An Organizational Approach to the Design of Patent Law

6 VERTINSKY FINAL_JAD (DO NOT DELETE) 2/27/2012 2:20 PM
270 MINN. J. L. SCI. & TECH. [Vol. 13:1
and private, participate in this process. 248 As Dinwoodie notes,
the “shape of international intellectual property law is being
determined by the interaction of numerous components of the
system.” 249 There are multiple participants in norm creation:
both domestic and international, public, and private. In some
cases the norms may conflict with each other or with the established
rules. Tensions also exist between uniform international
norms and national autonomy. 250 A second step is to recognize
the importance of limited institutional capacity in responding
to formal and even informal rule changes. 251 Local practices,
regulatory infrastructure, and local cultural norms are important
factors in determining compliance with both formal and
informal rules. The approach advocates concepts which take into
account the limited institutional capacity of different countries
and the different cultural and social norms through which
formal rules are filtered. Notions of compliance, which capture
both adoption of rules and the constraints on their implementation
and enforcement, provide a useful conceptual framework
for analysis. 252
Third, the organizational approach supports proposals for
innovation in the organization of law making and enforcement.
Current work in the interface of domestic and international patent
law explores the need for mechanisms to accommodate national
courts and national interests in international patent law
making. 253 The administrative structure of international patent
248. Graeme B. Dinwoodie, The International Intellectual Property Law
System: New Actors, New Institutions, New Sources, 10 MARQ. INTELL. PROP.
L. REV. 205, 206 (2006).
249. Id. at 10.
250. Dinwoodie & Dreyfuss, TRIPS and the Dynamics of Intellectual Property
Lawmaking, supra note 240, at 95–96.
251. See, e.g., SAMUEL WANGWE ET AL., CASE STUDY FOR STUDY 9:
INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES FOR DEVELOPING COUNTRIES IN IP POLICY-MAKING,
ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT, UGANDA 12–14 (2002). (looking at the
challenges of developing and implementing an IP system in Uganda in light of
the obligations of the TRIPS framework).
252. See, e.g., Potter, supra note 247, at 12–13 (arguing that international
law can acquire a variety of local meanings that require an understanding of
the local history and culture in addition to knowledge of the domestic economy
and laws).
253. See, e.g., Graeme B. Dinwoodie, The Architecture of the International
Intellectual Property System, 77 CHI.-KENT L. REV. 993, 1010–13 (2002) (examining
how the system of international IP lawmaking is changing and discussing
the need for mechanisms to enhance the role of national courts that
were historically largely excluded from lawmaking process); Graeme B.