Original news and analysis on international IP policy
Une analyse des pratiques et des politiques impliquant la propriété intellectuelle, le transfert de technologie et le développement démontre la difficulté à parvenir à une corrélation positive entre les différents domaines, écrit Cheikh Kane.
A recent Court of Justice of the European Union opinion in Monsanto Technology LLC v. Cefetra BV et al. may unintentionally inflict serious economic harm on the European biotechnology industry, argue industry attorneys Richard Peet, Vid Mohan-Ram, and Philippe Vlaemminck.
The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Edition features top news on international IP policymaking, the latest on who is coming and going in the international IP community, news briefs and more. The August/September edition is now available for subscribers at: http://www.ip-watch.org/user/newsletter.
Dear Readers, Intellectual Property Watch would like to thank all of you who responded to our first-ever call for help with a show of support from a range of sectors over the past few weeks. Finding a sustainable model will be essential to our ability to continue bringing you the unique, high-quality reporting, documents and information you have come to expect from us in an open-access format. We still have a long way to go, but we have benefited from your initial financial contributions (including a number from individuals on their own behalf), subscriptions, and helpful suggestions and ideas, including for possible funders, partnerships, marketing and advertising options, and prospects for new subscriptions. In the coming months, you will see changes that reflect these contributions and inputs, as well as new approaches aimed at sustainability. And with a critical turning point looming for IP, innovation and the economy, we hope to keep you on the front lines of policy, law and trends more than ever.
To view the IP-Watch call for help, click here: http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/wp-admin/page.php?action=edit&post=11476
Dear Readers, we at Intellectual Property Watch are writing to politely remind you that the financial support of every one of you is needed this year, especially those of you who have long benefited from our open-access work and have never been asked to contribute. We set a target of end of July, just a few days away. We would like to remind you of the reliable reporting and tough-minded analysis that Intellectual Property Watch brings to a complex area that will certainly continue to be at the centre of global policy and legal debates for years to come, whether your topic is IP law, public health, climate change, food security, trade, internet policy and knowledge access, or innovation.
A recent US court decision introduces entirely new questions about the balance between a transformative work and a copyright infringement. It also places the responsibility of balancing the public interest in freedom of expression against the interests of rights holders squarely in the hands of the court, writes Leslee Friedman.
Brazil is actively engaged in a cutting-edge debate over reform of its copyright law, involving issues such as the abuse of copyright holders and constructive exceptions in the law (like copying for education and/or transformative purposes and authorisation to copy by libraries and museums to preserve their works). But the government needs to hear from all interested parties - especially the artists - and avoid letting the debate transform into a political-ideological discussion, writes Brazilian lawyer Manuela Correia Botelho Colombo.
The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Edition features top news on international IP policymaking, the latest on who is coming and going in the international IP community, news briefs and more. The July edition is now available for subscribers at: http://www.ip-watch.org/user/newsletter.
In five short years, Intellectual Property Watch has made its mark as the leading independent reporting service on international IP policymaking, respected for its timely and informed content by readers from international organizations, industry, NGOs, civil society, research centres, government, as well as academia. We have provoked debate, exposed controversies, and helped thousands to access a policy conversation long seen as highly technical and closed.
With dramatic shifts occurring in the field of IP and innovation policy and law, our reporting has never been more relevant. But to keep on providing the independent, open-access service that so many of you have come to rely upon, we need your help in the next 3 (THREE!) weeks. By late July, we need to make a decision about IP-Watch's future.
Lynn C. Tyler writes: The litigation provisions of the recently-enacted legislation establishing a pathway to bring biosimilars to market contain “patent” ambiguities in key areas, particularly whether the various lists of patents to be litigated are exclusive. Courts will have to resolve these issues over the next several years, likely at great (and unnecessary) expense and uncertainty to litigants.
The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Edition features top news on international IP policymaking, the latest on who is coming and going in the international IP community, news briefs and more. The June edition is now available for subscribers at: http://www.ip-watch.org/user/newsletter.
The annual World Health Assembly is considering how to take forward a 2008 landmark decision at the World Health Organization that approved a new Global Strategy and Plan of Action on Public Health, Innovation and Intellectual Property. Precious Matsoso, the current director of the WHO programme, spoke to Intellectual Property Watch in April about the ongoing implementation of the strategy, and what is needed to keep momentum going.