Original news and analysis on international IP policy
The year 2015 has dawned as usual with the fanfare of greater things to come. Caribbean projects are in the pipeline, along with activities to enhance competitiveness and many gallant efforts by well- meaning non-governmental and International organizations. The research has shown, however, that without the impetus of effort that originates from amongst the local innovators, there is no real change and no great advancement.
The American Invents Act of 2011 (AIA) created inter partes review (IPR), a new opposition-like proceeding conducted at the US Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in the US Patent and Trademark Office to challenge the validity of patent claims based on prior art patents and printed publications. Since then, conventional wisdom has advised filing a petition for IPR quickly after being sued for patent infringement, because any deficiencies or mistakes the PTAB identifies could be corrected with a second petition later on. Several recent decisions from the PTAB reveal limits to that strategy.
The 29th Session of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights at the World Intellectual Property Organization is currently underway. On the agenda, inter alia, will be discussions on Limitations and Exceptions to Libraries, Archives and Educational, Teaching and Research Institutions. Against the backdrop of the success with the Marrakesh Treaty, the trajectory looks set for these further exceptions and limitations to succeed.
As a result of the America Invents Act enacted three years ago, the United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) now handles inter partes reviews (IPR)—a new trial proceeding used to challenge the validity of patent claims based on patents and printed publications. Recently, the PTAB has caused a split concerning the proper scope of the IPR joinder provision, which grants the PTAB discretion to join a “party” to a previously-instituted IPR. In the past, the PTAB interpreted the term “party” expansively to include petitioners for whom it had already instituted an IPR. Petitioners were quick to jump on this loophole, and have since sought to raise new arguments in an instituted IPR by filing a subsequent petition and seeking joinder with the in-progress proceeding.
Alberto Bichi is secretary-general of the Federation of the European Sporting Goods Industry (FESI), based in Brussels. In an interview with Intellectual Property Watch’s Catherine Saez, he describes FESI's mission, the views of the industry on the importance of intellectual property protection, and the growing issue of counterfeiting. He also talked about the industry's concern over the current European Union customs regulation on goods in transit, which, according to him is negatively impacting the sector.
A few days after the first South African case to consider the issue of internet keyword advertising (Cochrane Steel Products (Pty) Ltd v M-Systems Group (Pty) Ltd & Another Case 39605/13, 29 October 2014), we had the next instalment – from the English Court of Appeal – in the dispute between Interflora and Marks & Spencer (Interflora Inc & Another v Marks & Spencer plc [2014] EWCA Civ 1403). Yes, it is, indeed, not just any dispute concerning keyword advertising. It appears that these two litigants have taken it upon themselves to definitively settle the law relating to keyword advertising, through the various judgments their dispute is yielding.
By Pamela Passman Economic globalization and digitization of information have revolutionized business and allowed for efficiency that was unimaginable a few decades ago. The ability to share information remotely means companies can coordinate with partners remotely, integrate suppliers, track shipments…
The Net Mundial initiative of the World Economic Forum represents the first time that such a corporate-led venue – although sold as multistakeholder, open, and voluntary, among others – is positioned as being 'the' mechanism for global governance in a specific sector, the Just Net Coalition writes.
Dr. Carolyn Deere Birkbeck writes: At this week’s Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP), WIPO Member States continue to debate next steps on the unprecedented 2011 External Review of WIPO’s assistance to developing countries. With a new Deputy Director General for the WIPO’s Development Sector due to start work this December, the prospect of new leadership also marks a time for Members to provide clear direction. They should act this week and in the coming months to set clear priorities for the Secretariat - and for themselves – that would give greater focus to the ongoing work of improving WIPO’s development cooperation activities, and to establish a mechanism for monitoring progress.
In this opinion, the European Copyright Society (ECS) puts on record its views on the issues raised by the Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Case C-201/13, Deckmyn, which departs from the doctrine of strict interpretation of exceptions and limitations in cases in which fundamental rights such as freedom of expression are involved.