The conference brought together intellectual property researchers from a range of disciplines, including law, economics, management, and political science, as well as policymakers and industry representatives. Discussions focused on current issues related to intellectual property, innovation, technology, and their legal regulation.
At the conference, the researchers presented a joint paper entitled “The Reform of IP Dispute Resolution in Latvia: Court Specialisation and Unmet Expectations of Effectiveness”.
The paper analysed the 2015 reform of the intellectual property dispute resolution system in Latvia, with particular focus on court specialisation and on whether the reform has, in practice, achieved its original objectives: strengthening judicial expertise in intellectual property cases, improving procedural efficiency, and promoting more consistent application of European Union law.
The research examined two interconnected elements of the reform. Within the court system, jurisdiction over certain intellectual property disputes was transferred from the Riga Regional Court to a specialised court of first instance. In administrative proceedings, the Industrial Property Board of Appeal was established as an institution with greater functional independence than the previous appeal mechanism within the Patent Office.
The preliminary findings indicate that, following the reform, judicial decisions generally demonstrate more structured and transparent legal reasoning, together with more visible references to European Union law. At the same time, the researchers emphasised that a greater number of references to the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union does not in itself necessarily indicate higher-quality decisions. It is equally important to assess whether these legal sources are substantively applied to the specific circumstances of each case.
The preliminary analysis identified particularly positive developments in the administrative dispute resolution system, where the establishment of the Industrial Property Board of Appeal has strengthened institutional independence, the structure of decisions, and the legitimacy of the institution. By contrast, the reform of court specialisation presents a more complex picture. Concentrating cases within a single court may foster specialisation, accumulation of expertise, and greater consistency in judicial practice. At the same time, transferring jurisdiction from the regional court level to the district court level raises the question of whether the institutional capacity fully meets the demands of adjudicating complex intellectual property disputes.
One of the key conclusions of the research is that formal court specialisation alone does not guarantee effective dispute resolution. The effectiveness of specialisation also depends on the court’s position within the judicial system, the resources available, judges’ experience and training, access to specialised knowledge, and the suitability of the institutional model. This issue is particularly relevant in smaller European Union jurisdictions, including Latvia.
The research is ongoing, with the empirical dataset being expanded and the comparative criteria further refined in order to systematically assess the impact of the reform over a ten-year period and determine the extent to which its original objectives have actually been achieved.
Participation in the conference provided a valuable opportunity to present Latvia’s experience at the international level and to discuss the most pressing challenges in the field with leading European experts.
, “EPIP Annual Conference 2026”, held at Politecnico di Torino in Turin, Italy. This year’s main conference theme was “Intellectual Property and Innovation Policy in the New Global Economy”.
){kind=link}