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

Advertisement


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.

Occupy IP: New Economy Businesses Clash With Old

It may be too much, too late for content providers finally trying to tame the internet, and a fresh approach is needed, writes Bruce Berman.




Special Reports

Non-Communicable Diseases Issue Energises Public Health Policymakers Read More >


Latest Comments
  • Copyrights are unique works set in a concrete mode... »
  • I deeply apprecite the initiative to combat agains... »

  • 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 >


    WIPO Patent Committee Calls For Further Study, Consultations

    Published on 30 March 2009 @ 5:16 pm

    By , Intellectual Property Watch

    Five new studies on select patent-related topics and informal, open-ended consultations on global issues are the key elements of future work for a World Intellectual Property Organization committee that wrapped up its meeting late Friday.

    The new studies include three that will expand on reporting already done by the WIPO secretariat in preparation for last week’s meeting of the Standing Committee on the Law of Patents (SCP), which ran from 23 to 27 March (IPW, WIPO, 20 March 2009). They also include two new topics.

    The committee is in a slow recommencement process after a breakdown in negotiations over global patent system harmonisation in 2006. Part of the recommencement process includes building a body of technical reporting on which to base discussion.

    A growing non-exhaustive list of topics related to patents are slated to be discussed at some point in the committee’s future. The list includes areas such as patents and public health, harmonisation of basic notions of patentability requirements (such as prior art or inventive step), patents and the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, technology transfer, and alternative models of innovation, according to a summary by the meeting chair.

    The topics slated for further exploration between now and the next SCP gathering (expected in November) are: exclusions, exceptions and limitations; client-attorney privilege; and dissemination of patent information, the summary said. The new report on exceptions and limitations will be prepared by experts external to WIPO, and will focus on issues selected by members with a view towards developmental issues.

    The new concept paper on patent information sharing will focus on technical solutions for improving access and dissemination of patent information. And the expanded study on client-attorney privilege will focus on reflecting the “current state of play” in the area, taking into account the perspectives of various stakeholders.

    A fourth report prepared for the meeting, on patents and standards, will remain open for member comments (as will all the others), but there is no specific further work planned on it at this point.

    Future work will include initial studies on two new topics: transfer of technology and opposition systems (or ways to call into question patent applications or granted patents if there are reasons to suspect they are invalid or poor quality).

    The next meeting of the SCP is tentatively scheduled for 9 to 13 November 2009.

    Also in the chair’s summary is the decision that open-ended consultations will be held – at an unspecified date – on a conference in July on the connection between global issues and intellectual property issues. The consultations will give member states concerned about the conference’s mandate – which changed from the informal SCP gathering in June 2008 – a place to discuss those concerns.

    Chair’s Summary

    A copy of the chair’s summary, produced in informal consultations – involving regional coordinators plus up to four others from each region – on Friday afternoon, is available here [pdf]. The final version of the chair’s summary is available from the WIPO website here [pdf]. Changes to the chair’s text made in full plenary following the informal consultations are detailed below.

    Most participants leaving the meeting felt the result was balanced, with each getting something they had wanted from the summary text. For example, further work on exceptions and limitations was said by sources to be important to developing countries; while attorney-client privilege was of particular concern to developed countries and industry groups.

    SCP Chair Maximiliano Santa Cruz of Chile told Intellectual Property Watch afterward that “delegations really got engaged in the discussion,” and “showed a great deal of flexibility.” He added that the five studies to be prepared for the next meeting “will help us focus our discussion and understand which issues need to be solved or tackled collectively.”

    Future Work To Delve Into Patentability, Attorney-Client Privilege

    The final text of the chair’s summary detailing future work on exceptions and limitations reads:

    (i) The Secretariat will commission external experts [sic] a study on exclusions, exceptions and limitations, focussed on, but not limited to, issues suggested by Members such as public health, education, research and experimentation and patentability of life forms, including from a public policy, socio-economic development perspective, bearing in mind the level of economic development.

    The suggestion to add “public health, education, research and experimentation” to the text came from Brazil, and the suggestion to add “patentability of life forms” came from Bolivia. There was some discussion over whether or not to specify “higher life forms,” as an earlier WIPO treaty allows specifically for the patenting of microorganisms.

    The Asian Group, represented by Sri Lanka, suggested that the experts detail issues such as bilateral and regional trade agreements and country-level studies, including on the way developed country patent systems used to look when those same countries were at a lower level of development, according to a statement on future work obtained by Intellectual Property Watch.

    An informal document with suggestions for future work circulated by Brazil had suggested similar measures, basing its ideas on prior work done by the WIPO committee on copyright and related rights, a delegate explained to Intellectual Property Watch. The Brazilian suggestions for future work had included requests for further studies, an exchange of national and regional information, an identification of areas of convergence, and the development of a minimum standards approach to exceptions and limitations.

    Also changed in plenary was a clarification that the new report on attorney-client privilege could consult outside experts if necessary, and would not be limited only to secretariat expertise.

    The Group B developed countries said the group “attaches great importance” to this issue, in a statement prepared for the meeting. The lack of uniform legal framework “causes clients to risk loss of, and lose confidentiality in, advice they obtain from IP advisers,” the statement said, emphasising the need for “IP owners or third parties to be able to freely communicate with their IP adviser and to know confidentiality to be legally secured.

    The International Chamber of Commerce along with the International Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property (AIPPI) submitted a letter to the meeting encouraging the member states of WIPO to form a working group on the issue of client-attorney privilege, and seeking to strengthen protection of shared confidential information as well as to allow non-attorneys to be included in the privilege.

    Several NGOs – including Consumers International, the Free Software Foundation, Health Action International Global, Knowledge Ecology International and the Third World Network, also wrote a letter urging member states to form working groups on issues such as access to medicines, climate change, patents and standards, goods in transit, and exemptions for research.

    Also changed in plenary was a request that the WIPO secretariat estimate the cost of translation of the five new studies. The request was expanded to include “the studies” generally. A note was added that the secretariat will present all new studies at the next SCP meeting. And a newly added item on the list of patent issues – quality of process and all related patent products – was changed to read “patent quality management systems” for greater clarity.

    Open Consultations To Resolve Global Issues Agenda Questions

    Some member states raised concern prior to the SCP meeting that the mandate was changed without consultation for a conference to be held in July on major public policy issues that might be affected by the patent system. The mandate was given at the previous SCP meeting in June 2008 (IPW, WIPO, 25 June 2008).

    The crux of this change revolved around the addition of one extra issue to the four original issues, according to a WIPO official involved with some of the planning for the July conference, told Intellectual Property Watch. The four original issues were: climate change, environment, health, and food security. The fifth, late-addition issue was on disability, and in particular on access to reading material for the blind and visually impaired.

    This issue, the official said also involves copyright law. As such, the name of the conference was changed to include “intellectual property” and global issues as opposed to just patents, and some member states felt that the broadened scope of this name change could potentially distract focus.

    Others, explained the official, did not object to the new issue, but objected to not having been consulted before it was added. The open consultations should give member states concerned about the as-yet unreleased agenda of the conference a chance to voice their concerns. A date for these consultations does not appear to have been set yet.

    The conference is important, said a delegate from Indonesia, as it is a first brainstorming session on important global issues from the perspective of the only intergovernmental agency focussed primarily on IP.

    Santa Cruz said the meeting is an opportunity where “we will have the chance to see how WIPO can be part of the solution to problems in other areas of public policy, such as climate change, food security and public health.”

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

     


    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.