Original news and analysis on international IP policy
CAPE TOWN, South Africa -- The belief that intellectual property promotes foreign direct investment and international trade has brought tension in African countries’ ability to eliminate trade barriers, and to ensure local governments are able to develop policies that respond to local needs, according to an extensive new analysis.
Since the passage of the America Invents Act (“AIA”) in 2011, Inter Partes Reviews (“IPRs”) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) have assumed growing importance in patent litigation in federal district courts. Until recently, IPRs have not played a significant role in International Trade Commission (“ITC”) Section 337 investigations. While the ITC is unlikely to stay a Section 337 investigation, pending IPRs will likely have an increasing impact at the ITC, especially when an IPR proceeding reaches an advanced stage before or during the pendency of a Section 337 investigation. This article examines the limited interplay to date between IPRs and Section 337 proceedings and discusses potential implications for future investigations.
If piracy is still very much a concern of the music industry, the growing shadow of free online streaming platforms, in particular YouTube, has now become a bigger stinger, according to speakers from the industry at an event at the World Intellectual Property Organization on 2 May. Hiding behind safe harbour legislations originally designed to protect internet service providers from being responsible for unlawful downloading by users, YouTube and other such platforms are threatening the industry and the artists, they said.
Years of discussions at the World Intellectual Property Organization on a treaty protecting broadcasting organisations against piracy of their signals have not been enough to reach consensus language on core principles, such as who and what to protect, and what kind of rights should be granted. This week the newly appointed committee chair suggested that an informal text prepared by the previous chair be made a formal document to serve as a basis for further textual discussions.
“I’m from the government and I’m here to help.” Yeah, right.
Most businesses think protecting their intellectual property is their own responsibility, and it is. But what about when your intellectual property rights are violated by an evildoer? Who are you going to call?
A packed week is underway for the World Intellectual Property Organization copyright committee. Delegates are hoping to find agreement on core principles of a treaty protecting broadcasting organisations' rights, and continue work on possible limitations and exceptions to copyright for education, libraries, and research. In addition, they will decide if they want to work on the issue of resale right, and will consider copyright in the digital environment.
A recent US Supreme Court patent law decision surprised few observers – other than those steeped in patent law. The high court’s ruling in SCA Hygiene Prods. Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Prods stunned and dismayed many patent experts, because the decision will benefit patent trolls and other unscrupulous patent owners, at the expense of companies just trying to make and sell their products. On the positive side, however, the ruling brings US patent law more in line with Europe’s patent law.
LAGOS, Nigeria -- A federal high court in Lagos granted an interim order on 24 March, stopping the premiere and release of a movie called the “Okafor’s Law” over copyright infringement.
The use of pirated content in Russia may significantly increase in the event of a decision by leading foreign video-sharing websites and servers to leave the country due to the planned imposition of restrictions on their ownership by foreigners, which is currently being considered by the Russian government and the local Parliament (State Duma).
Google’s Waymo claims Uber, an app-based taxi service, stole technology for a critical component for driverless cars, as the one of the world’s most-powerful tech titans wages a fierce legal battle to protect its intellectual property in an emerging area of the automotive industry.
Establishing a work programme on geographical indications at the World Intellectual Property Organization last week proved elusive. A tentative text and time frame by the chair of the committee on trademark and geographical indications (GIs) issued on the last day of the committee did not meet the approval of some member states. The committee did agree on a set of tasks for the WIPO secretariat on the protection of country names against registration as trademarks, and on the protection of new technological designs, such as icons and type fonts.
A tentative way to continue conversing about geographical indications (GIs) at the World Intellectual Property Organization committee on trademarks and GIs was tabled by the committee chair today. The suggested approach includes a questionnaire to member states on the different ways GIs are addressed by national and regional systems. Meanwhile, a potential design law treaty was pushed off to the next WIPO General Assembly, held in autumn.