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 Interns Summer 2013

IP-Watch interns Brittany Ngo (Yale Graduate School of Public Health) and Caitlin McGivern (University of Law, London) 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.

Quantitative Analysis Of Contributions To NETMundial Meeting

A quantitative analysis of the 187 submissions to the April NETmundial conference on the future of internet governance shows broad support for improving security, ensuring respect for privacy, ensuring freedom of expression, and globalizing the IANA function, analyst Richard Hill writes.


Latest Comments
  • Why should anyone care what James Anaya thinks? In... »
  • If this goes ahead, as the EU will "speak" for all... »

  • 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 >

    WIPO: Positions Locked On Protection Of Genetic Resources; Experts To The Rescue

    Published on 5 February 2013 @ 2:40 pm

    By , Intellectual Property Watch

    Delegates attending the World Intellectual Property Organization’s committee on genetic resources this week restated their long-held positions on the issue at the start of the meeting yesterday before letting a secluded expert group try to bridge gaps.

    The WIPO Intergovernmental Committee on Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore (IGC) is meeting from 4-8 February.

    In a long opening statement, IGC Chair Wayne McCook of Jamaica presented the work agenda for the week. He said an expert group would work on improving the current consolidated text inherited from the last session of the IGC on genetic resources, in February 2012, and the group’s revised text would be presented to plenary three times during the week.

    Three facilitators are expected to help with the drafting process: Ian Goss from Australia, Emmanuel Sackey from the African Regional Intellectual Property Organization, and Biswajit Dhar from India.

    New Document Calls for Study on Benefits and Cost Related to Disclosure

    On 4 February, a new working document [pdf] was submitted by the delegations of Canada, Japan, South Korea and the United States. The document is a proposal for the terms of reference for the study by the WIPO secretariat on measures related to the avoidance of the erroneous grant of patents and compliance with existing access and benefit-sharing systems.

    The study requests the WIPO secretariat with the involvement of the WIPO chief economist to update the WIPO Technical Study on Patent Disclosure Requirements Related to Genetic Resources and Traditional Knowledge, with information regarding disclosure requirements and related access and benefit sharing (ABS) system that have been implemented by WIPO members.

    The study is expected to analyse benefits received by provider countries due to disclosure requirements and related ABS systems, costs to national offices/jurisdictions resulting from a disclosure requirement, and costs associated with a disclosure requirement and related requirements, such as prior informed consent and mutually agreed terms, to patent applicants.

    At the end of the February 2012 IGC meeting on genetic resources, the United States said it had requested in plenary sessions that the WIPO secretariat conduct a study on how existing mandatory disclosure mechanisms fulfil access and benefit sharing. This request, supported by Japan and South Korea, was met with reluctance by a number of developing countries, which said ample evidence had already been collected over the years (IPW, WIPO, 23 February 2012).

    IGC Chair Intent on Closed Informal Negotiations

    In what appeared to be a new method to advance the drafting process, McCook told members, “I ask that the integrity and informality of smaller expert group be respected and maintained,” adding that it was important that the experts feel they have the freedom to make suggestions and comments not on the basis of attribution and without being held to a national position for such interventions. Experts testing ideas in the expert group should not be reading their tested ideas in the media the following day, he said.

    “It stands to reason that if one expert were to feel that this exchange would be treated as a formal intervention and be reported or reflected on as such it would chill the exchange and therefore defeat or undermine the process of a frank and full discussion among experts,” he said, indicating that no transmission would be made of those expert consultations.

    “In the event this approach is not observed, I reserve the right to seek the IGC’s consent to take such actions as may be necessary,” he said, adding that the process could revert to negotiations in plenary, which have not led to much progress in the past.

    Marathon Round of Comments on Text before Drafting Session

    On the opening afternoon, delegates were pressed by the chair to produce comments on the consolidated document, which is currently composed of policy objectives, and nine articles.

    Delegates stood fast to their usual positions, with a clear divide between countries on the issue of the mandatory disclosure of origin of genetic resources in patent applications. Developing countries that took the floor, such as Brazil, China, Nigeria and Peru, expressed strong support for an effective mandatory disclosure, while developed countries, such as the United States, Japan, Canada and South Korea adopted a clear opposite view.

    Developing countries are also in favour of a binding international legal instrument.

    The United States, in a long statement on the policy objectives of the consolidated text, said the country did not support the use of the patent system to ensure compliance with the requirements on disclosure of the source of origin of genetic resources in patent applications. The US is concerned, the delegate said, about the expansion of the scope of disclosure when reference is made to derivatives and associated traditional knowledge.

    The issue of derivatives has been raised in several fora by developed countries wary of the expansion of the scope of international instruments. For example, during negotiations of the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits arising from their Utilization to the Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD), the same issue arose. Article 2 of the Protocol includes this definition: Derivative “means a naturally occurring biochemical compound resulting from the genetic expression or metabolism of biological or genetic resources, even if it does not contain functional units of heredity.”

    The issue of derivatives raises a number of questions, the US delegate said. “What is a derivative?” he asked. “Would a synthetic compound that is the result of a study of a naturally occurring compound always be considered to be a derivative? Would wine be considered to be a derivative of grape?” Similarly, he expressed concern about the scope of traditional knowledge, asking if a community could be entitled to claim knowledge as their own even though this knowledge is widely disseminated.

    Japan said a mandatory disclosure of the source of genetic resources in patent applications could harm innovation.

    The US cannot support the reference to other international instruments to which it is not party, or has not yet implemented. This includes the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), and the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits arising from their Utilization to the CBD.

    Catherine Saez may be reached at info@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 178.255.215.84