Shifting Mindsets To Improve Access To Medicine 13/09/2016 by Intellectual Property Watch 2 Comments What levers need to be pulled to improve access to medicine worldwide? Jayasree K. Iyer, Executive Director of the Access to Medicines Index, shares ideas that she says would lead to more people accessing the medicine they need.
Rebuttal Letter – WIPO Human Resources Report A “Whitewash” 07/09/2016 by Intellectual Property Watch 1 Comment Ed Flaherty writes: Please be advised that I represent the duly elected members of the World Intellectual Property Organisation’s Staff Council. On their behalf, I must respond to the inaccuracies contained in the article entitled: “WIPO Human Resources: All Is Harmony, Secretariat Says” published on the IP-Watch website on 29 August 2016. The HRMD report from which this article is lifted presents a whitewashed and totally unrealistic picture of the current situation at WIPO.
A Principle Of Balance: Top Official Explains India’s IP Policy 07/09/2016 by Intellectual Property Watch Leave a Comment Adopted in May, the first Indian intellectual property policy brought some concerns that the focus on IP rights might dampen India’s willingness to use the IP flexibilities to safeguard national policy space. It was also perceived by some as giving in to pressure from the foreign pharmaceutical industry for India to strengthen patent protection. However, a high level Indian official in an interview this week said the policy caters to Indian development needs and India is aware of its pioneering role in certain sectors like access to medicines. Rajiv Aggarwal, Joint Secretary at the Indian Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion Ministry of Commerce & Industry sat down with Intellectual Property Watch’s Catherine Saez to describe how India’s IP policy came into being, to what aim, what it is expected to change in the Indian IP landscape, and how Indian is standing fast to its principle of balance.
Innovation And Access: Fission Or Fusion? Interview With Jennifer Dent, President, BIO Ventures For Global Health (BVGH) 01/09/2016 by Guest contributor for Intellectual Property Watch Leave a Comment In the light of the UN High-Level Panel on Access to Medicines, this series of sponsored articles challenges experts to give their views on the policies that best support the development of solutions to societies’ greatest challenges and how enabling policy environments, including IP systems, influence the development and flow of new technologies and services in different sectors, fields of technology, and jurisdictions. The views expressed in the articles are those of the authors. Below is an interview with Jennifer Dent, President, BIO Ventures for Global Health (BVGH).
The Expert On IP For Internet Protocol: Interview With Scott Bradner 19/08/2016 by Intellectual Property Watch 1 Comment Fluent in both types of IP: Scott Bradner has been an architect of intellectual property (IP) policy for internet protocol (IP) standards. He played a core role in the development of internet protocol, leading to the very digital revolution we know today, as well as the next generation IPv6, all the while designing intellectual property policy to go along with it. Here is an interview with Bradner.
The Downfall Of Invention: A Broken Patent System 18/08/2016 by Intellectual Property Watch 1 Comment The cost of dozens of brand-name drugs have nearly doubled in just the past five years. Public outrage over drug prices extends from Capitol Hill to the presidential candidates to patients. In response, pharmaceutical executives are spending more on lobbying and marketing. Yet for all this attention, most of the proposed solutions for reducing prescription drug costs—tougher negotiations, appeals for transparent R&D costs or investigations into insurers—miss one of the primary sources of the problem: the way we award patents, writes Tahir Amin.
Number Of Unique Patent Assertions Declined Over Years, Patexia Finds 17/08/2016 by Intellectual Property Watch 3 Comments Pedram Sameni of Patexia writes: We recently studied the PTAB data and suggested that although the rise and fall in litigation indirectly affected the rise and fall in IPR challenges, the true driver of IPR challenges is the number of unique patents asserted each year. To learn more, we decided to look at the number of unique patents asserted against different defendants since 2010. We made several interesting discoveries, including the surprising fact that even though the number of cases has been rising, the number of unique patents asserted each year has been declining.
Growing Call For Transparency Within African CMOs To Ensure Membership Confidence 16/08/2016 by Hillary Muheebwa for Intellectual Property Watch Leave a Comment KAMPALA, Uganda — Collective management organisations (CMOs) in African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO) member states, and Africa at large, have the potential to contribute to the growth and development of creative industries. However, they need to be supported, guided and supervised to ensure that they achieve the purpose for which they are established.
Summer Changes Make A Splash In The IP Community 28/07/2016 by Catherine Saez and Alexandra Nightingale for Intellectual Property Watch Leave a Comment Over the summer months, people in the intellectual property world continue to circulate. UNITAID has changed heads, and other well-known figures in Geneva set off to new horizons. And no rest it seems for law offices, which maintained their usual level of moves between firms. Here is the latest on People in the IP community.
US High Court Restores Treble Damages For Patent Infringement 26/07/2016 by Steven Seidenberg for Intellectual Property Watch 3 Comments Pulse Electronics was guilty of patent infringement. That had been decided long ago. The only remaining issue was how much Pulse must pay for its wrongdoing. The company could be liable for treble damages, provided its infringement was willful. Fortunately for Pulse, willful infringement was almost impossible to prove, thanks to a standard established by the Federal Circuit. Unfortunately for Pulse, its lawsuit reached the US Supreme Court. And in its recent ruling on the case, the high court threw out the Federal Circuit’s standard, making it far easier to prove willful infringement. The decision is likely to have an important impact on patent litigation, the courts, and companies doing business in the US.