Made In China: The Past, Present And Future Of Chinese IPR14/06/2017 by Intellectual Property Watch Leave a CommentConservative projections say that China will surpass the United States as the number one economy in the world by 2030, but the shift could happen as soon as next year. Either way, there’s no doubt that China has emerged as one of the most important commercial economies in the world, and businesses everywhere are vying to enter its market. However, there is a serious hurdle when foreign companies decide to take their products to China – intellectual property rights (IPR), or more accurately, the country’s lack of adequate IP protection. History shows that bringing business to China, while extremely lucrative, has also been extremely risky – but it’s a market that cannot be ignored. Here is a look at the past, present and future of IPR in China.
A Brief Analysis Of Nepal’s First National IP Policy09/06/2017 by Guest contributor for Intellectual Property Watch Leave a CommentEarlier this year, the Nepal Government released its long-awaited first national intellectual property policy, after becoming the first least developed country (LDC) to join the World Trade Organization (WTO) on 23 April 2004.
US Supreme Court Adopts International Exhaustion Of Patents (Part II): Addressing the New Competitive Landscape08/06/2017 by Intellectual Property Watch Leave a CommentThe US Supreme Court has created a new competitive landscape with its decision adopting international exhaustion of patents. For the pharmaceutical sector, we can expect an initial period of uncertainty as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) assesses the regulatory framework affected by the decision and as competing stakeholders advance their interests. In an earlier Inside Views contribution, I addressed the principal impact of the decision on the US pharmaceuticals market: downward pricing pressure.[1] This follow-on addresses some of the regulatory and access issues affected by the decision, observing that parallel trade in pharmaceutical products is a long-standing practice, that recently introduced US legislative proposals may shape the regulatory framework in the United States, and concluding with ways that access programs in favor of developing countries are protected.
REGISTER NOW! The Global Debate On Intellectual Property, Trade And Development: Past, Present and Future05/06/2017 by Guest contributor for Intellectual Property Watch Leave a CommentThe Global Debate on Intellectual Property, Trade and Development: Past, Present and Future A Conference in Honour of Pedro Roffe
US Supreme Court Adopts International Exhaustion For Patents: Paving the way for parallel imports to exert downward pressure on domestic pharmaceutical (and other) prices31/05/2017 by Intellectual Property Watch 1 CommentThe Supreme Court of the United States on May 30, 2017 adopted a rule of international exhaustion of patent rights for the United States in Impression Products v. Lexmark International, No. 15-1189. The near-unanimous decision authored by Chief Justice Roberts is unambiguous and unequivocal.[1] The Court paid short shrift to contrary decisions of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Jazz Photo Corp. v. International Trade Commission, 264 F. 3d 1094 (Fed. Cir. 2001) and in this case on certiorari, Lexmark International v. Impression Products, 816 F.3d 721 (Fed. Cir. 2016).In addition to adopting international exhaustion, the Supreme Court ruled firmly against enforcement of post-sale restrictions through infringement actions based on patent. The Court allowed for enforcement under contract law of limitations that may be included in patent licenses.
Interplay Between Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) And ITC Section 337 Proceedings05/05/2017 by Guest contributor for Intellectual Property Watch Leave a CommentSince the passage of the America Invents Act (“AIA”) in 2011, Inter Partes Reviews (“IPRs”) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) have assumed growing importance in patent litigation in federal district courts. Until recently, IPRs have not played a significant role in International Trade Commission (“ITC”) Section 337 investigations. While the ITC is unlikely to stay a Section 337 investigation, pending IPRs will likely have an increasing impact at the ITC, especially when an IPR proceeding reaches an advanced stage before or during the pendency of a Section 337 investigation. This article examines the limited interplay to date between IPRs and Section 337 proceedings and discusses potential implications for future investigations.
Enlisting Government Help To Protect Your Trade Secrets03/05/2017 by Guest contributor for Intellectual Property Watch 1 Comment“I’m from the government and I’m here to help.” Yeah, right.Most businesses think protecting their intellectual property is their own responsibility, and it is. But what about when your intellectual property rights are violated by an evildoer? Who are you going to call?
The Global Debate On IP, Trade And Development: Past, Present and Future – A Conference in Honour of Pedro Roffe29/04/2017 by Guest contributor for Intellectual Property Watch 1 CommentRegister Now for The Global Debate on Intellectual Property, Trade and Development: Past, Present and Future – A Conference in Honour of Pedro Roffe, taking place on 15 June at the University of Geneva, Uni-Bastions, Geneva, Switzerland. Registration is open and free, see details.
TRIPS Flexibilities Under Threat From Investment Disputes: A Closer Look At Canada’s “Win” Against Eli Lilly27/04/2017 by Intellectual Property Watch 2 CommentsCynthia Ho writes: In the first known investment dispute regarding patents, Eli Lilly & Co v. Canada, Canada recently prevailed over the pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly. Although Canada won in a unanimous decision, the ruling does not, however, guarantee domestic discretion going forward, contrary to the suggestion of some.
The Web Is At A Crossroads – New Standard Enables Copyright Enforcement Violating Users’ Rights13/04/2017 by Intellectual Property Watch 3 CommentsThe World Wide Web today stands at a crossroads, as its standards body, the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), considers the demand of big content providers to provide them with the facility to be able to control user devices for ensuring that their content is not copied. This facility is called the Encrypted Media Extension (EME), which enables these companies to put digital rights management (DRM) into the user’s browser, whether the user wants it or not, and whether such restrictions are as per the user’s local national laws or not.
