Stockholm university
Denna sida på svenska

Lydia Lundstedt

About me

I am a researcher and associate professor (docent) in private international law at Stockholm University. Since 2019, I have been the editor of the book series Scandinavian Studies in Law, which is affiliated with the Faculty of Law at Stockholm University.

Academic background

In 2016, I defended my dissertation "Territoriality in Intellectual Property Law" with Professor Marianne Levin as supervisor at the Department of Law at Stockholm University. In August 2018, I was permanently employed as a Senior Lecturer in Business Law with a focus on intellectual property law at the Department of Economic and Industrial Development at Linköping University. In December 2018, I was permanently employed as a Senior Lecturer in International Private and Procedural Law at the Department of Law at Stockholm University. In 2019, I received a post-doc scholarship from the Foundation for Jurisprudential Research.

Academic positions of trust

Board Member, Education Committee (2024-2027)

Community Cooperation

  • Adjunct member and head of the Transborder Group for the Swedish Association for Intellectual Property Law (SFIR) (2017 - )
  • Member of reference group at the Expert Group on Public Economics (ESO) on the legal conditions for individually owned data for more efficient healthcare in Sweden, given the EU's new general data protection regulation (2018/01 - 2018/05)
  • Member of VINNOVA's expert group on “Håkan Lans and the US cases regarding the patent for color graphics (the‘ 986 patent) ”(2006/08 - 2007/05)

Teaching

I teach private international law, intellectual property law, contract law and American law. I supervise students writing masters theses and doctoral students.

Research

My research focuses on the interface between private international law and intellectual property law and other related areas. My dissertation “Territoriality in Intellectual Property Law” (2016) examined and compared the interpretation and application of the principle of territoriality in cross-border intellectual property infringement disputes in the EU and US legal systems. I have recently finished a project on the private international law aspects of cross-border trade secret disputes. The project was funded by the Foundation for Jurisprudential Research. The result of this research is published by Edward Elger Publishing and is included in the series Elgar Monographs in Private International Law.

Research projects

Equality Law

The book that is to be the result of the project, Equality Law, volume 68 in the Scandinavian Studies in Law series, addresses equality from different perspectives. In total, over 15 researchers will contribute to the collection.

Research

Publications

A selection from Stockholm University publication database

  • Cross-border Trade Secret Disputes in the European Union: Jurisdiction and Applicable Law

    2023. Lydia Lundstedt.

    Book

    In today’s data-driven economy, it is essential for companies to protect their trade secrets against unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure; with the ease of digital communications, employee migration and international trade, trade secret violations now often occur across national borders. This book examines how trade secret protection can differ across jurisdictions, where trade secret holders can bring proceedings, and which country’s law is applicable.

    The book provides a European perspective, analysing how the EU’s rules on jurisdiction and applicable law relate to the EU’s wider objectives of encouraging cross-border innovation activities. Using common trade secret scenarios as a springboard for analysis, this book questions whether EU private international law rules can be interpreted to facilitate the objectives of the EU Trade Secret Directive and in doing so it sets out a detailed examination of both regimes.

    Read more about Cross-border Trade Secret Disputes in the European Union

  • Sweden

    2023. Lydia Lundstedt. Jurisdiction Over Non-EU Defendants, 237-256

    Chapter

    This report describes the Swedish rules on international jurisdiction over non-EU defendants and their application by the Swedish courts.

    Read more about Sweden

  • Concurrent Claims against Licensee: Which Courts have International Jurisdiction?

    2022. Lydia Lundstedt. Magna Mater Marianne Levin 2022, 131-141

    Chapter

    A breach of certain clauses in a license agreement may give rise to ‘concurrent liability' in contract and in intellectual property (IP) law. For instance, if a licensor discovers that its licensee uses the registered design or trademark for a range of products not covered by the license, these uses of the design or the trademark may constitute both a breach of contract and an infringement of the right holder’s exclusive right protected by the applicable design or trademark law. Under the law of many legal systems, the licensor (who is also the right holder) may be permitted to frame its action as one in contract or one in IP law, or both, in order to increase its chances of success on the merits and to obtain the most effective remedy. 

    If the dispute between the licensor and the licensee has cross-border elements questions arise concerning which courts have international jurisdiction. Pursuant to Article 7(1) BIa, ‘a matter relating to a contract’ may be brought ‘in the courts for the place of performance of the obligation in question´ (forum solutionis) and pursuant to Article 7(2) BIa, ‘matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict’ may be brought ‘in the courts for the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur’ (forum delicti). As these rules have different connecting factors, they might be located in different Member States. The CJEU has held that a matter might fall under Article 7(1) or Article 7(2) but it cannot fall under both. In addition, the CJEU has declined to interpret Article 7 so as to confer accessory jurisdiction (Annex Kompetenz) so that a court having jurisdiction pursuant to Article 7(2) over the IP claim will not have jurisdiction over related contract claim (and vice versa). The purpose of this article is to analyse whether the licensor can choose its preferred Member State by the way it frames its cause of action (i.e. in contract or in IP law).

    Read more about Concurrent Claims against Licensee: Which Courts have International Jurisdiction?

  • Gtflix Tv v DR: ‘Same Ole Same Ole’ or Has the CJEU Broken New Ground?

    2022. Lydia Lundstedt. Europarättslig tidskrift 2022 (2), 251-261

    Article

    In Gtflix Tv v DR, the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) handed down an important decision confirming the mosaic approach and the accessibility approach to the application of the damage head of jurisdiction to infringements of personality rights on the internet pursuant to Article 7(2) of the Brussels Ia Regulation. Pursuant to the mosaic approach, an injured party can bring proceedings in every Member State where the damage occurs but only with respect to the damage taking place in that Member State’s territory. Pursuant to the accessibility approach, the sole criterium for the occurrence of damage in a Member State is that the content that is placed online ‘is or has been accessible’ in that Member State. Both these approaches have been criticised by commentators and resisted by the Member States courts. Nevertheless, the CJEU arguably forges new ground as the decision seems to expand the mosaic and accessibility approaches into the realm of unfair competition law. Lastly, questions remain concerning whether the courts of the Member State where the damage occurred have jurisdiction to order other territorially limited remedies such as geo-blocking measures, in additionto compensation for damage.

    Read more about Gtflix Tv v DR

  • Jurisdiction and Choice of Law in Online Copyright Cases

    2021. Lydia Lundstedt. The Routledge Handbook of EU Copyright Law, 396-412

    Chapter

    The online exploitation of copyright-protected content frustrates its effective enforcement. This is because the global reach of the internet stands in stark contrast to the territoriality principle of international copyright law, whereby each State determines whether and the extent to which content is protected within its own territorial borders. When protected content is exploited online, it has the potential to infringe in every State where the content is accessible. This poses a challenge for private international law because its rules are based on localizing connecting factors within a geographical territory. These rules can be difficult to apply in an online copyright case because the infringement can be ubiquitous. This chapter describes how the European Union (EU) rules on jurisdiction and applicable law apply to online copyright infringement cases and analyzes whether the Court of Justice of the European Union’s (CJEU) interpretations of these rules fulfil the underlying objectives of private international law. Lastly, the chapter provides some perspectives for the future.

    Read more about Jurisdiction and Choice of Law in Online Copyright Cases

  • AMS Neve and Others (C-172/18): Looking for a Greater ‘Degree of Consistency’ Between the Special Jurisdiction Rule for EU Trade Marks and National Trade Marks

    2020. Lydia Lundstedt. GRUR international 69 (4), 355-364

    Article

    The Court of Justice of the European Union’s (CJEU) judgment in AMS Neve and others (C-172/18) clarifies how to interpret the concept ‘the Member State in which the act of infringement has been committed or threatened’ in the rule on special jurisdiction in the European Union Trade Mark Regulation. The CJEU held that Art. 125(5) should be interpreted to mean that the right holder may bring an action before an EU trade mark court of the Member State within which the consumers or traders to whom advertising and offers for sale are directed are located, even if the defendant took decisions and steps in another Member State to bring about that electronic display.

    With this judgment the CJEU introduces a targeting approach, which is something it has declined to do for the corresponding rule in Art. 7(2) Brussels Recast that applies to infringements of national trade marks. While the targeting approach is encouraging, the CJEU will need to clarify it to fulfil the objective of legal certainty. In addition, the CJEU appears to have interpreted Art. 125(5) EUTMR to exclude the Member State of activation. This is in contrast to Art. 7(2) Brussels Recast, which gives a right holder a choice between the Member State of activation and the Member State where the trade mark is registered. The article concludes that there is no justification for these differences in the special rules on jurisdiction applicable to EU trade marks and national trades.

    Read more about AMS Neve and Others (C-172/18)

  • Enhancing critical thinking in private international law

    2020. Lydia Lundstedt, Erik Sinander. The Law Teacher 54 (3), 400-413

    Article

    This article describes and evaluates the reforms that the authors (as course managers) introduced to enhance critical thinking in the compulsory course on private international law in the Master of Laws programme at Stockholm University. The reforms were made in response to a decision by the Stockholm University Law Faculty Board to develop the “Stockholm Model” in an effort to strengthen students’ critical and scientific approach to law. The Stockholm Model aims to place law in a broader context so students can understand its relation to and impact on society. It also shifts the focus from an orthodox teaching of the doctrinal subject areas to facilitating the students’ ability to apply legal and other social science methods to analyse and develop the law. The article evaluates the success of the measures and reflects on what more can be done to improve critical thinking.

    Read more about Enhancing critical thinking in private international law

  • Title   Putting Right Holders in the Centre: Bolagsupplysningen and Ilsjan   (C-194/16): What Does It Mean for International Jurisdiction over Transborder   Intellectual Property Infringement Disputes?

    2018. Lydia Lundstedt. IIC-International Review of Industrial Property and Copyright Law, 1-26

    Article

    This paper analyses what the decision in Bolagsupplysningen and Ilsjan (C-194/16) means for international jurisdiction under EU Regulation No 1215/2012 with respect to transborder intellectual property infringement disputes. In this case, the Court of Justice of the European Union extended “the centre of interests” basis of jurisdiction under Art. 7(2) of EU Regulation No 1215/2012 to legal persons claiming infringements of personality rights on the internet. The Court also held that actions for rectification and removal of content infringing personality rights may not be brought before the courts of a Member State where the content is accessible. This article concludes that the centre of interests basis of jurisdiction is generally not applicable to right holders claiming infringements of intellectual property rights and/or complementary tort claims, except arguably for claims for the infringement of moral rights and unfair competition claims where the act exclusively affects the interests of a specific competitor. Many questions remain with respect to the localisation of a victim’s centre of interests. In addition, the article concludes that the judgment in Bolagsupplysningen does not affect a right holder’s ability to obtain an injunction in the Member State in which content accessible on the internet infringes a forum IP right to put an end to the infringement in that State. Still, the centre of interests basis of jurisdiction has the potential to give right holders an advantage for claims of online infringements of moral rights and acts of unfair competition that exclusively affect them and it can be expected that authors and traders will take advantage of this opportunity when considering their IP litigation strategies.

    Read more about Title   Putting Right Holders in the Centre: Bolagsupplysningen and Ilsjan   (C-194/16): What Does It Mean for International Jurisdiction over Transborder   Intellectual Property Infringement Disputes?

  • International Jurisdiction over Cross-border Private Enforcement Actions under the GDPR

    2018. Lydia Lundstedt. Scandinavian Studies in Law 65

    Article

    The new European Union (EU) Regulation on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (hereinafter “General Data Protection Regulation or “GDPR”) aims to strengthen individual rights for the protection of personal data by, inter alia, facilitating private enforcement actions. To this end, the GDPR clarifies the data subject’s right to a direct and independent private enforcement action directly against the controller or processer. As the infringement of personal data rights increasingly takes on cross border dimensions, the GDPR sets out rules on jurisdiction allowing the data subject to bring a private enforcement action in the Member State where the offending controller or processor has its establishment, or alternatively in the Member State where the data subject has his or her habitual residence.

    The aim of this article is to analyze the jurisdictional options available to a data subject to bring a private enforcement action to enforce his/her data protection rights before the GDPR, under the Member States’ general rules on jurisdiction in private international law, and after the GDPR, under the GDPR’s own rules on jurisdiction. In addition, the article analyzes whether the new rules on jurisdiction in the GDPR supplement or supplant the Member States’ general rules on jurisdiction. The article discusses and analyzes the areas where the application and interpretation of the rules are unclear, and proposes interpretations that best serve the objectives of the GDPR to strengthen the rights of data subjects by facilitating private enforcement actions without jeopardizing the principle of legal certainty deemed necessary for the free movement of data within the EU.

    Read more about International Jurisdiction over Cross-border Private Enforcement Actions under the GDPR

  • Territoriality in Intellectual Property Law

    2016. Lydia Lundstedt, Marianne Levin, Marcus Norrgård.

    Thesis (Doc)

    The principle of territoriality is a truism in intellectual property (IP) law. A premise underlying the principle is the right of each state to determine the extent to which IP rights exist and are protected within its own territory to fulfil its own economic, social and cultural policy goals. This is done by giving a right to prevent others from doing within the protected territory any of the acts that are exclusively reserved to the right holder under the IP statute that granted or protects the IP right. The principle of territoriality informs that IP rights granted or protected by a state are independent from those granted or protected by other states, and that the rights conferred under each state’s IP law are limited to the territory of that state. As the principle of territoriality neatly allocated jurisdiction among states on a territorial basis, it purportedly obviated the need for private international law. Each state exercised jurisdiction over the infringement of its own rights and applied its own domestic IP law, which served the interests of the states and of the parties.

    With the increase in the protection and exploitation of IP rights across national borders, infringements do not remain within hermetically sealed national territories. Acts taken in one state can have effects in other states and impair the policies that the rights were designed to fulfil. This raises questions concerning the territorial scope of application of the domestic IP law, that is, whether it is interpreted with respect to a domestic tangible act, effects on a domestic policy goal or both. In addition, the transborder exploitation of IP rights raises questions of private international law with respect to whether states exercise jurisdiction and apply national law to disputes concerning infringements of their domestic rights or whether states exercise jurisdiction and apply national law to disputes arising from acts committed in their territories (or both). These determinations may depend on different factors such as the different interests taken into consideration (e.g. state or party interests), the different legal traditions upon which the legal systems are based and the characteristics and functions of the IP rights themselves.

    This dissertation compares the interpretation and operation of the principle of territoriality of IP law in the private law resolution of transborder IP infringement disputes in the legal systems of the European Union and the United States, two distinctly different legal systems that have significant trade and investment relations with each other. The comparison shows that while the systems are functionally similar, the principle of territoriality is interpreted and operates somewhat differently in the two legal systems.

    Read more about Territoriality in Intellectual Property Law

  • Jurisdiction and the principle of territoriality in intellectual property law

    2001. Lydia Lundstedt. IIC-International Review of Industrial Property and Copyright Law 32 (2), 124-141

    Article

    In a recent decision, the Swedish Supreme Court has denied jurisdiction in respect of a claim for declaration of non-infringement of a Swedish patent against a Norwegian company. The article examines the decision in the light of the Brussels and Lugano Conventions, taking into account previous case law of the European Court of Justice. It arrives at the conclusion that there is no clearly fixed solution for the problems at hand, but that the relevant articles of the Conventions should be interpreted differently depending on the nature of the case.

    Read more about Jurisdiction and the principle of territoriality in intellectual property law

Show all publications by Lydia Lundstedt at Stockholm University

Edit the profile