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 Summer Interns

IP-Watch interns talk about their Geneva experience in summer 2013. 2:42.

Inside Views

Submit ideas 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.

The Politicization Of The US Patent System

The Washington Post story, How patent reform’s fraught politics have left USPTO still without a boss (July 30), is a vivid account of how patent reform has divided the US economy, preempting a possible replacement for David Kappos who stepped down 18 months ago. The division is even bigger than portrayed. Universities have lined up en masse to oppose reform, while main street businesses that merely use technology argue for reform. Reminiscent of the partisan divide that has paralyzed US politics, this struggle crosses party lines and extends well beyond the usual inter-industry debates. Framed in terms of combating patent trolls through technical legal fixes, there lurks a broader economic concern – to what extent ordinary retailers, bank, restaurants, local banks, motels, realtors, and travel agents should bear the burden of defending against patents as a cost of doing business.


Latest Comments
  • “We want everybody to agree on the science telling... »
  • So this is how we mankind will become extinct? No ... »

  • For IPW Subscribers

    A directory of IP delegates in Geneva. Read more>

    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 >

    US Chamber Holds Annual IP Attaché Roundtable, Announces New “IP Index”

    Published on 17 December 2012 @ 3:03 pm

    By , Intellectual Property Watch

    Washington, DC – The United States Chamber of Commerce last week held its annual roundtable with US government IP attachés stationed around the world. At the same event, it released a consultant study that rated the IP rights usage of 11 rather different countries.

    The event was held by the Chamber’s Global IP Center in Washington, DC on 11 December.

    Teresa Stanek Rea, deputy director of the US Patent and Trademark Office, said at the event that intellectual property rights “have never been more important,” and that what is needed are “clear, concise, enforceable rights.” She said that royalty-free innovation would “only spur a race to the bottom” to the lowest wages and standards.

    Stanek Rea spoke of the USPTO’s “talented” IP attachés stationed strategically in various capitals in the world. She said they bolster the US relationship with trading partners and cultivate cultural diplomacy. They support an innovator-friendly and IP-friendly system.

    “IP attachés are our most valuable assets, because they are the face they see every day,” she said. They report to the USPTO but also to other agencies like the Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR).

    She also said that the USPTO is in “robust” discussions with a group of key governments for harmonisation in four key IP issues: grace period, 18-month publication, treatment of conflicting applications and prior user rights. The group, referred to as the Tegernsee Group, was formed in July 2011 and includes the heads of the IP offices of the European, Danish, French, German, Japanese, UK and US patent offices, according to the USPTO harmonisation webpage.

    The group’s latest meeting was on 4 October in Geneva, where expert studies were presented on each topic, and it was decided to conduct global stakeholder consultations on the topics. This was first mentioned earlier in the week by USPTO Director David Kappos at the annual IPO/PTO Day.

    Stanek Rea said countries are looking to increase work-sharing around the world and have a more harmonised set of IP rules. The IP5 patent offices – US, European Patent Office, China, Japan and Korea – were meeting at the working group level last week to discuss these issues, and that they were starting to see more similarity of thought. “They aim to be high-end innovator countries,” she said.

    At the Chamber event, USTR negotiator Stan McCoy discussed the US annual Special 301 report, which names countries the US government says are not adequately protecting US IP rights. He said that over the years, the report has come to focus also on the “unfulfilled promise” of laws that are poorly enforced. There is a “great deal of enforcement sprinkled in” this year’s report, he said.

    He said the reports often look similar from year to year, but that they do see progress. He mentioned the new “notorious markets” report on piracy and counterfeiting, which was subsequently released on 15 December.

    In the presentations of the IP attachés, Jared Ragland, the IP attaché for China, gave a report highlighting some of the activities occurring there, such as a change to trademark law, a reform of copyright law, as well as changes to the patent law. An amendment to the patent law raises some issues of concern for rights holders, he said, though there are positive aspects too. A concern is that it takes a step backward on administration of patent rights.

    On the issue of enforcement, Chinese companies are becoming interested in protecting IP, but Chinese companies are becoming interested in protecting IP, but there is still a “huge problem” with counterfeiting, he said. And trade secret theft, corporate espionage, is a major problem, often arising from disgruntled employees.

    In the same week as the event, China was named the country with the most patent filings last year. But many of these are utility patents, which are essentially unexamined, and yet difficult to seek invalidity on.

    On Russia, IP Attaché Donald Townsend said it was a “momentous year” for Russia, with its accession to the World Trade Organization, and permanent normal trade relations with the US voted into force. There are new rules on data exclusivity, but still are no implementing procedures.

    The biggest problem in Russia is internet piracy, he said, with no clear law for liability. “The piracy rate in Russia is very, very bad,” he said. “We do have a lot of challenges.”

    Still, Russia has recognised the importance of an innovation economy, and overall things are “on the upturn” there, he said. In Russia, the presence of a local voice for IP would be helpful, he added.

    Michael Lewis, the regional IP attaché for Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean, noted progress on some issues, but said in Mexico there are “huge problems” with enforcement still, with the border at the top of the list. Customs continues to lack the necessary authority to inspect goods, and it is a “very arduous task” for the rights holder to have a suspect shipment examined. He also pointed to links to transnational crime organisations. He said there is hope the new administration is serious about these “notorious markets.”

    Several other IP attachés also spoke at the event, including the two from Geneva (IPW, US Policy, 15 December 2012).

    New GIPC IP Index

    At the event, the Chamber Global IP Center released its first GIPC International IP Index. The report was entitled “Measuring Momentum,” and is available at www.theglobalipcenter.com.

    The report looked at 11 countries and rated them in this order, from best to worst: US, UK, Australia, Canada, Mexico, Chile, Malaysia, Russia, Brazil, China, and India.

    It measures the “overall national IP environment and the major forms of IP (e.g. patents, copyrights, trademarks, enforcement, and membership in international treaties),” the report said. The index can be used to identify areas for developing policies aimed at supporting innovative and creative industries, seeking greater investment, and promoting economic development through IP rights. It also can be used by companies seeking to enter or continue to operate in these markets, it said. The index was produced by industry consultancy Pugatch Consilium.

    It singled out legislative activity in the countries, as well as actions taken by governments for public health reasons or insufficient action on enforcement or implementation that may have a negative impact on foreign investment.

    Several speakers at the event said the report would be useful. At least one IP attaché said it would provide an additional tool for them in negotiations with other governments.

    Also at the Chamber event, former Indiana Senator Evan Bayh gave a keynote speech highlighting the importance of IP and its benefit to growth and the economy.

    William New may be reached at wnew@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.

     

     
    Your IP address is 23.20.19.131