IP Experts Kick Off UC Berkeley Innovation Centre With Calls For Change 24/08/2015 by William New, Intellectual Property Watch 1 Comment BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA — “There’s one thing we’re very good at in this nation, and that’s innovation,” Tusher Center Director and Professor David Teece said recently in setting the tone for a day of discussions inspired by the launch of the new center at the University of California at Berkeley.
USPTO Proposes New PTAB Trial Rules 22/08/2015 by Intellectual Property Watch Leave a Comment This week the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published a proposed rule to amend the existing rules of practice for inter partes review, post-grant review, the transitional program for covered business method patents and derivation proceedings that implemented provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA).
The Intersection Of Trade Secret Law And Social Media Privacy Legislation 20/08/2015 by Intellectual Property Watch Leave a Comment By Eric F. Barton, Esq., Seyfarth Shaw LLP There is no question that social media privacy issues now permeate the workplace. In an attempt to provide further guidance and regulation in this area, since April 2012, a growing number of state legislatures in the United States have passed various forms of social media privacy legislation. […]
US Postpones Domain Name System Handover At Least A Year, Maybe Four 19/08/2015 by William New, Intellectual Property Watch Leave a Comment The United States Department of Commerce office planning to relinquish national control over a remaining key component of the internet domain name system has said it will take at least until September 2016, putting off the transition that had been targeted for next month.
Trade Secrets: The ‘Reasonable Steps’ Requirement 19/08/2015 by Intellectual Property Watch Leave a Comment Trade secret theft is a top risk for companies today. When the worst does happen and trade secrets are compromised, companies must prove that reasonable steps have been taken to protect a company’s crown jewels. But determining what “reasonable steps” are can be challenging. Governments have been vague about the term’s definition; and laws and legislation continue to evolve on this issue. However, court actions do provide insight on the ‘reasonable steps requirement’ and point to the need for companies to embed trade secret protection into business operations to qualify as legal protection, writes Pamela Passman.
Was Google’s Unexpected Move To Create Alphabet About ‘Genericization’? 18/08/2015 by Catherine Saez, Intellectual Property Watch 1 Comment When Google announced on 10 August that it was creating an umbrella organisation called Alphabet, encompassing Google itself and its many satellite companies, word spread like fire. The unexpected move left everybody guessing, and some thinking about Google’s effort to protect its valuable brand and keep its name from becoming a generic term for searching the internet.
IP-Watch Seeks Part-Time Fundraising/Outreach Expert 31/07/2015 by Intellectual Property Watch Leave a Comment Intellectual Property Watch is seeking a dynamic person to help expand our fundraising and outreach activities. [Position closed]
The TPP’s Reckless Proposals For Damages Will Have Negative Impact On Future Reform Of IPR Regimes 28/07/2015 by Intellectual Property Watch 13 Comments James Love writes: This week negotiators from a dozen countries are meeting to finalize the rules for the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement. When or if concluded, this massive regional trade agreement will set new standards for the grant of property rights in knowledge, and the enforcement of those rights. The TPP chapter on intellectual property covers all intellectual property types included in Part II of the WTO’s TRIPS agreement, plus some others, including not only patents, copyrights and trademarks, but also “undisclosed information”, test data for the registration of drugs, industrial designs, layout-designs of integrated circuits. The rules in the TPP are intended by the United States to become global norms, effectively replacing TRIPS. While there are plenty of issues in the TPP IP Chapter, this note only addresses one set of issues — those relating to the remedies for the infringement of intellectual property rights. The remedies include such topics as injunctions, damages, and the seizure or destruction of infringing goods.
As TPP Ministers Meet, NGOs Make Urgent Push For Public Interest 27/07/2015 by William New, Intellectual Property Watch Leave a Comment Trade ministers negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement meet this week in Maui, Hawaii to try to finish the deal. Along with them are numerous public interest groups strenuously lobbying to steer the deal away from single-minded corporate interest.
Decision Time On Biologics Exclusivity: Eight Years Is No Compromise 27/07/2015 by Intellectual Property Watch 14 Comments Burcu Kilic and Courtney Pine write: As the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations approach their endgame, biologics exclusivity is still considered “one of the most difficult outstanding issues in the negotiation.”[2] Pharmaceutical companies seek longer data and marketing exclusivities to further delay market entry of cost-saving biosimilar drugs. Data exclusivity prevents follow-on pharmaceutical developers from relying on originators’ test data submitted for marketing approval while seeking such approval for its own product. The World Trade Organization’s (WTO) Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) requires some protection against unfair competition for this sort of data, but it does not require countries to adopt rules conveying exclusive rights over it in the same way as it does regarding patents.[3] Currently, the US provides 12 years of exclusivity for new biological products under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA).[4] The provision providing 12 years exclusivity was buried inside the 20,000-page healthcare law, The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. A robust debate over what would be an appropriate exclusivity period, if any, was overshadowed by other controversial aspects of the bill commonly referred to as Obamacare.