Original news and analysis on international IP policy
BERLIN -- The future of the European intellectual property enforcement framework is under heavy discussion at the second IP Enforcement Summit of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) in Berlin today.
Inspiring, generous, humanist, nobody was short of praise and anecdotes at an event last week to celebrate the lifelong contribution of Pedro Roffe, well-known Geneva thinker and writer on intellectual property. A conference on the evolution of intellectual property, trade and development had been organised for the occasion, congregating many IP experts offering their perspective on the role of IP in fields, such as public health, innovation policy, and competition law.
The Unified Patent Court (UPC) in Europe was previously expected to open for business in December 2017 but that timeline has now slipped.
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.
“Artificial intelligence is as a weapon” and we have to deal with it “as we deal with other weapons,” Cindy Smith, director of the United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute (UNICRI), said during a panel discussion at an artificial intelligence summit in Geneva this week. The panel discussion focused on preparing a roadmap to ensure that artificial intelligence develops in “a safe, responsible and, an ethical manner” that benefits all the different segments of our society.
Earlier this year, the Nepal Government released its long-awaited first national intellectual property policy, after becoming the first least developed country (LDC) to join the World Trade Organization (WTO) on 23 April 2004.
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.
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.
CAPE TOWN--The highest decision-making body of government has finally considered the much-anticipated draft intellectual property policy of South Africa.
The Global Debate on Intellectual Property, Trade and Development: Past, Present and Future
A Conference in Honour of Pedro Roffe