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 >


    WIPO Patent Cooperation Committee To Proceed With Study With Constraints

    Published on 12 May 2009 @ 12:54 pm

    By , Intellectual Property Watch

    World Intellectual Property Organization members on Friday overcame anxiety about overreaching of the UN body and agreed to study the Patent Cooperation Treaty, including proposals aimed at improving the efficiency and implementation of the treaty, taking into account some members’ concerns.

    The WIPO Patent Cooperation Treaty Working Group met from 4-8 May. This was its last meeting before the annual PCT Assembly in September, which will be asked to approve the working group’s recommendations.

    Despite fears among some member states early in the week that proposals by the secretariat and the United States could lead to a back door to the harmonisation of national patent laws and loss of national sovereignty (IPW, WIPO, 4 May 2008), delegates appeared pleased with the results Friday.

    Negotiators “incorporated all the concerns of developing countries,” said a developing country official. A separate developing country official said the key message of the text was setting limits on the process, and added that all countries were concerned that reform of the PCT not “overstep” into harmonisation.

    The agreement allows WIPO “to go forward with a roadmap,” explained a source at WIPO, continuing to “do some things we’re already doing, [as well as] doing new things,” such as working to increase access for innovators working in independently or in small companies.

    The Agreed Text

    Negotiations were based on discussions of preliminary meeting documents, available here, and on several proposals received during the week from regional groups. The documents included a secretariat proposal on the future of the PCT (PCT/WG/2/3 [pdf]), aimed at increasing members’ implementation of the treaty.

    The final language from the week, contained in the chair’s summary report, makes explicit that PCT improvement should be done in such a way that contracting states retain freedom to interpret the conditions and do not have to engage in “substantive patent law harmonisation or harmonisation of national search and examination procedures” in the process of applying new conditions.

    The text contains guidelines for a process towards negotiating on an improved PCT, but largely stays away from substantive suggestions for changing the PCT itself.

    Members agreed to a new in-depth study that identifies and analyses existing problems and their causes, as well as possible solutions. The secretariat had proposed the elimination of duplication and unnecessary actions among offices responsible for the PCT, but member states asked for further definition and clarification of these terms.

    The chair’s summary is available here [pdf]. The final negotiated text is reflected in paragraphs 4 to 9.

    Also significant in the summary is a statement that improvement of the PCT “could be achieved… taking into account the recommendations contained in the WIPO Development Agenda.” Attention to the Development Agenda was part of the proposals of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean countries (GRULAC) as well as a group of so-called “like-minded” countries that included Egypt, India, Indonesia, the Philippines, South Africa and Sri Lanka, according to sources.

    Unofficial versions of these group proposals are available on the website of Knowledge Ecology International here (GRULAC) and here (like-minded countries).

    Also available is the Group B proposal here. A source said there had also been an African Group proposal.

    The importance of fee reductions, capacity building measures, and technical assistance also was highlighted in the chair’s summary text.

    In particular, there is a goal towards increasing access to the PCT for “independent inventors, small and medium sized enterprises and universities and research institutions.” “Natural persons” was added to this list at the request of Barbados during the final plenary session, in order to clarify “independent inventors,” which was considered an unclear term. An updated version to be submitted to the PCT General Assembly in September will read “independent inventors and/or natural persons.”

    Background

    The secretariat, at the request of members, pulled together elements of regional group proposals to create a draft text that was under negotiation on Friday.

    This original draft text is available here [doc], reproduced by Intellectual Property Watch. [Note: typing errors from original are reflected].

    The consensus text produced at the end of the informal sessions was placed in the chair’s summary, which was then approved in the final plenary. The consensus text, with tracked-changes to show the difference between it and the earlier document, similarly reproduced by Intellectual Property Watch, is here [doc].

    Separately, a US proposal to negotiate a new PCT, a “PCT II” [doc], did not gain much traction, according to sources, and was not included in the final proposal.

    The working group recommended that it meet one time between September 2009 to September 2010.

    William New contributed to this report.

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

     

    Comments

    1. Dr.Mukesh H.Shukla says:

      Sir,

      The “Natural Person/Individual Inventor” bears lots of strain as a unique researcher.The PCT which is embarking very slowly as the process period engulfs significant time in even computer or our missiles era.
      The most important factor is tht the “Individual or Natural Person” as in India suffers a lots of setback and psychosis.The funds for research is having evenues of strains not only related to financial but most of the funds are raised by individual is borne by himself or private loans.Secondly, ven after PCT approval, researcher has to lodge individual Country’s application and appoint attorner which is not possible for the person/natural inventor in most of the countries but more “Dilema dias” for the developing country.
      By reducing fees for PCT applications in developing country is not enough step to regards “Intellectuals” as heavy financial burden of attorney fees is also the major burden.The WIPO should make a committee of “Attorneys” to provide adequate guidance and perform the application proceedures with little fees.
      The research is not a puppet in the hands of fools but it take potential tenure of researcher’s life.
      I hope that the learned facutlties of WIPO/PCT/USPTO should consider these important factors to encourage more researches for the human beings, especially related to pharmaceutical research.The faster approvals will be an added feather.


    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.