US Music Modernization Act Becomes “The Law Of The Land”; A Boost For Songwriter Compensation 12/10/2018 by Emmanuel Legrand for Intellectual Property Watch Leave a Comment The Music Modernization Act, legislation that will transform the music licensing framework in the United States, was signed into law by President Donald Trump during a ceremony at the White House on 11 October that included several artists such as Sam Moore from Sam & Dave, Kid Rock, Mike Love of the Beach Boys and Jeff Baxter of the Doobie Brothers and Steely Dan, among others.
Trade Agreements Making Rules In New Technologies, Territoriality An Issue For IP In Digital Age 11/10/2018 by Catherine Saez, Intellectual Property Watch 2 Comments As new technologies have pervaded society, with more to come, policymaking has become a difficult exercise. Rules established before those game-changing technologies might be outdated. A session at the World Trade Organization Public Forum last week looked at how intellectual property rules are faring in the time of digital technologies. Speakers remarked on the role of regional trade agreements in norm-setting, and the growing issue of the territoriality of rights for copyright.
EU Updates Customs Action Plan To Fight Growing IPR Infringements 10/10/2018 by Dugie Standeford for Intellectual Property Watch Leave a Comment Concerned by the ever-increasing influx of counterfeit and pirated goods into Europe, European Union member states on 9 October backed a new customs action plan for 2018-2022. The first step will be a roadmap for implementation from the European Commission (EC) by next spring.
Broadcasters Eager For Global Signal Protection; Others Warn Of Major Players Sneaking In 09/10/2018 by Catherine Saez, Intellectual Property Watch Leave a Comment The so-called broadcasting treaty being negotiated at the World Intellectual Property Organization is supported by broadcasters’ organisations in the hope that it will stanch signal piracy. Some voices however, warn about creating a right that might be captured by large internet corporations such as Facebook, Google and Netflix, which can be a stone’s throw away from acquiring radio or television channels to qualify for the protection of the potential treaty. They also challenge the duration and scope of the protection. A seminar gathering stakeholders last week looked at implications of the treaty.
US High Court To Confront Unique Copyright Issue 05/10/2018 by Steven Seidenberg for Intellectual Property Watch 1 Comment The US Supreme Court often decides momentous cases. And then there’s Fourth Estate Pub. Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com. Many experts view this case as little more than a tempest in a teapot. However, the suit will resolve a legal dispute that has simmered for over 30 years, and it highlights some important copyright issues that are unique to the US.
Conference Preview: Respect For IP – Growing From The Tip of Africa 04/10/2018 by William New, Intellectual Property Watch 1 Comment The World Intellectual Property Organization is partnering with a range of other organisations and the government of South Africa to hold an international conference on “respect for intellectual property.” The conference will take place from 23-25 October in Sandton, South Africa. Intellectual Property Watch conducted an interview with Louise Van Greunen, Director, Building Respect for IP Division, about the upcoming conference.
Alternate Dispute Resolution For IP Gains Momentum, Panellists Say At WIPO 01/10/2018 by Catherine Saez, Intellectual Property Watch 1 Comment Protecting an invention or a creation with intellectual property rights is only truly effective if inventors and creators can enforce those rights. Small and medium sized enterprises find it difficult and costly to go to court to sue potential infringers of their IP rights, and most time, just renounce, according to speakers at a panel on the side of the World Intellectual Property Organization General Assemblies this week. A much cheaper and quicker route than going to court is to seek dispute resolution through a dedicated service, the panellists said.
Protection Against Broadcast Signal Theft Steps Forward At WIPO General Assembly 28/09/2018 by Catherine Saez, Intellectual Property Watch Leave a Comment World Intellectual Property Organization members today reached consensus on the way forward on a potential treaty protecting broadcasting organisations from signal theft, elevating the prospect of a high-level diplomatic negotiating meeting in the horizon.
Interview With The Korea IP Office’s Acting Commissioner 27/09/2018 by Intellectual Property Watch Leave a Comment Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO) Acting Commissioner Kim Tae Man is attending the annual World Intellectual Property Organization General Assembly this week. In that context, he sat down with Intellectual Property Watch, and in a mutually prepared Q&A, he described some of KIPO’s policies and future plans, collaboration with WIPO, international partnerships, and regional efforts toward global harmonisation.
Why Follow-On Pharmaceutical Innovations Should Be Eligible For Patent Protection 21/09/2018 by Intellectual Property Watch 1 Comment Christopher M. Holman writes: Despite the important role of intellectual property rights in incentivizing innovation, the patenting of pharmaceutical innovation is frequently accused of impeding access to medicine. Criticism of the prevailing patent regime has focused in particular on patents directed towards follow-on pharmaceutical innovation, i.e., innovation that seeks to improve upon existing pharmaceuticals and their use in treating patients. Patents on follow-on innovation are often derided as “secondary” patents, with the implication that the underlying inventions are somehow lesser in nature than the subject matter claimed in “primary” patents, i.e., the drug active ingredient per se. While implicitly acknowledging the legitimacy of primary patents, critics of so-called secondary patents contend that patents on follow-on innovation allow drug innovators to “evergreen” their products, i.e., to extend the period of patent exclusivity beyond the expiration of any original patent on the drug active ingredient, and in doing so contribute to the high cost of drugs, thereby limiting the ability of patients to access the drugs upon which they have come to rely.
