Monetary claims in intellectual property infringement cases

The dissertation examines the enforcement of monetary claims in cases of intellectual property rights infringement. It focuses on the Act n. 221/2006 Sb. on the enforcement of intellectual property and on the directive 2004/48/EC of the European parliament and of the Council. The main aim is to evaluate the extent of monetary claims especially with regard on possible overlap or mutual consumption of the claims.The second aim is the analysis of English terminology in relation to the nearest Czech equivalents. The dissertation uses methods of logic induction and abstraction and the international multilateral comparative method, where the use of language plays a crucial role. The exact method of modelling combined with mathematical game theory is used. The dissertation progressively explains terms and relevant enactments. It introduces existing ambiguities. It tries to clarify them by analysing the EU legislation, the implementations in different member states, the statutory and common law in the USA. Consecutively it focuses on unjust enrichment in English law, then in the USA and in the continental system, where this institute is set negatively -- as the unjustified enrichment. Within the whole thesis the analysis takes place in relation to intellectual property rights infringement. In the penultimate chapter, TRIPS and ACTA are compared with the directive 2004/48/EC to provide further explanations. The dissertation concludes that a parallel award of damages and infringer's profits theoretically is possible, when it is not a single flow of value which is concerned by the infringement. The dissertation negatively replies to the question if damages and infringer's profits may be awarded concurrently in two separate lump-sum amounts according to § 5 (2) or (3) of the Act n. 221/2006 Sb. The reason is that the rate of the royalty is applied to sales of the infringer. These sales relate to the unjust enrichment of the infringer. If damages were again calculated by applying the same rate to the same sales, that would be double recovery. But theoretically this possibility cannot be excluded. A real-world example is very hard to find, even in the non-lump-sum form. Collateral sales awarded with lost profit in US law may serve as one. From the EU documents it seems, that infringer's profits is equalled to unjust enrichment and that is translated as unjustified enrichment. But English theory distinguishes restitution of unjust enrichment and gain-based recovery for wrong, the latter encompassing the award of infringer's profits in the form of damages. The broader Czech notion of unjustified enrichment is not to be equalled to unjust enrichment in the pure English notion, because the former encompasses also intentional wrongs. With regard to the restitution of infringer's profits based on unjust enrichment, the intent plays a role. The broader notion of unjust enrichment relevant to intellectual property rights infringement is called interceptive unjust enrichment, where enrichment "from the property of the plaintiff" is at stake and it is also possible to claim profits gained by the infringement. Focus is on the enrichment "from the property", not on the wrong. The dissertation examines the terms "account of profits", apportionment of profits", "disgorgement" and impure negotiorum gestio with regard to intellectual property infringement. In several countries reasonable royalty is regarded as good measure of net gain from the infringement of intellectual property. When the infringement was not innocent or wilful, it's possible to claim not only the objective enrichment but also the subjective enrichment -- profits of the infringer. In Czech law, that is represented by the emoluments from the enrichment. The aim of the last chapter is to evaluate, in the context of the operation of other relevant elements of legal environment, the preventive function of the double royalty claim introduced by the Act n. 221/2006 Sb. By construing a game theory model and using simulation, the thesis concludes that in lower royalty intervals, where attorney's costs are a high burden, the effect of the double royalty is insignificant. Where "more significant infringements" are at stake, and the royalty passes a given frontier, the application of the double royalty heightens the preventive function of the Act. Those "more significant infringements" have two intervals -- with the highest effect of the double royalty and with the "stabilized effect of the double royalty". But overall, in cases of "more significant infringements", the application of the double represents a heightening of the preventive power by a third and fifth respectively, and this is true only in the case, where the prospective infringers would try to calculate the effect of their infringement before infringing