Although zhifu is a term more closely associated with men’s wear than with women’s, women’s work in the Mao years did include making zhifu. Chapter Four documents the proliferation of sewing schools for women in the 1950s, showing that they were a route by which women entered the paid workforce. Women in various contexts – in factories, sewing co-ops, and especially in their homes – were significant agents in the production of the new national wardrobe. In much of rural China, women continued to spin the yarn, weave the cloth, and make the clothes and shoes for all the family members. In this way, they reproduced a material culture not too different from that of preceding generations (although not entirely the same, either). In the towns, however, a new material culture was created, much of it at the hands of women.

In the past decade, interest in the work of the tailor Nudie Cohn has intensified and the style he created, which was the defining dress practice of country music performance throughout the 1950s, has been reinterpreted by emerging western wear designers. This style juxtaposes the materials and construction values of bespoke tailoring with jewel colors, pictorial embroidery, sparkling rhinestones, and the style of the American West. Its revival began among musicians identified with the alt.country or Americana movements and has since broadened to mainstream country (Midland), to artists outside the genre (Lily Allen), and on its contested margins (Lil Nas X). This chapter explores the current revival as a development of and extension beyond the Nudie style’s established role as a signifier of authenticity, discussing its ability to reflect and to forge gender and race identities in country music, both historically and in the present.

The regulation of patent enforcement in Europe is characterized by the typical multi-layered EU law system of primary EU law, secondary EU law, i.e. unification and harmonization of member states’ laws by way of regulations and directives, and member states’ laws which in particular implement the EU directives into national law.1 Primary EU law, insofar as it is similar to written constitutional law, establishes the competence and baseline for all EU legal actions. Secondary legislation is based on the competences of the EU established in primary law and unifies certain areas of law (by way of directly applicable unitary regulations) or harmonizes member states’ laws by way of directives that are not directly applicable but addressed to the member states and that typically leave the member states certain leeway for manoeuvre when they implement such directives in their national law systems. Both EU primary and secondary legislation take primacy over national law; this so-called principle of primacy of EU law has been developed by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in its case law2 and is meanwhile also laid down in a declaration concerning primacy,3 which is part of the Treaty of Lisbon.4

All patent cases are heard by the specialized IP chamber of the District Court of the Hague. Appeals (which are de novo) are heard by the specialized chamber of the Court of Appeal of the Hague. Thereafter an appeal (on points of law) is possible without the necessity of leave to the Supreme Court. The specialized chamber in first instance issues between about fifty and seventy decisions each year. The Court of Appeal issues about twenty and the Supreme Court around five. Of course, numbers vary from year to year. The courts have a good reputation in patent matters. The UK, German and Dutch courts take into consideration each other’s decisions in cases invoking the same European Patent and normally give reasons if they do not follow each other’s decision (which is more the exception than the rule). The Netherlands does not have a bifurcated system for patent cases: validity and infringement are always dealt with in the same proceedings. Thus, if an infringer challenges the validity of the patent, the court will normally first decide on the validity of the patent and only turn to infringement if the validity of the patent is upheld. In other words, a Dutch court will not order an injunction unless it has first established that the patent is valid, and the only way that an injunction can be granted on the basis of a patent that is later invalidated is if the decision on validity is overturned on appeal.1 This is true in proceedings on the merits, where the court will always rule on the validity of the patent if it is challenged, but also in interim relief proceedings, where the court will make a preliminary assessment of the patent's validity before imposing interim relief, denying it if there is a reasonable, not-to-be-ignored chance that the patent will be revoked or invalidated.

In the preceding chapters of this book, we have seen a variety of national approaches to the issuance and tailoring of injunctive relief, characterized by a range of similarities and differences among jurisdictions. In this chapter, we synthesize the principal features of these different legal systems, provide an analytical framework for comparing them, and offer our observations about trends and the outlook for the future.

Israeli law, in general, is based on the principles of English common law, in which an injunction is perceived as a form of equitable, discretionary relief.1 Historically, injunctive relief was granted based on discretionary criteria, including the irreparable injury rule (in the absence of an injunction, the plaintiff would be caused an irreparable injury, which could not be compensated for by monetary relief); the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant (known also as the “balance of convenience”); and the clean hands rule (equitable relief is only granted if the plaintiff acted in a decent and moral manner, disclosing the relevant facts).2 Another important criterion was the public interest.3

Canada is a federal system with jurisdiction shared between the federal government and the provinces. Patent law is a matter of exclusive federal jurisdiction and is based on the federal Patent Act. The federal nature of Canada is reflected in a bifurcated judicial system. The Federal Courts of Canada, a statutory court system with defined jurisdiction,1 and the provincial superior courts, courts of inherent jurisdiction, corresponding to the traditional English common law courts, both have jurisdiction over patent infringement.2 However, the Federal Court has exclusive jurisdiction to declare a patent invalid,3 and the very substantial majority of patent cases are decided by the Federal Court. Consequently, it is largely the case law of the Federal Courts which governs the grant of injunctive relief in patent cases, subject to the guidance of the Supreme Court of Canada.4

For patent litigation, Germany is among the most frequented venues in Europe.1 Both large, international law firms and highly specialized boutique firms are active before German courts. Not only the Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof – BGH) but also a handful of major first- and second-instance venues, such as Düsseldorf, Hamburg, Mannheim and München, play an important role in shaping German patent law. Stakeholders, such as patentees, licensees, inhouse and outside counsel, scholars and non-German courts or lawmakers, therefore have a strong interest not only in the established legal framework for patent litigation in Germany, but also in shifts this framework is, of late, undergoing. At the same time, the language barrier complicates insights on these matters, not least for Anglo-American stakeholders, although a slowly increasing part of scholarship, and even of case law, is available in English. Against that background, this chapter sets out to explain basic structures and recent developments in German patent injunction law. It covers the main types of and requirements for such injunctions under German law (Section A), the injunction’s scope as claimed and granted (Section B), bifurcation and stays (Section C), defences and limitations (Section D), as well as alternatives to injunctive relief (Section E), before a conclusion and an outlook (Section G) round off the chapter.

United States courts take a context-sensitive approach to the grant of injunctive relief for US patent infringement. Such context-sensitivity is consistent with the US Patent Act, which indicates that courts “may grant injunctions in accordance with the principles of equity to prevent the violation of any right secured by patent, on such terms as the court deems reasonable.”1 In common law jurisdictions, “equity” is generally viewed as resistant to strict rules and willing to make exceptions in light of particular circumstances.2 In accordance with this vision of equity, the generalist trial judges of US district courts3 consider various factors in determining whether injunctive relief is justified and have great discretion to tailor injunctions in a particular case.4 On the other hand, US courts have continued to grant injunctive relief in most infringement cases in which a patent owner prevails, particularly when the patent owner is in direct competition with the adjudged infringer.5 In contrast, US courts commonly deny injunctive relief for patent owners who are “nonpracticing entities” or “patent trolls” – forms of patent-owning entities that do not engage in substantial commercialization or use of the patented invention or variants of it.6 Further, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held that the US Patent Act does not authorize injunctions to correct past patent infringement.7 Instead, injunctions are to be granted only as a means to prevent future infringement.8

Most UK patent litigation takes place in England and Wales, where it is heard by either the Patents Court (larger, more complex and/or more valuable cases) or the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (smaller, less complex and/or less valuable cases). These are both specialised courts. It is normal in both courts for issues of infringement and validity of the patent to be heard together. The intellectual property bar in England and Wales consists of a considerable number of highly specialised and skilful advocates, most of whom have a Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) degree as well as a legal qualification. They are instructed by both large multinational firms and small boutique firms of lawyers, and they are well known for being innovative, particularly with regard to procedural questions. Although there is a reasonable volume of UK patent litigation, disputes concerning injunctions are relatively infrequent.

In France, the question of injunctive relief for infringement of patents has only given rise to a very limited number of academic studies.1 Although there are quite a lot of court decisions dealing with this topic, the courts generally do not explain their reasoning on this particular point. In France, patent injunctions can only be handled2 by the specialized IP chambers3 of the general jurisdictions of Paris, which are the Tribunal Judiciaire (formerly known as the Tribunal de Grande Instance) de Paris on first instance, where the judgment is generally delivered within eighteen months, and, on appeal, the Cour d’appel de Paris, where the cases are generally adjudicated within twelve months. The highest court, the Cour de cassation only deals with matters of law, and not fact.4 On average, 170 court decisions on patent litigation were delivered per year in France between 2015 and 2019.

Injunctive relief can be found in all Polish patent statutes in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.1 The Industrial Property Law2 (IPL) that currently regulates industrial property rights including patents also envisages this form of relief. Article 287 section 1 of the IPL provides that a patentee whose patent has been infringed, as well as exclusive licensees, may – apart from other remedies – demand injunctive relief. Generally, injunctions are perceived as a necessary corollary to patents. Patents, as exclusive rights, provide patentees with exclusivity to use an invention within limits provided in the law. The availability of injunctive relief allows patentees to protect that exclusivity.

Injunctive relief made its first appearance in Italian legislative texts with the adoption of the 1939 Law on Patents, which empowered a court dealing with an infringement action to issue, on request of the interested party and, at court’s discretion, upon payment of a bond, an interim1 injunction preventing the fabrication and use of the patented invention for the time needed to reach a decision on the merits and for such decision to become final.2 For a long time, this has been the only provision mentioning injunctive relief in the Law on Patents.

At the time of writing, the United Kingdom remains a member state of the European Union. Accordingly, this chapter is written from that perspective. My thesis is simply stated: European law not merely enables, but requires, the courts of the member states to be flexible when considering whether or not to grant an injunction in a patent case, and to tailor any injunction to the circumstances of the case. An injunction can only be granted when, and to the extent that, it is proportionate and strikes a fair balance between the fundamental rights that are engaged. All that is needed is for the courts of the member states consistently to apply the principles laid down by the legislature and by the Court of Justice of the European Union.

On 1 September 2013 the jurisdiction in intellectual property matters in Finland was reformed. The Market Court, which was created in 2002 for consumer protection and competition law cases, was now also given exclusive jurisdiction in patent, trademark and design registration appeals, and intellectual property disputes (infringement, invalidity etc.).1 Previously, the District Court of Helsinki had exclusive jurisdiction in patent disputes and the Finnish Patent Office dealt not only with registration matters but also with registration appeals.

Approximately 23.5 million people in America need assistance for an alcohol, tobacco, or other drug use (ATOD) disorder, although many do not obtain the help that they need. This disorder is extremely difficult to resolve, as it can be hard to make the necessary lifestyle changes to accommodate sobriety. Sometimes, individuals may recover without formalized treatment, otherwise known as natural recovery. Other times, inpatient or outpatient treatment, or partial-hospitalization, is warranted. Even for individuals taking the proper steps and going to treatment, attrition rates are high, with consistent drop-out rates of 30 percent to 40 percent within three months of treatment initiation. Racial and gender disparities in both treatment participation and outcomes exist, indicating a need for tailoring of treatments and further research on breaking barriers to treatment entrance. Motivation is central in several recovery models proposed to explain stages of change in treatment. Treatment options include initial detoxification and pharmacological options (such as medication-assisted treatment using buprenorphine for opioid use disorder), cognitive-behavioral therapy, motivational interviewing, cue exposure, attentional retraining, twelve-step programs, and group/family therapy. Relapse rates are high, and oftentimes individuals move from one addiction to another. Harm reduction approaches may be beneficial to those that cannot fully quit an addiction, and relapse prevention is an important treatment component, as addiction is a life-long battle.