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.
Outcome Of ITU Global Regulators Symposium: Interview With Brahima Sanou 16/07/2018 by Intellectual Property Watch Leave a Comment Heads of national information and telecommunications regulatory authorities gathered in Geneva for an annual symposium, and agreed on global best practice guidelines for the new digital ecosystem. After the meeting, Brahima Sanou, head of the UN International Telecommunication Union Development Bureau answered Intellectual Property Watch on the outcome of the meeting, and topics such as privacy and the digital divide.
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.
The Myth Of IP Incentives For All Nations – Q&A With Carlos Correa 20/06/2018 by Intellectual Property Watch 15 Comments Dr Carlos Maria Correa, an Argentinian economist and lawyer, is globally renowned for his expertise on international trade, intellectual property, health, technology transfer, investment policy and especially their impact on developing countries. He has authored several books and academic articles and been a visiting professor at several universities. Additionally, he has consulted with many United Nations agencies, the World Bank, and other regional and international organisations and has advised several governments on intellectual property, innovation policy and public health. Correa was a member of the UK Commission on Intellectual Property, of the Commission on Intellectual Property, Innovation and Public Health established by the World Health Assembly and of the FAO Panel of Eminent Experts on Ethics in Food and Agriculture. Currently, he is the Director of the Centre for Interdisciplinary Studies on Industrial Property and Economics Law, at the University of Buenos Aires. He takes over as the Executive Director of the Secretariat of the Geneva-based South Centre from 1 July 2018. Correa recently engaged in an interview with Patralekha Chatterjee for Intellectual Property Watch. [Note: this interview is number two of two. The first was with Dr Othoman Mellouk.]
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.
The Myth Behind Health And Trade Agreements – Q&A With Othoman Mellouk 18/06/2018 by Intellectual Property Watch 12 Comments Dr Othoman Mellouk is a Moroccan treatment advocate who has been working on intellectual property and access to medicines for more than a decade. He is the Intellectual Property and Access to Medicines Lead at the international treatment preparedness coalition (ITPC), a global network of people living with HIV and their advocates working together to achieve access to HIV and Viral Hepatitis and a member of the WHO Strategic and Technical Advisory Committee on HIV and Hepatitis. Dr Mellouk started off in the Association for the Fight against AIDS which has been at the forefront of the response to HIV in Morocco and the introduction of the first anti-HIV generic medicines in the country. In a series supported by the Make Medicines Affordable organisation, Mellouk recently engaged in an interview with Patralekha Chatterjee for Intellectual Property Watch. [Note: this interview is one of two. An interview with Carlos Correa will follow.]
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 ».