[Ip-health] Infojustice Roundup - April 27, 2015

Michael Palmedo mpalmedo at wcl.american.edu
Mon Apr 27 10:46:35 PDT 2015


Infojustice Roundup 

 

TTIP Stakeholder Statement: Protect Intellectual Property from Investor-State Dispute Settlement

 

[Sean Flynn] There is an increasingly urgent need to revise the EU and US ISDS templates to protect IP policy decisions from the ISDS chapters of trade agreements. Both the US and EU have been tinkering with their models of late. But both revised models fail to ensure a key domestic sovereignty protection that has been the core of international IP law for 130 years - the exclusive use of state-to-state dispute resolution for enforcement of international IP commitments. Click here for more. <http://infojustice.org/archives/34319> 

 

Update on IP Watch's FOIA Case Seeking Release of USTR Documents from the TPP Negotiations

 

[Brianna van Kan, Ben Picozzi, and Rebecca Wexler] On April 3, 2015, Intellectual Property Watch (IP-Watch) completed its written arguments to the federal district court in Manhattan in a case that could compel the United States Trade Representative (USTR) to release basic information regarding USTR's negotiations over the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement. In particular, IP-Watch's lawsuit and summary judgment motion asks U.S. District Judge Edgardo Ramos to order USTR to release documents that relate to the intellectual property provisions of the TPP-including USTR's final negotiating positions, the portions of the draft agreement that the U.S. has proposed or adopted, and communications between USTR and the industry representatives who sit on Industry Trade Advisory Committees (ITACs). Click here for more. <http://infojustice.org/archives/34303> 

 

Intellectual Property Rights and Access to Innovation: Evidence from TRIPS

 

[Margaret Kyle and Yi Qian] Abstract: We examine the effect of pharmaceutical patent protection on the speed of drug launch, price, and quantity in 60 countries from 2000-2013. The World Trade Organization required its member countries to implement a minimum level of patent protection within a specified time period as part of the TRIPS Agreement. However, members retained the right to impose price controls and to issue compulsory licenses under certain conditions.  Click here for more. <http://infojustice.org/archives/34307> 

 

[snip]

 

Guidelines on Patentability and Access to Medicines

 

[Germán Velásquez] Until recently, the link between the examination of patents carried out by national patent offices and the right of citizens to access to medicines was not at all clear. They were two functions or responsibilities of the State that apparently had nothing to do with each other. Examining the growing literature on intellectual property and access to medicines, it seems that the analysis of one actor has been left out: the patent offices. And the reason is clear: patent offices are administrative institutions. Patentability requirements are not defined by patent offices, but frequently by the courts, tribunals, legislation or treaty negotiators. There is now greater understanding that the examination of patents and the role played by patent examiners are key elements that could contribute to or obstruct access to medicines. Given the impact of pharmaceutical patents on access to medicines, patent offices should draw up public policies and strategies that respond to national health and medicine policies. Click here for more. <http://infojustice.org/archives/34330> 

 

 

 




More information about the Ip-health mailing list