Courts have always played an active role in determining IPR Law---they provide quick and insulated interpretations.

When institutions are compared, judicial decision making seems neutral, less prone to the biases and capture of the political processes of the legislation and administration, and representative of the rule of law. At the same time, courts are often requested to make or interpret the law using the facts of the disputes at hand. As a result, they are likely to respond to the technological facts more quickly than the legislative. In comparison to the opportunism of the self-interested actors, and the contestability of the market, courts seem to provide neutrality and impartiality. Courts, when insulated from undue outside interferences, are independent from biases to which political processes are often subject. Independent courts thus play a central role in the classic understanding of the rule of law. It is often claimed that courts will either apply clear and well-articulated rules or standards, provide authoritative interpretations, or make law to fill the gaps in the law. While, formally, courts in civil law countries do not make law, courts and judicially-crafted norms form an important part of the evolution of IP law. Although statutory definition and grants of rights are important sources of authorities, doctrines created by courts have dominated IP law. IP law tends to include open clauses and technologically-neutral statutory expression. Such generality of regulation is demanded by the nature of IP law as the regulation of technology has to deal with obsolescence over time. One frequently employed legislative technique is to include open or general norms to future-proof the text of the law. As a result, courts are often given the task of creating specific meanings. In common law countries, a courts’ discovery of law is almost expected, although the scope may vary. One result of the tendency to rely on courts to articulate specific meanings of general law norms is the potential for judicial activism. In the EU, this has been a source of controversy where the structure of referral of questions about the interpretation of EU law leads to the CJEU actively making the law and creating autonomous EU IP norms