economic approach. In: Basedow J, Kono T (eds) An economic analysis of private international Law. Mohr Siebeck, TubingenGoogle Scholar
  27. Kono T, Kagami K (2013) Is a uniform law always preferable to private international law? Jpn Yearb int Law 56:314–337Google Scholar
  28. Kramer X, Themeli E (2016) The party autonomy paradigm: European and global developments on choice. In: Lazic V, Stuij S (eds) Brussels ibis regulation: changes and challenges of the renewed procedural scheme. T.M.C. Asser Press, Hague, pp 27–49Google Scholar
  29. Lehmann M (2008) Liberating the individual from battles between states: justifying party autonomy in conflict of laws. Vanderbilt J Trans Law 4:381–434Google Scholar
  30. Mann RJ (1997) Explaining the pattern of secured credit. Harv Law Rev 110(625):625–683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Maultzsch F (2016) Party autonomy in European private international law: uniform principle or context-dependent instrument? J priv int Law 12(3):466–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Metzger A (2010) Applicable law under the clip principles: a pragmatic revaluation of territoriality. In: Basedow J, Kono T, Metzger A (eds) Intellectual property in the global arena–jurisdiction applicable law and the recognition of judgments in Europe Japan and the US. Mohr Siebeck, TubingenGoogle Scholar
  33. Michaels R (2008) The new European choice-of-law revolution. Tul L Rev 82:1607–1644Google Scholar
  34. Matulionyte R (2011) Law applicable to copyright: a comparison of the ALI and CLIP proposals. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. O’Hara E, Ribstein LE (2000) From politics to efficiency in the choice of law. Univ Chicago Law Rev 67:1151–1232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ruhl G (2006) Methods and approaches in choice of law: an economic perspective. Berkeley J int Law 24(3):801–841Google Scholar
  37. Rühl G (2009) Party autonomy in the private international law of contracts: transatlantic convergence and economic efficiency. In: Gottschalk E, Michaels R, Ruhl G, von Hein J (eds) Conflict of laws in a globalized world. Cambridge University, Cambridge, pp 153–183Google Scholar
  38. Schwartz A (1981) Security interests and bankruptcy priorities: a review of current theories. J Leg Stud 10(1):1–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schwartz A (1984) The continuing puzzle of secured debt. Vanderbilt Law Rev 37(5):1051–1069Google Scholar
  40. Scott RE (1997) Truth about secured financing. Cornell L Rev 82:1436–1465Google Scholar
  41. Thomas S (2016) Security interests in intellectual property: proposals for reform. Legal StudiesGoogle Scholar
  42. Torremans Paul (2013) Holyoak and Torremans intellectual property law. Oxford University, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tosato A (2011) Security interests over intellectual property. J Intellect Prop Law Pract 6(2):93–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Treppoz E (2014) International choice of law in trademark disputes from a territorial approach to a global approach. J Law Arts 37:557–571Google Scholar
  45. UNCITRAL (2011) Legislative guide on secured transactions. Accessed 20 May 2017
  46. Whincop MJ, Keyes M (2001) Policy and pragmatism in the conflict of laws. Ashgate, AldershotGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Kyushu UniversityFukuokaJapan
  2. 2.Toyo UniversityTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations