Private Law Research

Abstract According to the doctrine of indirect infringement, anyone who provides the causes
of infringement or facilitate its occurrence will be liable for compensation for indirect
infringement of patent rights, including contributory and inducing infringement. Civil
liability arising from the indirect infringement, based on fault, is created if there is a
direct infringement of the act or omission.There is no such entity in Iranian patent
law, but by referring to some other laws, it could result in a sentence against the
indirect infringer. However, if there is interest, the adoption of a specific rule is
suggested in this field. Since Iran is a developing country, the authors of this paper
believe that such an interest is not considered. The main questions posed in this article
are: What are the requirements of the indirect infringement and what is the position
of Iranian law in this respect? By conducting a comparative study under legal systems
of generally developed countries and by placing a particular emphasis on the US Law
and related case laws as the origin of this institution, this article discusses
requirements of the indirect infringement and accordingly presents the position of
Iranian law and appropriate proposals.

Abstract The importance of the violation of data privacy is due to technological developments
and possibility of more violation of privacy. Civil liability of violating data privacy
is more complicated than civil liability of evading other subjects of privacy such as
corporeal or physical privacy, locative privacy and communications privacy. This
article, despite other subjects, discusses exploitation of the issue and annihilation of
data privacy. Some lawyers believe in ownership of data privacy. These two issues
(annihilation of data privacy and considering data privacy as property), turn the
direction of discussions about civil liability of evading data privacy.The present paper
represents the concept of data privacy and discusses the three bases of civil liability
of violating data privacy. In addition, ownership theories and annihilation of data
privacy and also the effect of these two issues on civil liability of violating data
privacy will be investigated. Finally, we study data privacy torts, civil wrongs which
cause civil liability of data privacy violation.

Abstract Bank guarantees are one of the most effective international instruments used in
commercial contracts. Without bank guarantees, it would not be possible to fulfil
obligations of the parties or the parties would encounter potential risks. Bank
guarantees provide the beneficiary with a certain and immediate payment of a
wealthy sponsor in his country. The only exception to the principle of independence
is the issue of fraud, which has universally been recognised. This exception could
prevent claim and payment to beneficiaries. The question addressed in this article
is: What are the international rules on the issue of fraud in bank guarantees and what
measures have been taken by the UN Convention on Independent Guarantees and
Credit Guarantees ? International Chamber of Commerce has been silent on this
issue or at least has not dealt with it expressly . However, the aforementioned
Convention is the only document that contains provisions regarding fraud, even
though it does not provide an exhaustive list and exact details. It nevertheless
provides a useful guidance for courts.

Abstract شرط ثبات در قراردادهای دولتی یکی از راه‌های تنظیم و تضمین منافع سرمایه‌گذاران خارجی است. علی‌‌رغم عدم مقبولیت این‌گونه شروط در میان دولت‌های جهان سوم و نیز دولت‌های درحال‌توسعه، محبوبیت و مقبولیت این شروط در کشورهای توسعه‌یافته منجر به این امر شده است که سرمایه‌گذاران خارجی، جذابیت دولت‌های سرمایه‌پذیر را بر اساس ثبات در نظام تقنینی و تنظیمی این دولت‌ها می‌دانند. بااین‌حال تنها راه تضمین این ثبات پیش‌بینی شروطی در قراردادهای دولتی است که اصطلاحاً شرط ثبات نامیده می‌شوند. ازاین‌رو مقاله‌ی پیشِ رو پس از بین تاریخچه و مفهوم این شرط، به بررسی انواع گوناگون آن می‌پردازد. همچنین درجات مختلف این شروط بسته به هر نظام حقوقی و مطابق با موضوعات سرمایه‌گذاری ممکن است تغییراتی داشته باشند. اعتبار این شروط نیز در نظام‌های حقوقی ملی و بین‌المللی مورد توجه حقوقدانان می‌باشد که موضوع بخش پایانی نوشتار حاضر است.
 

Abstract The determination of time and place of transfer of ownership is one of the most challenging issues in international oil contracts. In oil contracts, on the one hand, the host State usually chooses its own national law as the applicable law, but on the other hand, foreign companies are usually affected by Common Law due to history of oil contracts. In Common Law, the transfer of ownership depends on mutual agreement, but in Iranian law, the transfer of ownership depends on legislation and it may be different based on type of contract. Most oil-rich countries consider Common Law solution based on consensus, however, in Iranian legal system, there is a need for a statute which does not currently exist as a result of repealing the previous petroleum Act. Therefore, it should be noted that in the current legal state, the determination of time and place of transfer of ownership in oil contracts, particularly in production sharing and concession contracts, is void and ineffective.
 

Abstract Connecting Factor of Habitual Residence at EU and Iranian Conflicting Rules

In EU Law, habitual residence is an important connecting factor in relation to conflict of forums and conflict of laws, particularly in personal matters. EU rules and regulation, which are enforceable directly and without a need for approval of domestic bodies, regularly consider this connecting factor and replace traditional connecting factors such as domicile in Common Law and nationality in Civil Law countries. The recognition of the objective factor of residence, the domicile, increases predictability in international relationship. At same time, a close relationship between persons and applicable law provides flexibility regarding conflict of law rules, and unlike the criterion of nationality, it prevents absolute application of rules of a specific country . Moreover, by applying the habitual residence factor, courts are often referred to material rules of Lex Fori and therefore, they are not concerned with problems of proving foreign law.