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.
EU Parliament Backs Start Of Transatlantic FTA Negotiations
Read More >
Infojustice: Trans-Pacific Partnership IP Chapter Stalled
Read More >

Advertisement

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.

How Listing Ukraine As A Priority Foreign Country In Special 301 Violates WTO Agreements

Prof. Sean Flynn asks whether US sanctions of Ukraine under the US Special 301 program violates World Trade Organization rules. He also asks whether the operation of watch lists threatening sanctions for intellectual property matters could be challenged under the WTO even prior to any sanction going into effect.

People: Tracking IP Influencers’ Latest Moves

From changes in policymaking leadership and staffing shake-ups to a flurry of hiring in law firms and new strategic alliances, the past few months have been an interesting time for IP people watching. With over 40 news items and over 80 names, here’s a substantial update on who’s who across governments, nonprofit organisations, and the private sector.

After Court Ruling, US Still In Disarray On Software Patents

What inventions are eligible for patent protection? That question has roiled the US legal system for the last decade. But the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals (often called the nation’s patent court) was supposedly riding to the rescue. The court’s eagerly-awaited en banc decision in CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp. [pdf] was widely expected to clarify the patentability of computer-related inventions, which play a vital role in the US economy. Unfortunately, instead of clarifying the law, the court’s 10 May ruling increased the confusion, casting doubt on more than 300,000 patents - including one-fifth of all patents issued last year. Read More >

Latest Comments
  • Roland Norton on USTR: IPRs Among “Most Challenging” Issues As TPP Talks Accelerate
    As it happens, I own and create "intellectual prop... »
  • Riaz Tayob on WHO Stats Show Medicines Remain Out Of Reach Of Poorest Patients
    So long term planning of the UN Development Decade... »
    • 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 >

    Perspectives on the US
    By Steven Seidenberg for Intellectual Property Watch
    20 May 2013 - F e a t u r e s

    After Court Ruling, US Still In Disarray On Software Patents Available for IP-Watch Subscribers

    What inventions are eligible for patent protection? That question has roiled the US legal system for the last decade. But the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals (often called the nation’s patent court) was supposedly riding to the rescue. The court’s eagerly-awaited en banc decision in CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp. [pdf] was widely expected to clarify the patentability of computer-related inventions, which play a vital role in the US economy. Unfortunately, instead of clarifying the law, the court’s 10 May ruling increased the confusion, casting doubt on more than 300,000 patents - including one-fifth of all patents issued last year. Read More…

    23 April 2013

    US Supreme Court May Invalidate Gene Patents, But Create Little Change Available for IP-Watch Subscribers

    Prior to 15 April, most experts had expected the United States Supreme Court to rule in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics that genes cannot be patented. The oral argument on that date strengthened this consensus opinion, but also suggested that the court would issue a narrow decision which would allow many types of gene-related patents. Should this happen, the US would move significantly closer to other countries’ rules for gene patents, but the US would continue to have problems limiting patent rights in order to protect the public interest. Read More…

    14 March 2013 - F e a t u r e s

    US Perspectives: US Tries Gentler Copyright Enforcement Available for IP-Watch Subscribers

    On 25 February, the US opened a new front in its war against online copyright infringement. Five of the nation’s biggest internet service providers (ISPs) joined with the movie and music industries to launch the Copyright Alert System, a new means of attacking unauthorised file-sharing. This ISP-based enforcement system is similar to efforts in at least seven other industrialised countries. Some of these efforts have apparently slashed unauthorised file-sharing, which suggests the US system will be similarly successful. It is unclear, however, if the US system (or any of the other countries’ systems) will succeed in their ultimate goal – boosting revenues for the movie and music industries. Read More…

    18 February 2013 - F e a t u r e s

    Patent Outsourcing May Harm US Economy Available for IP-Watch Subscribers

    It has become routine for companies to outsource many business functions. Human resources, customer service, accounting, manufacturing of components – all have been outsourced. Now, however, a growing number of US businesses are outsourcing something new: patent licensing. And this outsourcing may hurt both the US economy and its patent system. Read More…

    11 January 2013 - F e a t u r e s

    After A Tough 2012, IP Owners In US Face An Uncertain 2013 Available for IP-Watch Subscribers

    Intellectual property owners in the United States may be happy to see the end of 2012. Among the notable setbacks they suffered last year: Congress refused to expand remedies against online infringement, the Supreme Court raised the bar for patentable inventions, and lower courts repeatedly denied injunctions against patent infringement. It is unclear, however, if IP owners will fare better in 2013. Read More…

    21 December 2012 - F e a t u r e s

    US Supreme Court Poised To Rule Human Genes Are Not Patentable Available for IP-Watch Subscribers

    For decades, the United States has pioneered the patenting of human genes, and other countries have followed this lead. But the US will soon perform an abrupt about-face, most experts predict. When the US Supreme Court hands down its decision in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, the justices appear likely to rule that human genes are not patentable subject matter. And the ruling may go even farther, holding that other forms of human DNA are not patentable. Read More…

    21 November 2012 - F e a t u r e s

    Overseas Manufacturing Creates Copyright Dilemma For US Supreme Court

    Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons presents the United States Supreme Court with a stark and weighty choice. In the 29 October oral argument [pdf], Supap Kirtsaeng urged the court to uphold purchasers’ right to freely dispose of copyrighted works they have purchased, even when those works are made overseas. If this right is struck down, Kirtsaeng warned, museums in the US may be unable to borrow works of art created overseas, consumers may be unable to sell their used books and CDs, and many companies engaged in secondary markets, such as eBay and used car dealers, may be put out of business. Read More…

    18 October 2012 - F e a t u r e s

    New USPTO Post-Grant Review A Small Step For Patent Harmonisation

    On 16 September, the United States made its patent system more like everyone else’s. The country began implementing a new patent office procedure for challenging the validity of recently issued patents. This was, however, only a modest step towards harmonisation because the US version of post-grant patent review has little in common with the corresponding processes available in other countries, according to experts. Read More…

    20 September 2012 - F e a t u r e s

    US And UN Consider New Limits On Patent Wars

    The patent wars have produced many casualties around the world. Companies that make and sell smartphones and tablet computers, courts, consumers and the economy – all have suffered, according to many experts.

    “I couldn’t come up with a worse system” for handling patent disputes, said Erich Spangenberg, chairman of IP Navigation Group, a consultancy. But significant reforms may be on the way, thanks to the US government and a United Nations agency. Read More…

    27 July 2012 - F e a t u r e s

    Innovation And The Law: Some Lessons From The Patent Wars

    They’ve been at each other’s throats for three years, and there’s no end in sight. Over two dozen businesses involved with smartphones and tablet computers are suing one another for patent infringement in numerous lawsuits around the world. These patent wars have cost the companies billions of dollars, clogged the courts, and prevented consumers from buying some devices they want with features they prefer. Is this really the best way to promote innovation and competition? Read More…

    25 June 2012

    A Bigger, Meaner Patent War

    Why today’s patent war is worse than past wars – and what this heralds for the future.

    It’s been called a patent war, and it’s raging over much of the globe. In at least ten countries – including the United States, Germany, the Netherlands, Australia and South Korea – Apple is locked in ferocious legal battles against Google, Samsung and HTC over whose smartphones and tablets infringe whose patents.

    There’s a lot a stake: Damages could run into billions of dollars. Even worse, the loser could wind up being forbidden to sell its products in various markets.

    This costly, high-stakes global patent war may seem unprecedented. But according to many experts, that’s only partly true. In many ways, this patent war is similar to major patent disputes in the past. And it is likely a foretaste of more patent wars in the future. Read More…

    3 May 2012 - F e a t u r e s

    Viacom v. YouTube: Chipping Away At The DMCA

    It was a major legal battle between copyright owners and online businesses. Then, on 5 April, online businesses won. Mostly. The US appellate court ruling in Viacom International, Inc. v. YouTube, Inc. basically upheld the legal protection that a key US statute grants to online firms. However, the ruling also opened several holes in that protection. Read More…

    13 April 2012

    US Supreme Court Edges Toward Reviewing Extent Of GMO Patents

    It’s unclear if the US Supreme Court wants to address yet another controversial issue in patent law, but on 2 April, the court took a small step in that direction. That’s when the court formally asked [pdf] the US Justice Department to opine on whether the high court should grant certiorari in Bowman v. Monsanto Co. Read More…

    5 April 2012

    After Mayo, Is Patent Law More Restrictive In US Than Europe?

    The United States is known for taking an unusually expansive approach towards patentable subject matter. Compared with Western Europe, for instance, the US has been far readier to grant patents on business methods, medical diagnostic processes, and human genes. Read More…

    15 March 2012

    More Foreigners Find Themselves Targets Of US Copyright Law

    All the experts agree: US copyright law doesn’t apply outside US borders. But try telling that to Kim Dotcom, Aubrey Canning, or the growing number of other foreigners whose activities outside the United States have resulted in sanctions under US copyright law. Read More…

    13 March 2012

    US Aims To Boost Its Efforts Against Overseas Infringers

    US President Barack Obama wants the country’s Justice Department to get by with a bit less money next fiscal year – but not when it comes to prosecuting overseas infringers of American IP rights. Read More…

    Steven Seidenberg is a freelance reporter and attorney who has been covering intellectual property developments in the US for more than 15 years. He is based in the greater New York City area and may be reached at info@ip-watch.ch.

     
    Your IP address is 107.20.48.175