Latin America's experience in dispute settlement within WTO: the cases of technical standards, sanitary and phytosanitary measures and intellectual property

Includes Bibliography

Intellectual Property and Joint Ventures

As in the first edition of the book, this chapter outlines the most important ways in which intellectual property is protected in Australia, and also the factors which affect the rights of joint venture participants in the absence of specific agreement between such participants. It then examines particular issues which may be considered in preparing appropriate documentation for any joint venture which involves the utilisation or generation of intellectual property to ensure that the joint venture participants achieve their desired result in terms of the allocation of ownership and control of such rights. The analysis includes and explanation of the special considerations which affect co-operation in research between industry and a university or government research institution. Finally, the rights of the joint venturers to intellectual property upon termination of the joint ventures are considered. The chapter incorporates the legislative changes and new cases in the field since the publication of the first edition.

Intellectual Property – What Went Wrong!

In its simplest form the patent system is designed to encourage the disclosure of innovative thought in exchange for a period of exclusivity in which the grantee of the rights may profit from such knowledge. I will attempt in this paper to show that patentees seeking to enforce their patents in Australia will face great difficulty through a number of potentially fatal pitfalls. I also submit that as a result of the decisions in Australia in reported patent cases in the last ten years, legal advisers should place their clients on notice that if they are trying to enforce their patents they are unlikely to succeed...

Turing and the Trans-Pacific Partnership: Intellectual Property, Public Health, and Access to Essential Medicines

A recent controversy in the United States over drug pricing by Turing Pharmaceuticals AG has raised larger issues in respect of intellectual property, access to medicines, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). In August 2015, Turing Pharmaceuticals AG – a private biopharmaceutical company with offices in New York, the United States, and Zug, Switzerland - acquired the exclusive marketing rights to Daraprim in the United States from Impax Laboratories Incorporated. Martin Shkreli, Turing’s Founder and Chief Executive Officer, maintained: “The acquisition of Daraprim and our toxoplasmosis research program are significant steps along Turing’s path of bringing novel medications to patients with serious disorders, some of whom often go undiagnosed and untreated.” He emphasised: “We intend to invest in the development of new drug candidates that we hope will yield an even better clinical profile, and also plan to launch an educational effort to help raise awareness and improve diagnosis for patients with toxoplasmosis.” In September 2015, there was much public controversy over the decision of Martin Shkreli to raise the price of a 62 year old drug, Daraprim, from $US13.50 to $US750 a pill. The drug is particularly useful in respect to the treatment and prevention of malaria, and in the treatment of infections in individuals with HIV/AIDS. Daraprim is listed on the World Health Organization’s (WHO) List of Essential Medicines. In the face of much criticism, Martin Shkreli has said that he will reduce the price of Daraprim. He observed: “We've agreed to lower the price on Daraprim to a point that is more affordable and is able to allow the company to make a profit, but a very small profit.” He maintained: “We think these changes will be welcomed.” However, he has been vague and ambiguous about the nature of the commitment. Notably, the lobby group, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhARMA), disassociated itself from the claims of Turing Pharmaceuticals. The group said: “PhRMA members have a long history of drug discovery and innovation that has led to increased longevity and improved lives for millions of patients.” The group noted: “Turing Pharmaceutical is not a member of PhRMA and we do not embrace either their recent actions or the conduct of their CEO.” The biotechnology peak body Biotechnology Industry Organization also sought to distance itself from Turing Pharmaceuticals. A hot topic: United States political debate about access to affordable medicines This controversy over Daraprim is unusual – given the age of drug concerned. Daraprim is not subject to patent protection. Nonetheless, there remains a monopoly in respect of the marketplace. Drug pricing is not an isolated problem. There have been many concerns about drug pricing – particularly in respect of essential medicines for HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. This recent controversy is part of a larger debate about access to affordable medicines. The dispute raises larger issues about healthcare, consumer rights, competition policy, and trade. The Daraprim controversy has provided impetus for law reform in the US. US Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton commented: “Price gouging like this in this specialty drug market is outrageous.” In response to her comments, the Nasdaq Biotechnology Index fell sharply. Hillary Clinton has announced a prescription drug reform plan to protect consumers and promote innovation – while putting an end to profiteering. On her campaign site, she has emphasised that “affordable healthcare is a basic human right.” Her rival progressive candidate, Bernie Sanders, was also concerned about the price hike. He wrote a letter to Martin Shkreli, complaining about the price increase for the drug Daraprim. Sanders said: “The enormous, overnight price increase for Daraprim is just the latest in a long list of skyrocketing price increases for certain critical medications.” He has pushed for reforms to intellectual property to make medicines affordable. The TPP and intellectual property The Daraprim controversy and political debate raises further issues about the design of the TPP. The dispute highlights the dangers of extending the rights of pharmaceutical drug companies under intellectual property, investor-state dispute settlement, and drug administration. Recently, the civil society group Knowledge Ecology International published a leaked draft of the Intellectual Property Chapter of the TPP. Knowledge Ecology International Director, James Love, was concerned the text revealed that the US “continues to be the most aggressive supporter of expanded intellectual property rights for drug companies.” He was concerned that “the proposals contained in the TPP will harm consumers and in some cases block innovation.” James Love feared: “In countless ways, the Obama Administration has sought to expand and extend drug monopolies and raise drug prices.” He maintained: “The astonishing collection of proposals pandering to big drug companies make more difficult the task of ensuring access to drugs for the treatment of cancer and other diseases and conditions.” Love called for a different approach to intellectual property and trade: “Rather than focusing on more intellectual property rights for drug companies, and a death-inducing spiral of higher prices and access barriers, the trade agreement could seek new norms to expand the funding of medical research and development (R&D) as a public good, an area where the US has an admirable track record, such as the public funding of research at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and other federal agencies.” In addition, there has been much concern about the Investment Chapter of the TPP. The investor-state dispute settlement regime would enable foreign investors to challenge government policy making, which affected their investments. In the context of healthcare, there is a worry that pharmaceutical drug companies will deploy their investor rights to challenge public health measures – such as, for instance, initiatives to curb drug pricing and profiteering. Such concerns are not merely theoretical. Eli Lilly has brought an investor action against the Canadian Government over the rejection of its drug patents under the investor-state dispute settlement regime of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The Health Annex to the TPP also raises worries that pharmaceutical drug companies will able to object to regulatory procedures in respect of healthcare. It is disappointing that the TPP – in the leaks that we have seen – has only limited recognition of the importance of access to essential medicines. There is a need to ensure that there are proper safeguards to provide access to essential medicines – particularly in respect of HIV/AIDs, malaria, and tuberculosis. Moreover, there must be protection against drug profiteering and price gouging in any trade agreement. There should be strong measures against the abuse of intellectual property rights. The dispute over Turing Pharmaceuticals AG and Daraprim is an important cautionary warning in respect of some of the dangers present in the secret negotiations in respect of the TPP. There is a need to preserve consumer rights, competition policy, and public health in trade negotiations over an agreement covering the Pacific Rim.

Protection of property and criminal law - A study with special reference to intellectual property

Theoretically speaking, property is extension of the personality of the individual. It serves the purpose of satisfying the self of the individual in the society. Various theories have been attempted to explain its origin and development. However, it is the socialist theory of property which finds acceptance in many societies today. A proper definition of the concept of property has notbeen given in the statutes governing protection of property or in the Indian Constitution. While deciding cases under the Indian Penal Code, the courts have however, been interpreting the term 'property' in a manner facilitating its accommodation within the contours of the socialist theory of property, though there was no attempt for any formal theorization. An examination of the decisions under the Penal Code provisions and Constituent Assembly Debates has reinforced the above view that our courts as well as legislature have adopted the socialist concept of property. Because of the importance of the theory of property in the general scheme of this study, it was thought appropriate toinclude a chapter on the theory of property as reflected in our constitution.

Authorship, authenticity and intellectual property in Australian Aboriginal art

This article analyzes research and legal cases about authorship, authenticity, and intellectual property in Aboriginal art. The concepts of Aboriginality, authenticity, and ownership are used to show the complexities of Aboriginal law, legal copyright, and the moral rights framework. The clan ownership of Dreaming makes Aboriginal artists’ relationship different to other artists’ individual ownership of their work. Research on this topic by members of the Faculty of Business and Law unit of the Centre for Leisure Management Research at Deakin University was undertaken for the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies. This article provides significant contextual analyses of major issues leading to Commonwealth Government inquiries and legislation in Australia during 2006–8.

Intellectual property, creativity and innovation : IP models and the political economy of developing Asia

In advanced capitalist societies, intellectual property laws protecting such subject matter as copyright and patents are justified by a combination of theories, which include the provision of economic incentives to foster creativity and innovation and the prevention of unfair competition. IP academics and policy makers have differing views about the appropriate balance between these objectives and public interest considerations such as health, education and the protection of the environment. These different views entered the policy debate in Asian developing countries in connection with an unprecedented introduction and expansion of IP laws over the last 25 years. This paper will use case studies of law reform from Asia, in particular Southeast Asia, to show that the policy considerations of governments in reforming their laws were often quite different from the standard rationale mentioned above. As much of the IP was, at least initially, held by foreigners and introduced to attract foreign investment, national development considerations were joined with the more commonly quoted objectives to promote the rights, creativity and innovation of individuals. Such national development objectives at times coincided and at other times collided with official explanations and received wisdom about the effects of stronger IP rights.

Especially in the early postcolonial period, copyright laws and other IP laws were frequently restricted or simply not implemented, if they conflicted with development policies in areas such as education or public health. Such policies were slowly changing in the wake of WTO-TRIPS and other international agreements. Nevertheless, the implementation and enforcement of the IP laws has been uneven. Specialised institutions such as courts and IP administering agencies compete with other branches of government and administration for limited funding and a rich repertoire of informal dispute settlement procedures has kept the number of court cases relatively low. In some countries, censorship laws have influenced freedom of expression and led to quite idiosyncratic interpretations of intellectual property laws. Governments often also retain a role in the assessment of licensing and technology transfer contracts. And while there are many programs to foster individual creativity, in most cases R & D activities are still largely taking place in government institutions and this has influenced the thinking about intellectual property rights and creativity in the context of employment.

The paper uses a few case studies to examine the implementation of IP laws in selected Asian developing countries to point to the quite different institutional setting for IP law reform in comparison to European or American models. It reaches some tentative conclusions as to the likely effects on creativity and innovation under these different circumstances.

The problems of intellectual property in Latin America and how to address them

Includes bibliography

Infringement and Exclusive Jurisdiction in Intellectual Property: a Comparison for the International Law Association

The following comparison was written for the first meeting of the International Law Association newly established (2010) Committee on Intellectual Property and Private International Law (Chair: Professor Toshiyuki Kono, Kyushu University; Co-Rapporteurs: Professors Pedro de Miguel Asensio, Madrid Complutense University, and Axel Metzger, Hannover University) (hereinafter: ILA Committee), which was hosted at the Faculty of Law of the University of Lisbon in March 16-17, 2012. The comparison at stake concerns the rules on infringement and exclusive (subject-mater) jurisdiction posed (or rejected, in case of exclusive jurisdiction) by four sets of academic principles. Notwithstanding the fact that the rules in question present several differences, those differences in the majority of cases could be overcome by further studies and work of the ILA Committee, as the following comparison explains.

Legal shifts : shaping expectations of intellectual property protection in an open innovation industrial environment

Projet de recherche réalisé en 2014-2015 avec l'appui du Fonds de recherche du Québec – Société et culture.

Legal shifts : shaping expectations of intellectual property protection in an open innovation industrial environment

Projet de recherche réalisé en 2014-2015 avec l'appui du Fonds de recherche du Québec – Société et culture.

Intellectual property enforcement in smaller UK firms:findings from a survey in 2009-10

This report details research into the enforcement of intellectual property (IP). It considers the attitudes and practices of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and micro firms as well as the cost implications of the present IP enforcement system in the UK. According to an earlier report for SABIP, by Weatherall et al. 2009, in the Gowers Review of Intellectual Property questions of enforcement were largely addressed through assertion, rather than empirical research. This report aims to provide such research. Our study included both an online survey and a phone survey. These concentrated on SMEs and micro firms rather than being a comparative study with large firms. Further work obtained information on Patents and Registered Design cases listed for hearings in the Patents Court from 2003 to 2009. The analysis of this data provides some evidence that complements the results of the survey.

Intellectual property enforcement in smaller UK firms:a report for the Strategic Advisory Board for Intellectual Property Policy (SABIP)

This report details research into the enforcement of intellectual property (IP). It considers the attitudes and practices of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and micro firms as well as the cost implications of the present IP enforcement system in the UK. According to an earlier report for SABIP, by Weatherall et al. 2009, in the Gowers Review of Intellectual Property questions of enforcement were largely addressed through assertion, rather than empirical research. This report aims to provide such research. Our study included both an online survey and a phone survey. These concentrated on SMEs and micro firms rather than being a comparative study with large firms. Further work obtained information on Patents and Registered Design cases listed for hearings in the Patents Court from 2003 to 2009. The analysis of this data provides some evidence that complements the results of the survey.