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 >

    TRIPS Council: Discussion Of IP And Innovation Irritates India: Other Issues Unchanged

    Published on 27 February 2014 @ 3:06 pm

    By , Intellectual Property Watch

    World Trade Organization members meeting at the WTO intellectual property committee this week held fast to positions on longstanding issues, but engaged in discussions on issues such as innovation in relation to universities, and so-called “non-violation complaints” against countries that may cause harm to another country but don’t violate a WTO rule. Also discussed was the ongoing dispute over plain packaging requirements for tobacco products.

    In a new issue, the introduction by the United States of the discussion on IP and innovation related to universities was criticised by India, echoing global tensions between the two nations.

    The Council for Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) met from 25-26 February.

    Non-Violation Complaints: US, Switzerland Hold Out

    Among the topics discussed was a moratorium on “non-violation” complaints that currently applies to the WTO TRIPS agreement. This prevents members from bringing non-violation complaints under TRIPS. Non-violation complaints are a legal dispute at the WTO in which a country can bring a case against another country if the complainant country feels it has been deprived of expected benefits by the other country’s action, but there is no particular violation of a WTO rule.

    The issue is whether the moratorium should be lifted, or conversely turned into a permanent feature. During the last WTO Ministerial conference in December in Bali, the moratorium was extended once again with the understanding that WTO members would try to reach an agreement one way or the other by the next ministerial conference in 2015.

    This week, most countries supported the view that the moratorium should be indefinite, sources told Intellectual Property Watch. However, the United States and Switzerland disagreed, sources said. According to a WTO official, Canada and Japan hold an intermediate position, and Japan called for the TRIPS Council to clarify the scope and modalities of non-violation cases.

    A European Union official told Intellectual Property Watch that the European Union is in favour of a permanent moratorium on non-violation complaints in TRIPS. “We do not see the purpose of such complaints in the context of the TRIPS agreement, but we are ready to engage in the discussion, hopefully on the basis of concrete examples from those that believe non-violation complaints should be possible in the TRIPS context.”

    “Non-violation complaints in general are a rare occurrence and when they do occur it is often in relation with a violation complaint,” the official said. “We need to understand what kind of problems we are trying to solve with non-violation complaints in the TRIPS,” he added.

    Some developing countries have argued that non-violation complaints in TRIPS could potentially affect their ability to use TRIPS flexibilities, such as the ability to issue compulsory licences, according to the WTO official, speaking at a 26 February press briefing.

    Bangladesh, in its statement, said, “Developing countries and especially LDCs [Least Developed Countries] are particularly concerned as they enjoy different flexibilities under TRIPS and any one of them could also be a subject of non-violation complaint quite unnecessarily.”

    A counterargument was that flexibilities are enshrined in the TRIPS agreement for developing countries and concerning public health they were reaffirmed in the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health, so flexibilities would not be affected by non-violation complaints, the WTO official said. The issue is expected to be discussed again at the next TRIPS Council meeting.

    University Technology Partnerships: India Reacts

    The United States introduced a discussion on the role of university technology partnerships in intellectual property and innovation. According to the WTO, the discussion prompted many examples of universities contributing to innovation and the development of technology.

    A number of countries described their national experiences and some countries such as Brazil, Guatemala and El Salvador said it was a good subject to discuss, a WTO official said.

    However, India in its statement [pdf], expressed surprise at the inclusion of the agenda item “at the behest of one developed country.” India said the council has seen similar agenda items, in which it said developed countries assert that IP boosts development, while developing countries counter that evidence is lacking to show that strong IP deliver development or innovation.

    “While developed countries have tried to create private monopolies over minor or incremental innovations, the developing countries can define their own patent threshold on the basis of their socio economic development,” the statement said. The Indian Patent Act includes a section – 3(d) – which aims to prevent the evergreening of patents, and which has been disputed by some developed countries, in particular the United States (IPW, Public Health, 18 February 2014).

    “The over-emphasis on IP may thus deviate the focus of the Universities from basic research and teaching to that of meeting the commercial needs of the industry,” India said.

    The United States adopted a law in 1980 known as the Bayh-Dole Act that “created a uniform patent policy among the many federal agencies that fund research, enabling small business and non-profit organizations – including universities – to retain title to inventions made under federally funded research programs. The Act was also instrumental in encouraging universities to participate in technology transfer activities,” according to a US Patent and Trademark Office press release for the 30th anniversary of the Act.

    India remarked that “The developed countries have reached this level of development not through high IP standards but through a flexible approach.” They argued that if patent monopolies had existed a hundred years ago, the world would not have seen the current revolutions in fields such as telecommunications, pharmaceuticals, engineering, and information technology.

    India also cited the Open Source Drug Discovery, a global platform for drug discovery led by the Council of Scientific & Industrial Research (India), as an example of innovative initiative inspired by the open source models in information technology.

    Transfer of Green Technology

    At the request of Ecuador, the TRIPS Council discussed the contribution of intellectual property to facilitating the transfer of environmentally rational technology (IPW, WTO/TRIPS, 20 February 2014).

    In its communication paper [pdf] on the issue, Ecuador, asked in particular for a review of Article 31 of TRIPS (Other Use Without Authorization of the Right Holder) in order “to determine which of its provisions may excessively restrict access to and dissemination” of green technologies.

    According to a WTO official, the European Union, Switzerland and the United States gave concrete examples of transfer of green technology projects in developing countries, and said that IP is not the only factor coming into play in green tech transfer. Infrastructure, regulatory framework and transaction costs also are factors to consider, they said.

    Most countries agreed on continuing discussing this item, an Ecuadorian delegate told Intellectual Property Watch. Ecuador is expected to update its proposal, according to the WTO. A number of developing countries supported Ecuador, such as Brazil, China, Cuba, El Salvador, India, and South Africa, the WTO said.

    Plain Packaging of Tobacco Products

    Plain packaging of tobacco products has been discussed at the TRIPS Council for a number of times. There are five ongoing disputes at the WTO, all of them against Australia, which has introduced requirements for plain packaging for tobacco products sold in Australia, as a public health measure (IPW, WTO/TRIPS, 20 February 2014). A number of other countries have indicated that they are considering introducing plain packaging as well.

    Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Honduras, Indonesia and Ukraine are contending that plain packaging violates the TRIPS agreement, in relation to trademarks and geographical indications.

    This week, Cuba, which had requested the agenda item, urged countries to refrain from introducing plain packaging until there is a ruling of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body, according to a WTO official at the press briefing. Cuba also argued that plain packaging could also have adverse effects, such as making counterfeiting easier, and making cigarettes cheaper, thus possibly increasing consumption, the official said.

    According to the WTO, the Dominican Republic raised concerns that similar measures could be introduced for other products for high sugar, fat or alcohol content, which they saw as negative. Australia declined to comment in view of the pending disputes, sources said.

    Nigeria and Switzerland, according to the WTO, said they support health policies but urged members to be consistent with the TRIPS agreement and the Paris Convention for the protection of industrial property. They also engaged members to adopt proportionate policies.

    Other Issues

    The WTO also reported that positions have not changed in the discussions on the relationship between the TRIPS and the Convention on Biological Diversity, and the possible amendment to the TRIPS agreement to require a mandatory disclosure of the source of genetic resources and related traditional knowledge in patent applications.

    Speaking in favour of disclosure were countries such as: Angola speaking on behalf of Least Developed Countries, India, Brazil, China, Bangladesh, Peru, South Africa, Egypt, and the African Group. Those opposed included the United States and Japan, the WTO said.

    The meeting was chaired by Amb. Dacio Castillo of Honduras, acting in the absence of Amb. Alfredo Suescum of Panama. Suescum is one of four candidates for the position of director general of the neighbouring World Intellectual Property Organization. The WIPO election takes place on 6 March.

    The next TRIPS Council meeting is expected to take place on 11-12 June.

    [Update:] The WTO has issued a chart [pdf] “Where is the plain packaging issue in the WTO,” displaying the history of the ongoing disputes.

    Maëli Astruc and Julia Fraser, interns at Intellectual Property Watch, contributed to this story.

    Catherine Saez may be reached at info@ip-watch.ch.

     

    Comments

    1. Innovation Hubs, Green Technology Transfer On Agenda Of TRIPS Council | Intellectual Property Watch says:

      […] item on the role of university technology partnerships in intellectual property and innovation (IPW, WTO/TRIPS, 27 February 2014). This was criticised by India, which said that developed countries take for granted the fact that […]


    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 54.234.51.165