Original news and analysis on international IP policy
The World Intellectual Property Organization is working on an extension to its patent search systems to include specific searches for chemical compounds. The system is expected to be operational by July 2016.
CAPE TOWN, South Africa -- A law to regulate intellectual property derived from research and development conducted using public funds has boosted the number of patent applications filed and granted by universities and research institutions in the past five years.
Colombia has a decision to make. A full year has passed from the November 24, 2014 request by iFarma, Misión Salud and CIMUN for a declaration of the public interest regarding the cancer drug imatinib (marketed by Novartis as Gleevec/Glivec), the first step on the path toward a compulsory license in Colombia. Thus far, Colombia’s Ministry of Health and Social Protection has failed to act one way or another, leaving patients in limbo and the government at the mercy of a Swiss pharmaceutical giant that reported revenue of over $57.9 Billion USD in 2013, write James Love and Andrew S. Goldman.
The final text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership confirms beyond doubt the apprehensions expressed by civil society, academia and the generic industry about new barriers to access to medicines. The TPP has done away with several flexibilities provided under the TRIPS Agreement and the Doha Declaration on Public Health. Though the text mentions “nothing in this [IPR] Chapter limits a Party’s rights and obligations under Article 31 of the TRIPS Agreement,” the TPP Investment Chapter overrides these flexibilities, says D G Shah.
COPENHAGEN, Denmark -- Having led the successful collaborative testing of an Ebola-vaccine in record time, John-Arne Røttingen of the Norwegian Institute of Public Health now wants to expand the idea to a permanent global financing facility for research and development. And he is optimistic.
Jonathan Band writes: During the negotiation of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, many concerns were voiced about how TPP would mandate adoption of US-style statutory damages. Under the US Copyright Act, a court can award damages of up to $30,000 per work infringed, which can be ratcheted up to $150,000 per work infringed in cases of willful infringement. Scholars have found that statutory damages in the US have discouraged investment in innovative technologies while incentivizing the emergence of copyright trolls. So how bad is the statutory damages provision in the final TPP agreement?
The US government has been less than candid about the Trans-Pacific Partnership. While the agreement was being negotiated, the US Trade Representative stated that a much-criticized arbitration process included in the TPP would not apply to intellectual property. Turns out, it does apply to IP. And it provides foreign corporations with a huge advantage in IP disputes – private arbitrations that can override courts and statutes, effectively rewriting a nation’s IP laws.
[Software Freedom Law Center, Link (CC-BY-SA)] The first official public release of the text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Trade Agreement (known universally as the TPP) on November 5, 2015 generated much heated speculation. The ideal of “open agreements, openly arrived at” remains regrettably unattainable in international affairs. “Fast track” trade negotiating authority in the US means that parties excluded from the negotiating process have a short time in which to mobilize for or against the treaty as a whole in light of their specific concerns. The premium on speed of response to a very lengthy and complex legal document—and the presence of intense public attention—guarantees that hasty judgment and occasional self-promotion will always outrun professional analysis; this is one of the inherent defects of secret legislation.
Annemarie Bridy writes: Section J of the Trans-Pacific Partnership’s IP chapter, on ISP safe harbors, looks a lot like Section 512 of the DMCA [US Digital Millennium Copyright Act], but the two frameworks differ in some important respects that could negatively impact the global environment for user speech online. This post offers a comparison of Section J and Section 512 with a focus on the rights of users and the status of user expression in the TPP’s intermediary safe harbor provisions.
There is a lot of hype around the Internet of Things (IoT) yet many, if not most, are confused by what IoT really is and what it means for their IP and their business. In fact, some people claim that the IoT is simply a matter of applying existing technology to new applications. Many companies new to the IoT market may have strong and expansive portfolio positions for assertion. This makes it difficult at best to discern whether or not IoT inventions are really new or just recycled technology. If you are a new player in the IoT market, you most likely will be filing patent applications for new innovations; however, since IoT is being built on established technology, you need to be aware that there are hundreds of technology companies that may already own the seminal foundation patents.