Internationaler Investitionsschutz und geistiges Eigentum

In international law, the protection of investments made by an investor of one country against state measures in another country (host state) is subject to customary law principles and international treaties. These agreements, mostly in form of Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) and investment chapters in Free Trade Agreements (FTAs), generally include Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) as covered investments. This in turn raises interesting questions about the conditions for and scope of protection of IPRs under investment treaties. It further calls for an analysis of the relationship – as a matter of public international law – between the traditional system of protecting IPRs and investment treaties: To the extent that for example the World Trade Organisation (WTO) Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) and investment treaties differ in how they protect IPRs, which system, if any, prevails? In a recent monograph Simon Klopschinski has addressed these questions in an extremely comprehensive and concise manner. This article reviews his work. It does so by using two recent investor-state arbitrations as case studies for the relationship between intellectual property and investment law.The main findings are that regardless its consistent incorporation in investment treaties, the existence and scope of protecting IPRs as investments depends on the domestic law of the host state. Under the ICSID Convention, they generally do not fulfil the additional 'Salini hallmarks' criteria commentators and tribunals often require establishing jurisdiction under Art. 25 of the Convention. As international IP law, investment law contains relative and absolute standards of protection. But unlike the former, the non-discrimination obligations in investment treaties do not contain exceptions where differing standards in national laws demand for material reciprocity. Also absolute standards – such as protection against expropriation and fair and equitable treatment – differ significantly from the exclusive rights IPRs typically confer and the exceptions and limitations inherent in the system. Some of these differences create a potential for conflicts when both rule systems are applied to one set of facts. Sometimes material conflict resolution clauses in either system offer a way out. In other cases, the generality and openness of investment standards offers opportunities for an interpretation which takes account of the often more specific value judgements in international IP law. The key difference between the two systems is the option for investors to directly challenge host state measures in front of an international tribunal – usually without the need to exhaust local remedies. It may well be this feature which will make investment law an increasingly interesting option for IP right holders. For host states, this results in another forum where their national measures may be challenged – with sometimes significant implications for their willingness and ability to pursue public interest as soon as these measures may constrain foreign investments. Der Rechtsschutz von Investitionen im Ausland ist nicht nur von erheblicher wirtschaftlicher Bedeutung. Auch als Rechtsgebiet ist der internationale Investitionsschutz nicht mehr aus dem Wirtschaftsvölkerrecht wegzudenken. Dies belegen vor allem Hunderte von Entscheidungen internationaler Schiedsgerichte, welche regelmäßig die Frage betreffen, ob eine Maßnahme des Gaststaates gegen in Investitionsverträgen verbriefte Rechte von Investoren verstößt. Als Investition werden in solchen zwischenstaatlichen Verträgen regelmäßig auch Immaterialgüterrechte erfasst. Dies wirft interessante Fragen zum Verhältnis des Investitionsschutzes zum internationalen Schutzsystem für geistiges Eigentum auf: Einerseits auf materiell-rechtlicher Ebene (inwieweit schützen Investitionsverträge geistiges Eigentum?) und andererseits auf allgemein völkerrechtlicher