Big Pharma Stranglehold: Thwarting India As Independent Maker Of Blockbuster HIV Drugs? 28/10/2010 by Intellectual Property Watch 2 Comments Daniele Dionisio writes: The current break-through of multinational drug corporations in India couples with the protectionist policies pursued by the US and EU and with India’s obligations as a WTO member. Taken together, these realities mean a heavy threat to India’s freedom as independent provider of lifesaving, affordable and state-of-the-art antiretroviral medicines to the resource-limited countries.
Flexibility In Government Procurement Needed For Developing Countries 22/10/2010 by Intellectual Property Watch 3 Comments If public procurement for innovation is to be seen as part of developing countries’ industrial-policy portfolio, a recent paper argues accession to the GPA would not help, and advises against it, writes Riaz K. Tayob.
A Rights-Poor Protocol For Biodiversity Access & Benefit-Sharing 08/10/2010 by Intellectual Property Watch 2 Comments A leading indigenous negotiator for a UN protocol on biodiversity access and benefit sharing says the process will likely yield a highly diluted, rights-poor protocol and that Indigenous Peoples’ negotiating leverage is slipping.
The Realities Of Traditional Knowledge And Patents in India 27/09/2010 by Intellectual Property Watch 3 Comments India’s laws on traditional knowledge are yielding interesting positive and negative results, writes Mohan Dewan.
The Relationship Between IP, Technology Transfer, and Development 30/08/2010 by Intellectual Property Watch 3 Comments An analysis of practices and policies involving intellectual property, technology transfer and development shows the difficulties of achieving a positive correlation between those areas, writes Cheikh Kane.
Rapport entre propriété intellectuelle, transfert de technologie et développement 24/08/2010 by Intellectual Property Watch Leave a Comment Une analyse des pratiques et des politiques impliquant la propriété intellectuelle, le transfert de technologie et le développement démontre la difficulté à parvenir à une corrélation positive entre les différents domaines, écrit Cheikh Kane.
The Future Of Biotechnology Patents In The European Union 17/08/2010 by Intellectual Property Watch 2 Comments A recent Court of Justice of the European Union opinion in Monsanto Technology LLC v. Cefetra BV et al. may unintentionally inflict serious economic harm on the European biotechnology industry, argue industry attorneys Richard Peet, Vid Mohan-Ram, and Philippe Vlaemminck.
US Second Circuit Decision Opens Questions Of Transformative And Fair Use 27/07/2010 by Intellectual Property Watch 3 Comments A recent US court decision introduces entirely new questions about the balance between a transformative work and a copyright infringement. It also places the responsibility of balancing the public interest in freedom of expression against the interests of rights holders squarely in the hands of the court, writes Leslee Friedman.
Brazil’s Discussion On Copyright Law Reform – Response To The Digital Era? 15/07/2010 by Intellectual Property Watch 5 Comments Brazil is actively engaged in a cutting-edge debate over reform of its copyright law, involving issues such as the abuse of copyright holders and constructive exceptions in the law (like copying for education and/or transformative purposes and authorisation to copy by libraries and museums to preserve their works). But the government needs to hear from all interested parties – especially the artists – and avoid letting the debate transform into a political-ideological discussion, writes Brazilian lawyer Manuela Correia Botelho Colombo.
The Biosimilars Pathway: An Invitation To Litigation 11/06/2010 by Intellectual Property Watch Leave a Comment Lynn C. Tyler writes: The litigation provisions of the recently-enacted legislation establishing a pathway to bring biosimilars to market contain “patent” ambiguities in key areas, particularly whether the various lists of patents to be litigated are exclusive. Courts will have to resolve these issues over the next several years, likely at great (and unnecessary) expense and uncertainty to litigants.