SUBSCRIBE TODAY!
Subscribing entitles a reader to complete stories on all topics released as they happen, special features, confidential documents and access to the complete, searchable story archive online back to 2004.
IP-Watch Briefs

Inside Views

Contribute your views! Submit an Inside Views idea to info [at] ip-watch [dot] ch.

We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website.

By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party or which you know is under a confidentiality obligation preventing its publication and that you will request removal of the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, that amounts to spamming or that is otherwise inappropriate. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence are also prohibited. Furthermore, you may not impersonate others.

2. You understand and agree that Intellectual Property Watch is not responsible for any content posted by you or third parties. You further understand that IP Watch does not monitor the content posted. Nevertheless, IP Watch may monitor the any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent nor notice. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site. IP Watch is not in any manner endorsing the content of the discussion forums and cannot and will not vouch for its reliability or otherwise accept liability for it.

3. By submitting any contribution to IP Watch, you warrant that your contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to IP Watch for all purposes and you agree to indemnify IP Watch, its directors, employees and agents against all damages, legal fees and others expenses that may be incurred by IP Watch as a result of your breach of warranty or of these terms.

4. You further agree not to publish any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example telephone number or home address). If you add a comment to a blog, be aware that your email address will be apparent.

5. IP Watch will not be liable for any loss including but not limited to the following (whether such losses are foreseen, known or otherwise): loss of data, loss of revenue or anticipated profit, loss of business, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill or injury to reputation, losses suffered by third parties, any indirect, consequential or exemplary damages.

6. You understand and agree that the discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.

7. You acknowledge and agree that you use and/or rely on any information obtained through the discussion forums at your own risk.

8. For any content that you post, you hereby grant to IP Watch the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive and fully sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part, world-wide and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

9. These terms and your posts and contributions shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Switzerland (without giving effect to conflict of laws principles thereof) and any dispute exclusively settled by the Courts of the Canton of Geneva.

Call For Transparency In The Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiation

In this post, three US law professors explain a recent call by over 30 legal scholars for the US Trade Representative to increase transparency for the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement intellectual property chapter, and their response to Ambassador Kirk’s response that he is “strongly offended” by the suggestion that the negotiation is not adequately transparent already.





Latest Comments
  • David, thank you for the note. It appears there is... »
  • The link to the US proposal seems to be broken, an... »

  • For IPW Subscribers
    A guide to Geneva-based public health and intellectual property organisations. Read More >

    Monthly Reporter

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter, published from 2004 to January 2011, is a 16-page monthly selection of the most important, updated stories and features, plus the People and News Briefs columns.

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter is available in an online archive on the IP-Watch website, available for IP-Watch Subscribers.

    Access the Monthly Reporter Archive >


    Standing Committee On The Law Of Patents To Reconvene After Two Year Hiatus

    Published on 19 June 2008 @ 11:24 am

    Intellectual Property Watch

    By Kaitlin Mara
    The World Intellectual Property Organization committee charged with coordinating relationships between national patent regimes will meet next week for the first time since an informal session in April 2006. It is the first formal convening since June 2005.

    The bulk of the meeting will be spent discussing future work for the committee, said sources. Also on the agenda is a review of a recent report by the WIPO secretariat [pdf] that provides an overview of the state of the international patent system and is intended to factually inform talks on future work.

    Discussions in the committee stalled in 2006 (IPW, WIPO, 30 September 2006) following disagreements between WIPO member states over efforts to further harmonise national patent laws. The year 2007 was spent in “informal consultations.” The 2007 WIPO General Assemblies charged the secretariat with preparing the report, which it completed in April.

    The 23 – 27 June meeting of the Standing Committee on the Law of Patents (SCP) is expected to use the report in discussions that hopefully will result in a work plan, said Philippe Baechtold, head of the patent law section of WIPO’s Sector of PCT and Patents, Arbitration and Mediation Center and Global Intellectual Property Issues, who is in charge of the SCP meeting for the WIPO secretariat.

    An official from one of the WIPO Group B developed countries, which had been calling for stronger integration of several patent rules, said that the group would still “like to see work” on the harmonisation issues. The areas Group B is interested in harmonising are prior art (previously available information), novelty and inventive steps (tests for patentability that require the idea to be original), and grace periods for patent filing after an invention has been publicised (thereby allowing a recently published inventor to still ask for a patent),

    But, the source added, it was unrealistic to expect significant work on harmonisation in the committee at this point, and instead the assembly would have “to decide on something else practical to work on.”

    Developing countries historically have been wary of increased harmonisation, and have instead pushed for exclusions of certain items from patenting, exceptions and flexibilities in patent rights, and disclosure of origin and equitable benefit sharing when traditional knowledge is included in patent application.

    Baechtold said that the “big word” at the meeting would be “balance,” and whether member states could strike one between differing goals and opinions regarding the use of the international patent system.

    Selection of Chair

    The meeting will open with the choosing of a chair, which, sources report, could be cause for discussion. As of press time, it was too early to say who likely names are or what nations have put forth candidates.

    The process for selecting a chair starts before the meeting, when coordinators for regional groups such as the Africa Group or Group B meet and discuss proposals put forth by member states, Baechtold explained. A member state can nominate an individual, and if a second member state supports the nomination he or she becomes a candidate. Candidates are then elected by the committee in question. The WIPO secretariat has no role in the chair decision-making process, said Baechtold.

    The area likely to take up the most meeting space is the agenda item on future work, said several sources. It is hoped that countries will reach consensus on issues that need work at an international level, though it is unclear what those issues would be. It is likely that any resolution will happen on technical matters – perhaps on a clarification of terms, such as the definition of prior art or an inventive step, said a source – rather than on more complex or controversial matters. It is, however, hard to say what issues will be of strong interest to member states, added the source. It could happen, for example, that matters seeming technical going into the meeting will end up being hot-button issues.

    International Patent System Report

    Intended as a “working document” for the upcoming SCP session, this report by the committee secretariat “contextualises the existing situation” of international patenting and seeks to characterise the variant roles of patents in economic prosperity, technology disclosure, and technology diffusion.

    It is intended as a factual report, and thus covers a wide range of viewpoints, from the ways in which patents are essential to protect innovation to the ways in which too much litigation, the emergence of “patent thickets”(numerous patents covering aspects of the same product) and the patenting of ‘limited’ subject matter – such as a DNA strand – can act as innovation inhibitors.

    On technology transfer, the report notes that there is little hard evidence but that anecdotally it seems a functioning patent system can “rather encourage technology transfer and foreign investment” but “too strong a protection of patent rights, in particular in the early state of industrialisation when learning takes place through reverse engineering and duplicative imitation” can hinder technology transfer. The report also acknowledges alternative methods of intellectual property management, such as open source, as interesting enough an idea that use has expanded to areas outside of its original use in software.

    Technical interoperability is also important for “wide adoption” of new technologies, the report says. Open standards – or standards in which the technical specifications are publicly available and licensing on intellectual property is either free or affordable. The report notes that there is disagreement as to whether an open standard must be simply available or available royalty-free.

    A concluding chapter is dedicated specifically to the concerns of developing countries, who tend to be net importers of technology and are therefore often more hesitant about the utility of a stronger and more harmonised international patent system.

    Calling development “one of the most urgent challenges” facing the world and citing the new Development Agenda at WIPO – in particular its statements on the need for norm-setting, technology transfer, information technology and access to knowledge, and evaluation and impact studies – the report discusses the emerging knowledge economy and the need to bring development in line.

    Particular concerns for developing countries are that the information-diffusion function of patents is made difficult with low infrastructure, that a harmonised patent system might not allow adequate flexibilities for development initiatives, the potentially negative impact of a strong patent system on public health, education, and biodiversity. For developing countries who want access to the benefits of the international patent system, there are concerns about methods for its implementation nationally, especially given the high cost of creating, maintaining and enforcing an intellectual property system.

    Kaitlin Mara may be reached at kmara@ip-watch.ch.

    Categories: News, English, Patent Policy, WIPO

     

    Comments

    1. Utah Patent Lawyer says:

      The patent office needs more examiners and regional offices. They’re 1.5 million applications behind.


    Leave a Reply

    We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website. By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

    We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website.

    By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

    1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party or which you know is under a confidentiality obligation preventing its publication and that you will request removal of the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, that amounts to spamming or that is otherwise inappropriate. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence are also prohibited. Furthermore, you may not impersonate others.

    2. You understand and agree that Intellectual Property Watch is not responsible for any content posted by you or third parties. You further understand that IP Watch does not monitor the content posted. Nevertheless, IP Watch may monitor the any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent nor notice. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site. IP Watch is not in any manner endorsing the content of the discussion forums and cannot and will not vouch for its reliability or otherwise accept liability for it.

    3. By submitting any contribution to IP Watch, you warrant that your contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to IP Watch for all purposes and you agree to indemnify IP Watch, its directors, employees and agents against all damages, legal fees and others expenses that may be incurred by IP Watch as a result of your breach of warranty or of these terms.

    4. You further agree not to publish any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example telephone number or home address). If you add a comment to a blog, be aware that your email address will be apparent.

    5. IP Watch will not be liable for any loss including but not limited to the following (whether such losses are foreseen, known or otherwise): loss of data, loss of revenue or anticipated profit, loss of business, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill or injury to reputation, losses suffered by third parties, any indirect, consequential or exemplary damages.

    6. You understand and agree that the discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.

    7. You acknowledge and agree that you use and/or rely on any information obtained through the discussion forums at your own risk.

    8. For any content that you post, you hereby grant to IP Watch the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive and fully sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part, world-wide and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

    9. These terms and your posts and contributions shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Switzerland (without giving effect to conflict of laws principles thereof) and any dispute exclusively settled by the Courts of the Canton of Geneva.