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 >


    USPTO Director David Kappos Speaks On Need For IP Cooperation

    Published on 24 September 2010 @ 1:31 am

    By , Intellectual Property Watch

    Patent offices around the world must work together to combat the inefficiencies in patent processing that threaten to stifle innovation and as a result slow needed growth of the global economy, David Kappos, director of the US Patent and Trademark Office said today.

    “IP matters to the global economy today more than ever,” he told a press briefing at the United Nations in Geneva on 23 September. But having backlogs in processing applications “stifles innovation and delays the creation of new businesses and jobs.”

    Kappos also spoke in a video interview with Intellectual Property Watch earlier in the day. “The time for advancing IP interests and moving the world’s IP systems, particularly the patent systems toward one another, including norm-setting and technical cooperation is really here,” he said during the interview, praising the work of the World Intellectual Property Organization in providing technical expertise to facilitate cooperation.


    Kappos speaks to IP Watch on the importance of collaboration.

    Kappos also spoke briefly on key international issues, such as proposed copyright exceptions to ease access to reading materials for the visually impaired, and on traditional knowledge. WIPO is currently in the middle of its decision-making General Assemblies, running from 20-29 September.

    Many patent filings around the world represent the same or similar inventions, said USPTO Deputy Director Sharon Barner. Among the worlds so-called “IP5″ offices – the patent offices of China, Europe, Japan, Korea, and the United States, which account for about 80 percent of the world’s patent filings – approximately 200,000 applications a year could be used by another office, Barner said.

    With the IP5, Kappos told Intellectual Property Watch in the interview, several projects are ongoing since last year covering access to search results, classification systems, collaboration between examiners and others “aimed at dramatically improving the patent system for the world.” The IP5 is an important grouping “advancing collaboration, cooperation and dare I even say harmonisation between patent systems of the world,” he added.

    At the USPTO, there is currently a backlog of over 750,000 applications, though this number is shrinking and is hoped to reach below 700,000 by the end of the year, Kappos said at the press conference. This would represent the first fall in backlog at the USPTO in seven years, but the office would have a ways to go before reaching “optimal inventory” of 50-70,000 applications per examiner, or 325,000 total. At optimal level, patent processing time would be significantly reduced.

    The UPSTO is working on a series of collaborative efforts with patent offices around the world to avoid duplication. Collaborative projects include the Patent Prosecution Highway, which allows for “fast track” examination of a patent in one office if it is determined to be patentable in another office. The USPTO has PPH agreements with 12 partner offices, Kappos said.

    The USPTO is also launching a new effort that it hopes will incentivise the creation of technologies that address critical humanitarian needs, such as treatments for neglected diseases, technology to increase crop yields or nutritional value, or for clean water, said a USPTO press release.

    The idea is that patent applicants looking to have a humanitarian impact with their innovation would be given fast track priority for patent reexamination. The project was circulated last week for comments, Kappos said, and a pilot is intended to be launched in 2011.

    Kappos also briefly commented on critical international issues in patenting. On the controversial Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, he said the new enforcement tool is “important for IP generally” and that the US would “very much like to see ACTA concluded,” though he deferred to the US Trade Representative on providing details. On an ongoing WIPO negotiation over improving access to reading materials for the visually impaired, he said the US was “committed to helping it move forward.” On traditional knowledge negotiations at WIPO, he said it was too early in the process to comment, though the negotiation has been ongoing at WIPO for 12 years.



    Kappos speaks on copyright exceptions for the print disabled.


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

     

    Comments

    1. General Global Week in Review 27 September 2010 from IP Think Tank says:

      [...] USPTO Director David Kappos on need for IP cooperation (IP Watch) [...]

    2. patent litigation says:

      While ethically laudable, Kappos’s proposed humanitarian technologies incentive program sounds more useful as a PR ploy to improve the image of patent law than anything else. Since there are few ex parte reexaminations annually, it likely wouldn’t have too much of a concrete effect on backlog issues. That being the case, I can’t imagine that this new initiative would do either much harm or much good. That said, I’m glad the USPTO and Obama administration are making an effort to bring humanitarian issues within the reach of patent law. However, patent law expert Gene Quinn has proposed another idea that intrigues me more — patent term extensions “in exchange for the donation of humanitarian technologies.” It could be a powerful incentive that would satisfy both people’s “greed” and “good” genes at the same time, and I think that could be more effective.

    3. ulisse di bartolomei says:

      Speaking about the Fiat hybrids, the technology double clutch with electric motor between has been stolen by a patent that Fiat Company has never wanted to purchase, but only shamelessly to copy. I invite to visit my blog where her “vitality” of the Fiat planners it appears in all of evidence:
      http://dualsymbioticelectromechanicalengine.blogspot.com/

      Whoever appreciates an honest industrial ethics in defence of intellectual ownership should spread out the history reported in my blog. If the industries can afford unpunished to copy the ideas and defending it need very expensive legal action, to which target need the patents? How our young people can find intellectual courage if the economic potentates crush the rights of the single ones?

      Ulisse Di Bartolomei


    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.