Category North America

US, European Views On IP Management And Digital Business

Data-driven technologies are enabling the expansion of trade and data flows around the world. We have disruptive smart products, smart industrial processes, smart clouds and smart services. Traditional industries such as pharmaceuticals, chemical and mechanical engineering digitally transform production processes to generate custom-tailored services and improve competitiveness using artificial intelligence while new companies emerge with disruptive offers. Such artificial intelligence-based business models, however, are bringing about a rethinking in European regulations in relation to copyrights, such as that deployed by DeepMind and Pinterest, for instance, because machine learning may reproduce countless amounts of proprietary content to generate raw solutions. A recent event in Paris delved into these and other issues, including data ownership and access rights, as well as inventions by computers.

Six Inconvenient Truths About NAFTA Renegotiations

The renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement’s (NAFTA’s) standards on patents is not good news for Canada. Any give by Canada will be costly not only to our health care system, but also to Canadian innovators, write Jean-Frédéric Morin and Richard Gold.

USTR Puts IP Focus In Digital Trade In NAFTA Renegotiation Objectives

In its newly issued objectives for renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) has put a strong focus on protecting and exploiting intellectual property rights in the digital environment.

Innovator Industries Claim Win In Canadian High Court Patent Ruling

The Canadian Supreme Court today upheld a pharmaceutical industry appeal against a tool used in certain cases to overturn patents on products that could be seen as not meriting a patent monopoly. The ruling could effectively block a generic version of a patented drug from being on the market.

US High Court OKs Bigoted Trademarks

When the US Supreme Court issued its decision in Matal v. Tam, trademark applicants celebrated, hailing it as a victory for free speech and trademark rights. But some trademark owners will become very unhappy about the ramifications of the Court’s 19 June ruling.

Made In China: The Past, Present And Future Of Chinese IPR

Shai Jalfin writes: Conservative projections say that China will surpass the United States as the number one economy in the world by 2030, but the shift could happen as soon as next year. Either way, there’s no doubt that China has emerged as one of the most important commercial economies in the world, and businesses everywhere are vying to enter its market. However, there is a serious hurdle when foreign companies decide to take their products to China – intellectual property rights (IPR), or more accurately, the country’s lack of adequate IP protection. History shows that bringing business to China, while extremely lucrative, has also been extremely risky – but it’s a market that cannot be ignored. Here is a look at the past, present and future of IPR in China.

US Supreme Court Adopts International Exhaustion Of Patents (Part II): Addressing the New Competitive Landscape

Frederick M. Abbott writes: The US Supreme Court has created a new competitive landscape with its decision adopting international exhaustion of patents. For the pharmaceutical sector, we can expect an initial period of uncertainty as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) assesses the regulatory framework affected by the decision and as competing stakeholders advance their interests. In an earlier Inside Views contribution, I addressed the principal impact of the decision on the US pharmaceuticals market: downward pricing pressure.[1] This follow-on addresses some of the regulatory and access issues affected by the decision, observing that parallel trade in pharmaceutical products is a long-standing practice, that recently introduced US legislative proposals may shape the regulatory framework in the United States, and concluding with ways that access programs in favor of developing countries are protected.

US Ends Post-Sale Patent Rights

On 30 May, the US Supreme Court handed down yet another in a long series of rulings that cut back on the rights of patent owners. This time, the high court made it far more difficult for patentees to impose post-sale restrictions on the use or resale of their patented goods. The ruling should boost parallel imports into the US, increase competition throughout the American economy, lower prices for US consumers, and hurt the bottom line of many companies.

US Supreme Court Adopts International Exhaustion For Patents: Paving the way for parallel imports to exert downward pressure on domestic pharmaceutical (and other) prices

Frederick M. Abbott writes: The Supreme Court of the United States on May 30, 2017 adopted a rule of international exhaustion of patent rights for the United States in Impression Products v. Lexmark International, No. 15-1189. The near-unanimous decision authored by Chief Justice Roberts is unambiguous and unequivocal.[1] The Court paid short shrift to contrary decisions of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Jazz Photo Corp. v. International Trade Commission, 264 F. 3d 1094 (Fed. Cir. 2001) and in this case on certiorari, Lexmark International v. Impression Products, 816 F.3d 721 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

In addition to adopting international exhaustion, the Supreme Court ruled firmly against enforcement of post-sale restrictions through infringement actions based on patent. The Court allowed for enforcement under contract law of limitations that may be included in patent licenses.

A Price Too Good To Be True

Steven Tepp writes: Virtually every consumer in every country wants products and services as inexpensively as possible. Nowhere is that demand more acute than in health care, where quality of life, and life itself, is at stake. In Europe, most national governments use the monopsony power of a single-payer national health care system to negotiate (or dictate) what prices they will pay, an activity that has been considered “anti-competitive” in EU private markets. And some governments simply issue price controls.