Indian Patent Policy and Publich Health : implications from the Japanese Experience

The introduction of pharmaceutical product patents in India and other developing countries is expected to have a significant effect on public health and local pharmaceutical industries. This paper draws implications from the historical experience of Japan when it introduced product patents in 1976. In Japan, narrow patents and promotion of cross-licensing were effective tools to keep drug prices in check while ensuring the introduction of new drugs. While the global pharmaceutical market surrounding India today differs considerably from that of the 1970's, the Japanese experience offers a policy option that may profitably be considered by India today. The Indian patent system emphasizes the patentability requirement in contrast to the Japanese patent policy which relied on narrow patents and extensive licensing. R&D by local firms and the development of local products may be promoted more effectively under the Japanese model.

Patent policy and public health in developing countries: lessons from Japan

The introduction of pharmaceutical product patents in India and other developing countries is expected to have a significant effect on public health and local pharmaceutical industries. This paper draws implications from the historical experience of Japan when it introduced product patents in 1976. In Japan, narrow patents and promotion of cross-licensing were effective tools to keep drug prices in check while ensuring the introduction of new drugs. While the global pharmaceutical market surrounding India today differs considerably from that of the 1970's, the Japanese experience offers a policy option that may profitably be considered by India today. The Indian patent system emphasizes the patentability requirement in contrast to the Japanese patent policy which relied on narrow patents and extensive licensing. R&D by local firms and the development of local products may be promoted more effectively under the Japanese model.

Features of IP rights enforcement in Korea and China

This report examines recent updates to the regulation and enforcement of intellectual property (IP) rights in Korea and China, in particular patent rights including invention, utility, and design rights. This paper also discusses some features and issues of the actual IP enforcement situation in those countries in comparison with Japan.

Linked Data Rights 2.0: extension of ODRL for Licensing Linked Data

Linked Data assets (RDF triples, graphs, datasets, mappings...) can be object of protection by the intellectual property law, the database law or its access or publication be restricted by other legal reasons (personal data pro- tection, security reasons, etc.). Publishing a rights expression along with the digital asset, allows the rightsholder waiving some or all of the IP and database rights (leaving the work in the public domain), permitting some operations if certain conditions are satisfied (like giving attribution to the author) or simply reminding the audience that some rights are reserved.

Poder da marca: interações entre direito antitruste e direito industrial

O presente trabalho busca analisar os diferentes tratamentos dispensados à marca no âmbito do controle preventivo e no controle repressivo de condutas. A análise da função social das marcas demonstrou que esta é uma propriedade que se realiza na concorrência e pela concorrência. Nesse sentido, não há dúvidas de que está sujeita aos princípios do Direito Concorrencial. Todavia, a maneira como esses princípios balizam a marca no controle de atos de concentração, de um lado, e no controle repressivo de condutas, de outro, difere. No âmbito do controle de atos de concentração, a atuação da autoridade concorrencial é orientada por uma variante do princípio da precaução, o que a autoriza a tomar decisões e impor restrições aos direitos marcários mesmo em um contexto de incerteza. No âmbito do controle repressivo de condutas, todavia, a intervenção do CADE está sujeita aos princípios do Processo Administrativo Sancionador. Neste contexto, as condutas que envolvem o uso de direitos de propriedade intelectual, incluindo as marcas, devem ser analisadas à luz do princípio da estrita legalidade. Um critério jurídico objetivo é necessário para distinguir o lícito do ilícito, sobretudo em um cenário no qual estão em jogo duas políticas públicas distintas: a de proteção à concorrência e a de proteção à direitos de propriedade industrial. Sendo essas duas políticas instrumentais e parciais, voltadas a um fim maior de política econômica, devem harmonizar-se, e não sobrepor-se uma a outra. Ademais, o escopo de atuação da autoridade concorrencial em processos que investiguem o uso abusivo de direitos marcários e atos de concorrência desleal deve ser esclarecido. O direito concorrencial, enquanto ramo autônomo do direito, com princípios e métodos interpretativos próprios, pode analisar institutos e figuras de outros ramos que com ele guardem relação sem ter de ficar adstrito ao posicionamento de outras instâncias.

Causation and Harm in a Multicomponent World

On September 17, 2015, the Federal Circuit issued another decision in the epic Apple v. Samsung smartphone war. This was the fourth court decision in the ongoing saga to deal with injunctions. Apple IV explained the level of proof necessary to satisfy the "causal nexus" requirement. This requirement had emerged as a response to patent litigations involving products with thousands of features, the vast majority of which are unrelated to the asserted patent. To prove a causal nexus, patentees seeking an injunction have to do more than just show that the infringing product caused the patentee irreparable harm. The harm must be specifically attributable to the infringing feature. In Apple IV, the Federal Circuit noted that proving causation was "nearly impossible" in these multicomponent cases. So it decided to water down the causal nexus requirement saying that it was enough for Apple to show that the infringing features were "important"and customer sought these particular features. This lower standard is an ill-advised mistake that leaves multicomponent product manufacturers more susceptible to patent holdup. My critique takes two parts. First, I argue that a single infringing feature rarely, if ever, "causes" consumers to buy the infringer’s multicomponent products. The minor features at issue in Apple IV illustrate this point vividly. Thus, the new causal nexus standard does not accurately reflect how causation and harm operate in a multicomponent world. Second, I explain why the court was so willing to accept such little evidence of real injury. It improperly applied notions of traditional property law to patents. Specifically, the court viewed patent infringement as harmful regardless of any concrete consequences. This view may resonate for other forms of property where an owner's rights are paramount and a trespass is considered offensive in and of itself. But the same concepts do not apply to patent law where the Supreme Court has consistently said that private interests must take a back seat to the public good. Based on these principles, the courts should restore the "causal nexus" requirement and not presume causation.

Notes on cases in Plymouth, Barnstable and Duke Counties, 1785

Includes notes on cases of property law, and assault and battery.

What TRIPS is and what is is not

For industry people, journalists, activists, lawyers, diplomats, national legislators, and students of the World Trade Organization's Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS) has awesome proportions. These are magnified by the fact that these groups lack detailed knowledge of either IP as such or international trade law. IP involves a broad spread of academic specialists and practitioners covering heterogeneous complex regimes of patents, copyright, trade marks, design, undisclosed information (trade secrets), and geographical indications. IP, and subsequently TRIPS, is the meeting point of many stakeholders and actors with conflicting interests spread between market aspirations and concepts of public good. In a globalized economy with deep interconnections across sectors, national borders challenged by inchoate technologies, dynamic social stakeholders, and converging technologies, it is fundamental to have a clear and uncluttered understanding of this Agreement. That is because TRIPS impinges on trade in many products of daily life, from pharmaceuticals to entertainment electronics, as well as mitigating and adaptive technologies for climate change and sustainable development. Given its saliency and ubiquity in economic life, TRIPS has often generated misunderstanding and controversy in the public debate. To complicate matters, technical and legal issues at the interface of technology, IP, and trade remain the province of an eclectic band of specialists and on the radar of interest groups with goals on opposite poles.

Rehabilitating the common intention trust

Position of the common intention principle in Australia - the principle should continue to exist - evidentiary difficulties means that the principle is infrequently invoked - claimants who cannot produce sufficient evidence of a common intention may be entitled to relief via equitable estoppel or the joint endeavour principle - the doctrinal foundation of the common intention trust - alternative rationales for the common intention trust.