[A2k] Infojustice Roundup – April 4, 2016

Michael Palmedo mpalmedo at wcl.american.edu
Mon Apr 4 13:55:28 PDT 2016


Infojustice Roundup



Patents and Mobile Devices in India: An Empirical Survey



[Jorge L. Contreras and Rohini Lakshané] Though India has the second-largest wireless subscriber base in the world, with more than 150 mobile device vendors, it has, until recently, remained relatively unaffected by the global smartphone wars. Over the past three years, however, a growing number of patent enforcement actions have been brought by multinational firms against domestic Indian producers. These actions, which have largely resulted in judgments favoring foreign patent holders, have given rise to a variety of proposals for addressing this situation. Click here for more.<http://infojustice.org/archives/35889>



Notice and Takedown in Everyday Practice



[Jennifer M. Urban, Joe Karaganis, and Brianna L. Schofield] It has been nearly twenty years since section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act established the so-called notice and takedown process. Despite its importance to copyright holders, online service providers, and Internet speakers, very little empirical research has been done on how effective section 512 is for addressing copyright infringement, spurring online service provider development, or providing due process for notice targets. This report includes three studies that draw back the curtain on notice and takedown: Click here for more.<http://infojustice.org/archives/35884>



Submission to New Zealand Government: Implementation of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Intellectual Property Chapter



The following submission was made last week by Peter Jaszi, Michael Carroll, Sean Flynn and Meredith Jacob to the New Zealand Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. It was in response to a consultation document released by the Ministry on the implementation of TPP intellectual property obligations. Click here for more.<http://infojustice.org/archives/35894>



EU Report on the 12th Round of TTIP Negotiations, Excerpt on Intellectual Property



[European Union] ...The IPR discussions took place over 2 full days. The US presented two IPR text proposals. One was a reaction to the EU initial text on IP related international agreements, which shares many common points with our text. The other was as a first draft on common provisions, broadly in line with the equivalent text in TPP. The two sides discussed how to increase the pace of IPR negotiations in the next couple of rounds. ...Regarding copyright and trade secrets the parties exchanged updates on the respective domestic legislative processes. Similarly, on international IPR agreements, both US and EU provided the state of play regarding ratification of the Marrakesh Treaty on Access to Published Works for the Visually Impaired and the Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances. Click here for more.<http://infojustice.org/archives/35875>



The Role of Intellectual Property in Local Production in Developing Countries: Opportunities and Challenges



[World Health Organization] Intellectual property plays an important role both for the researching pharmaceutical industry, which relies heavily on intellectual property to protect its products, and for generic companies, which produce copies of existing medicines once patent protection expires. Beyond patent protection, trademarks are another form of intellectual property rights used to identify and market pharmaceutical products. Trade secrets and protection of clinical test data are other important elements of this industry. Consequently, how a national intellectual property system is set up is important when considering options for local production of pharmaceuticals in developing countries. Click here for more.<http://infojustice.org/archives/35879>



Specialised Intellectual Property Courts – Issues and Challenges



[CEIPI, ICTSD] The establishment of the WTO Agreement on TRIPS (Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) and the proliferation of plurilateral, bilateral and regional agreements have significantly contributed to the increasing complexities of the intellectual property system. The emergence of new actors, reflecting conflicting expectations and the adoption of new trade agreements that often exceed the standards set by the TRIPS agreement, have resulted in a new density of rules that have further fragmented the international system. These developments have unavoidably called for further analysis by academics and stakeholders. Click here for more.<http://infojustice.org/archives/35869>





More information about the A2k mailing list