Can A Surge In Activism Defeat American Big Pharma? 22/08/2018 by Guest contributor for Intellectual Property Watch Leave a Comment By Vinayak Bhardwaj – Not a day passes in America without news of a drug company raising prices on prescription drugs. Americans pay two to six times more for prescription drugs than those living in other developed countries, who earn the same income.
Counter-Measures – How Startups Can Fight Pirates Without Burning Cash 03/08/2018 by Guest contributor for Intellectual Property Watch Leave a Comment Patent litigation can drain capital during the crucial first few months of launching new technology, a particular problem in the capital-intensive hardware space. Companies need to find creative ways to go after patent thieves without stifling growth or ceding market share, writes Michael A. Nicolas.
Dangers Of Means Plus Function Limitations In US Patent Prosecution 19/07/2018 by Intellectual Property Watch 1 Comment Broad patent protection is one of the goals when securing patent protection for inventions (i.e., new products and services). However, issues start to arise when the claim language becomes too broad. For example, broad claims might be construed as a means plus function limitation against the intentions of the patent prosecutor, and in some cases, those patents are invalidated as being indefinite. At least, this is the case with US patent prosecution. The patent laws of other jurisdictions treat means plus function style of claiming differently, and in my experience, less detrimental to the validity of the patent, writes James Yang.
Albania Introduces New Trademark Regulation 17/07/2018 by Guest contributor for Intellectual Property Watch 1 Comment A new trademark regulation entered into force in Albania on June 7, 2018, clarifying a range of issues raised by the changes to the Albanian Industrial Property Law in force as of March 24, 2017. Some of the most significant changes and clarifications concern the following:
Excessive Pricing And Sham Patent Litigation: The Pfizer And AbbVie Decisions 03/07/2018 by Intellectual Property Watch 2 Comments Frederick Abbott writes: Competition law is a critical tool in seeking to maintain some semblance of reasonable pricing in the pharmaceutical market. It is particularly important as legislators around the world appear extremely hesitant to address pharmaceutical pricing in meaningful ways, regrettably influenced by well-funded lobbying. Two recent competition law decisions discussed below illustrate the importance of and challenges to regulating the pharmaceutical sector. In the first, the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) partially upheld and partially reversed and remanded (pending briefing) a decision by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) fining Pfizer and Flynn close to £90 million for abuse of dominant position in the excessive pricing of an anti-epilepsy drug. The CAT decision is problematic because it creates unnecessary and unwarranted hurdles to findings of excessive pricing in the UK. In the second decision, the US Federal Trade Commission succeeds in proving that AbbVie engaged in abuse of monopoly power by engaging in sham patent litigation against two generic producers in order to delay market entry of competitive products. The Federal District Court found that AbbVie’s patent lawyers by “clear and convincing” evidence had knowingly pursued patent infringement claims without chance of success for no other purpose than to delay market entry.
WTO Panel On Australia’s Tobacco Plain Packaging: A Fact Dependent Analysis Of TRIPS Art 20 03/07/2018 by Intellectual Property Watch 4 Comments The WTO Panel’s long-awaited Reports in the four complaints against Australia’s tobacco plain packaging measures were circulated on 28 June 2018, more than 4 years since Panel establishment. Australia’s victory was absolute. It successfully defended its measures against every claim. Yet closer analysis of the Panel’s reasoning regarding specific provisions such as Article 20 of the TRIPS Agreement may cause some concern for policy-makers given how much the Panel’s conclusions relied on its assessment of the facts and evidence before it.
Прекратить неавторизованный доступ к генетическим ресурсам (а именно, Биопиратство): принцип ограниченной открытости 19/06/2018 by Intellectual Property Watch Leave a Comment «Доступ к генетическим ресурсам» и «справедливое и честное распределение выгод от их использования» были камнем предкновения на всех тринадцати Конференциях сторон-участников Соглашения Организации Объединенных Наций от 1993 года о Биологическом разнoобразии (CBD). Слова в кавычках составляют третью задачу договора, которая переплетена с двумя первыми, а именно с задачей консервации и устойчивого использования. По первым буквам английского названия эта задача сокращенно обозначается как «ABS». Несмотря на 25 лет усилий и при размерах био-экономики порядка 1 триллиона долларов [1], было заключено немного контрактов [2]. И в этом малом количестве контрактов денежная часть так незначительна, что их участники не пожелали ее обнародовать. «Закон ABS Бразилии» от 2015, который вошел в силу 6 ноября 2017, позволяет чтобы отчисления от суммы продаж составляли всего одну десятую процента[3]. Используя выражение известного ученого-законоведа, потребитель платит «пшик» авторам биоресурсов.
Rethinking Article III Standing In IPR Appeals At The Federal Circuit (US) 18/06/2018 by Intellectual Property Watch 1 Comment If the Federal Circuit will not correct its misplaced jurisprudence, then it is time for the Supreme Court to correct course, and bring into line the Federal Circuit’s IPR standing to appeal jurisprudence, with the Supreme Court’s (and other Circuits’) more forgiving law of allowing petitioners whose petitions are denied, to challenge such denials, particularly when Congress has set forth reasonable conditions, like Section 319, upon which such challenge is to occur, write Charles Macedo, Chandler Sturm, and James Howard.
Deference, Not Delegation! – WIPO PCT Negotiations 17/06/2018 by Intellectual Property Watch 1 Comment A new PCT Proposal seeks to amend the PCT Regulations so as to provide Member States to enter into a voluntary or opt-in arrangement that would allow such Member state to ‘outsource’ it’s patenting mechanism to another country/ regional treaty office even if it is not a member of such regional treaty. However, a patenting office with a full-fledged examination cadre acts a core component in capacity building for the Member State and serves to protect against imposition of TRIPs plus provisions by being an active part of the national policy discourse. Instead of opting in for full-fledged ‘outsourcing’ of their patenting function, it may be a better idea (in the long term) to develop their internal patent office cadre, develop appropriate IP policies best suited to their stage of development and at the same time, giving deference to the patenting decisions of like-minded countries. Developing countries will stand to benefit more by showing deference to decisions of like countries, rather than delegating the power to make those decisions. By granting a Contracting state the power to grant and reject patents of another State, this proposal could tantamount to introducing substantive patent law provisions through the backdoor: an endeavour to harmonize substantive patent law that the WIPO has failed to achieve over the years.
En finir avec l’accès aux ressources génétiques sans autorisation (c’est-à-dire avec la biopiraterie): « l’ouverture limitée » 12/06/2018 by Intellectual Property Watch 1 Comment L’ « accès aux ressources génétiques » et le « partage juste et équitable des avantages découlant de leur utilisation » s’est révelé un véritable casse-tête pour l’ensemble des 13 Conférences des Parties à la Convention des Nations Unies sur la Diversité Biologique (CDB). La formule, entre guillemets, qu’on désigne par l’acronyme « APA », se réfère au troisième objectif de la Convention, lequel est étroitement liée aux deux premiers, à savoir la conservation et l’utilisation durable de ces ressources. Malgré 25 années consécutives d’efforts et dans un contexte où le marché de la biotechnologie représente, annuellement, un trillion de dollars, peu d’accords APA ont été conclus jusqu’ici. Les bénéfices monétaires des quelques contrats existants sont si faibles que les contractants répugnent à les dévoiler. La « législation APA brésilienne » de 2015, qui est entrée en vigueur le 6 novembre 2017, permet par exemple d’offrir des royalties jusqu’à un dixième de pour cent du chiffre d’affaire. Selon les termes d’un éminent juriste: « les usagers paient des cacachuètes pour se servir de la biodiversité ».
