Original news and analysis on international IP policy
The Supreme Court of India today did not get to an agenda item involving a challenge to India's patent law by Swiss pharmaceutical company Novartis, and it is now scheduled to come up on 11 September. The case is considered to have potential widespread impact on the production of lower priced generic medicines.
A hearing in a case involving a challenge by Bayer pharmaceutical company of India's compulsory licence aimed at making a cancer drug more affordable is moved to 3 September, public health advocacy group Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) announced today.
CAPE TOWN - South African health activists and pharmaceutical industry stakeholders are keeping close watch over the government's attempts to amend patent laws, which activists claim compromise the ability of the country's poor majority to access cheaper generic medicines.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit released a decision today (16 August) on the patentability of genes in yet another twist to the so-called Myriad case. At stake was the patentability of two human genes associated with hereditary breast cancer and ovarian cancer. Myriad Genetics' patents were challenged by the Association for Molecular Pathology.
The director of the World Health Organization, the global public health body, today vigorously applauded the ruling by Australia's high court upholding the Australian government's upcoming ban on trademarked labels on tobacco packages. The case pits international trade interests against public health interests, and the WHO said it hopes today's ruling will have a "domino effect" for many other countries considering such bans.
This month, the Indian Supreme Court will hear final arguments in a challenge by the pharmaceutical company Novartis against the Indian Patent Office’s rejection of a patent for the leukemia drug, Glivec. The Court’s ruling will have profound implications for…
Seldom does a fact bear repeating as frequently as the maxim, “There is no copyright in ideas”. And despite the regularity with which this fundamental principle of copyright law is cited, its application remains a bone of contention, Cobus Jooste writes.
Two very different views of copyright reform emerged this week, one from a report commissioned by the UK government, the other from a French citizens' advocacy group. The former envisions an intricately linked system of digital rights exchanges and databases to streamline copyright licensing, the latter broad, “non-market” sharing of protected works between individuals, among other things. Whether either approach is feasible remains to be seen, and, as always, the devil's in the details, lawyers say.
Mapping out intellectual property issues related to the Olympic Games may itself constitute an engaging exercise: trademark and design protection of the Olympic indicia; data protection of Games results; personality and publicity rights associated with sports celebrities; character rights subsisting in the Olympic mascots; unfair competition law and other legislative means to address ambush marketing and secure the interests of the Games’ exclusive sponsors. The latter appears essential for the purpose of securing the means for staging the Games and sustaining the Olympic Movement.
Intellectual property promotion is at the heart of a new campaign launched yesterday by the United States Chamber of Commerce with the aim of convincing decision-makers and the public at large of the value of IP in economic and social terms, and dissipate some misconceptions.
The international pharmaceutical industry this week released a policy statement targeting counterfeit medicines on the internet. Among the recommendations was for the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to join the fight.
They’ve been at each other’s throats for three years, and there’s no end in sight. Over two dozen businesses involved with smartphones and tablet computers are suing one another for patent infringement in numerous lawsuits around the world. These patent wars have cost the companies billions of dollars, clogged the courts, and prevented consumers from buying some devices they want with features they prefer. Is this really the best way to promote innovation and competition?