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.

Latest Comments
  • So simply put, we have the NABP saying that all ph... »
  • The original Brustle decision was widely criticise... »

  • 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 >

    International Standard-Setting Policies Unclear On IP, US Study Finds

    Published on 15 October 2013 @ 9:08 pm

    By , Intellectual Property Watch

    A new study of 12 leading international standard-setting organisations (SSOs) found a high degree of inconsistency and lack of clarity when it comes to intellectual property rights and licensing. The study also includes analyses on how standards policies are evolving in Brazil, China and India.

    The study, available here, is entitled, Patent Challenges for Standard-Setting in the Global Economy: Lessons from Information and Communication Technology.

    The study was released today and arose from a request by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to the National Research Council (NRC) to “survey a sample of SSO patent or intellectual property policies, evaluate their effectiveness in practice, and recommend improvements,” according to a release.

    An international Committee on Intellectual Property Management in Standard Setting Processes was set up, chaired by Prof. Keith Maskus of the University of Colorado at Boulder. The study director was Stephen Merrill, executive director of science, technology and economic policy at the National Academies of the National Academy of Science.

    A study brief on the outcome said, “Because these organizations have diverse stakeholders and constituents with divergent interests, few articulate clear objectives for their intellectual property rights (IPR) policies or clear criteria for FRAND licensing commitments. Moreover, often the policies lack guidance for litigation over the infringement of SEPs and changes in SEP ownership.” FRAND refers to “fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory” terms (known as RAND in Europe).

    “In particular,” it added, “SSO policies often do not address whether a SEPs holder with a FRAND commitment should be able to seek injunctive relief or an order barring import of an allegedly infringing product into the United States and whether FRAND licensing commitments transfer with changes in patent ownership.”

    The committee decided to examine 12 SSOs addressing standards for consumer electronics, microelectronic products and their associated software and components, and communications networks including the internet, according to the brief.

    The organisations studied included: International Organization for Standardization (ISO), International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), International Telecommunication Union (ITU), Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI), American National Standards Institute (ANSI), Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards (OASIS), VMEBus International Trade Association (VITA), World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), High Definition Multimedia Interface Forum (HDMI), and the Nearfield Communications Forum (NCF).

    On Brazil, China and India, the study found variation between the three rapidly growing economies, but said, “In all three cases, standards policies reflect broader industrial goals, but they are also conditioned by multilateral trade norms,” especially in China.

    The study looked at “how leading national and multinational standard-setting organizations (SSOs) address patent disclosures, licensing terms, transfers of patent ownership, and other issues that arise in connection with developing technical standards for consumer and other microelectronic products, associated software and components, and communications networks including the Internet,” the study website says.

    It attempts to balance the interests of patent holders, other participants in standard-setting, standards implementers, and consumers, it says, and “calls on SSOs to develop more explicit policies to avoid patent holdup and royalty-stacking, ensure that licensing commitments carry over to new owners of the patents incorporated in standards, and limit injunctions for infringement of patents with those licensing commitments.”

    Report recommendations include government measures “to increase the transparency of patent ownership and use of standards information to improve patent quality and to reduce conflicts of laws across countries.”

    Patent disclosure information should be clear for all SSOs, and the disclosure information made public, it said. They should include measures to increase the quality and accuracy of disclosure data, for instance by requiring updates.

    The report supports US and European competition authorities’ views that a FRAND licensing commitment should travel with the patent when it is transferred, and suggests steps to make the information about patent transfers clearer.

    On injunctive relief, the report said a FRAND commitment should limit a licensor’s ability to seek such relief, including through a US International Trade Commission exclusion order.

    The report provides extensive discussion on the background of standard essential patents and the policy issues surrounding them. Problems inherent in the tension between patent holders and the public interest can arise in “lock-in,” where a certain patented technology is necessary for products to work, and “hold-up,” where patent holders charge royalties well in excess of what the technology cost before being incorporated into a standard.

    William New may be reached at wnew@ip-watch.ch.

     

    Comments

    1. International Standard-Setting Policies Unclear On IP, US Study Finds – Intellectual Property Watch | Legal Planet says:

      […] See more here: CLICK HERE TO READ THE ARTICLE […]


    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 54.82.187.225