Original news and analysis on international IP policy
The new National Academies report on patents and standards is a landmark effort to shed light on the tensions between patents and standards in information and communications technology. Brian Kahin critiques the report and examines underlying problems that the report sidesteps.
Following the public outcry over the EU’s demands for stringent intellectual property rules that would dramatically raise medicines prices in India, you would expect the EU to think twice about making similar demands in future trade agreements, particularly with low- and middle-income countries. Yet, this is precisely what is going on now in the negotiations for a free trade agreement between the EU and Thailand, writes Tessel Mellema.
Margot Kaminski writes in Concurring Opinions: Yesterday, Wikileaks leaked the draft IP chapter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP). The US Trade Representative has shown the draft text to its closed advisory committees, but not to anybody else. Content industries and pharmaceutical industries sit on the IP advisory committee. Internet industries, smaller innovators, generics companies, and public interest groups do not. This is no accident. When Congress established the trade negotiating system, it exempted the Trade Representative from requirements of an open government law that was enacted to prevent agency capture.
Though the WHO is among the recipients of EU contributions, support should be scaled up now that the WHO fears program cuts because of a persistent funding crisis. Revenues from a Financial Transaction Tax would be a resource for the EU to partly allocate for WHO needs, writes Daniele Dionisio.
IP Law Summit
November 17-19, 2013| Grande Real Villa Itália| Cascais, Lisbon, Portugal
The IP Law Europe Summit is the premium forum bringing together leading in-house IP counsel with specialist international law firms, IP attorneys and legal services providers. As an invitation-only event taking place behind closed doors, the summit offers regional IP executives an intimate environment for a focused discussion of key new drivers shaping the IP industry.
Distinguished speakers include:
Tommi Lehtinen, Head of IPR, Product Differentiation Portfolio, Nokia Siemens Networks
Peter Schøtt Knudsen, VP, Global Head of Legal & IPR, ECCO
Cheree Johnson, Chief Innovation Counsel, HJ Heinz
Jean Luc Chalhoub, GC, New Business & Strategic Partnerships, Orange
Jan Strzebniok, VP & GC, EMEAI, Honeywell Aerospace
Vincent Pickering, CLO & Secretary, WABCO
Mark Lágler, GC, Supply Chain and Global Services, Unilever
Key issues for 2013 include:
Ahead of the Game – Keeping pace with the latest developments in patent legislation in the EU and US
Dynamic Exchange – Leveraging know-how and technology transfer to stimulate cost-efficient innovation
Positive-Sum Game – Informing the M&A strategy to unlock valuable transactions
Secrecy Status – Exploring trade secrets protection to keep expenditure under control and defend IP in fast-moving markets
A Taxing Issue – Orchestrating IP and R&D activities to reap the benefits of favourable tax regimes
Designing Value – Shielding design and packaging elements to boost brand recognition
Diversity Powerhouse – Mastering the art of orchestrating diversity to excel as a team
Social Media Palooza – Riding the digital wave while guarding your brand and reputation
To gain a view of the event brochure, click here: http://www.marcusevans-conferences-northamerican.com/IPLawEU_eaag_IPW
For speaking, sponsoring or attending, please contact Laurel Zevitz at +1 312-540-3000 ext 6683 or email l.zevitz@marcusevansch.com
In recent years, the Caribbean has been placed under a considerable amount of pressure to comply with the international regimen on intellectual property rights writes Abiola Inniss.
Rene Summer writes: The debate about copyright enforcement – whether rights holders’ unshakable conviction in the effectiveness of graduated responses is rational – has reached a watershed. This is not to say that there aren’t any ongoing, well-funded lobby campaigns around the world aimed at convincing policy makers to revert to the practice of some form of graduated response. Nor am I saying that there aren’t any other important considerations, such as the rights of citizens and intermediaries, to be weighted in when debating copyright enforcement, lessening the case for such practices. Rather, what I am saying is that arguing for graduated responses can no longer be done on efficiency grounds without at the same time being intellectually dishonest.
Event Announcement: The “Ten Commandments” for Developing and Implementing an Effective Brand Protection & Anti-Counterfeiting Strategy eBook will give you an easy-to-digest summary of internal and external obstacles which companies must consider when putting in place an anti-counterfeiting programme.
The USTR's disapproval of the ITC order excluding Apple products from the US raises difficult issues about the relationship between public decision-making and private solutions -- and invites strategic policymaking by other governments.
Infojustice writes: Over the past few years, patent-eligible subject matter has become one of the hotly debated areas of patent law in several countries. Even in the United States, the Supreme Court is beginning to express concerns about overly inclusive patent rules that stifle both competition and follow-on innovation. However, significant confusion persists over the difference between patent eligible subject matter and patentability requirements. Patent eligibility tests have proven quite difficult to apply, often leading to inconsistent and unpredictable results.
A paper examining the fair use doctrine in the United States, published by law professors Peter Jaszi and Matthew Sag and University of California at Berkeley fellow Gwen Hinze, addresses specific issues raised in an earlier submission to the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) by the Kernochan Center for Law, Media and the Arts.
Andrew Updegrove discusses the handing down by Justice James Robart of a 207-page opinion in a closely-watched dispute between Motorola and Microsoft, involving several patents that Google later acquired (along with the rights under the lawsuit) when it purchased Motorola Mobility. In that opinion, Robart sought to determine what, under all relevant circumstances, Google could fairly and reasonably charge Microsoft to infringe upon the essential claims in question when (for example) it builds and sells an Xbox.