Centre for Internet and Society

CIS Submission on Patents Act

sinha — 2018-04-10T15:48:09Z

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/files/cis-submission-on-patents-act

CIS Comments to the Department of Biotechnology and Department of Science Open Access Policy

sinha — 2014-08-22T11:05:45Z

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/cis-comments-to-the-department-of-biotechnology-and-department-of-science-open-access-policy

CIS Comments on TRAI Consultation Paper on Promoting Local Telecom Equipment Manufacturing

sinha — 2017-11-26T02:56:15Z

The Centre for Internet & Society (CIS) sent comments to the TRAI Consultation Paper on promoting telecom equipment manufacturing. CIS submission drew primarily from the research done in the Pervasive Technologies project.

Read TRAI's Consultation Paper on Promoting Local Telecom Equipment Manufacturing

Preliminary

This submission presents comments by the Centre for Internet and Society, India ("CIS") on the Consultation Paper on Promoting Local Telecom Equipment Manufacturing dated 18.09. 2017, released by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), under Department of Telecom, Ministry of Communications and Information Technologies (“the TRAI Consultation Paper”).
We commend TRAI for its efforts at seeking inputs from various stakeholders on this important and timely issue and are thankful for the opportunity to put forth our views.
We have addressed questions 3 and 5 of the TRAI Consultation Paper. Question numbers referred to in our submission correspond to those in the TRAI Consultation Paper.
Further, the Department of Industrial Planning and Promotion (DIPP) invited comments on SEPs and their availability on FRAND terms on 01. 03. 2016.[1] CIS submitted a detailed response to the consultation, and our present submission will draw significantly from our earlier response[2], as well as new empirical research concluded in the since the time of the consultation.

About CIS

CIS[3] is a non-profit organisation that undertakes interdisciplinary research on internet and digital technologies from policy and academic perspectives. Our areas of focus include IP rights, openness, internet governance, telecommunication reform, free speech, intermediary liability, digital privacy, cyber-security, and accessibility for persons with diverse abilities.
We strive to maximise public benefit, useful innovation, vibrant competition and consumer welfare. This submission is consistent with our commitment to the domestic goals (as enumerated in Make in India and Digital India), and the protection of India's national interest at the international level.

Submission on the Issues for Resolution

“Q.3 Are the existing patent laws in India sufficient to address the issues of local manufacturers? If No, then suggest the measures to be adopted and amendments that need to be incorporated for supporting the local telecom manufacturing industry.”

We submit that amendments to the Patents Act, 1970 may not be preferred, presently. It may be noted that there have been no judgments concluded by Indian courts on disputes relating to licensing of SEPs, yet. Justice Bakhru’s landmark order in Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ) v. Competition Commission of India (2016) provided valuable clarity on the issue of conflict between remedies under Patents Act, 1970 and Competition Act, 1970. As various other matters are yet to be conclusively decided, and given the complex legal questions involved around the interpretation of Patents Act, 1970 and Competition Act, 2002, and constitutional issues around the jurisdiction of regulators and the power of judicial review of the courts, we believe that it would be prudent to examine the ruling of the courts on these issues in some detail, before considering amendments.

However, to support the local telecom manufacturing industry the Government of India may adopt and implement the following measures:

Develop Model Guidelines to improve the working of Indian Standard Setting Organisations (SSOs): Given the increasing complexity and time-consuming nature of SEP litigation in India, there is a tangible threat of the abuse of the FRAND process, it might be useful for the government to make suggestions on the working of Indian SSOs. The functioning of Indian SSOs has not been satisfactory and it is suggested that the government develop Model Guidelines that may be adopted by Indian SSOs, taking into account India specific requirements. The India specific requirements include a large and exponentially growing mobile device market which has made it possible for manufacturers, patent owners and implementers alike to achieve financial gains even with a low margin. We believe that this measure will also enable the fulfillment of the objectives of the Make in India and Digital India initiatives.

We recommend that various stakeholders, including IP holders, potential licensees and users of IP, civil society organizations, academics, and, government bodies, including the Indian Patent Office, the Department of Telecommunications, the DIPP, TRAI, and, the CCI be consulted in the creation of these Model Guidelines.

In our opinion, the Model Guidelines may cover (a) the composition of the SSO; (b) the process of admitting members; (c) the process of the determination of a standard or technical specification; (d) the process of declassification of a standard or technical specification; (e) the IPR Policy; (f) resolution of disputes; (g) applicable law.
Initiate the formation of a patent pool of critical mobile technologies and cap royalty payments: In light of the observed inadequacies in the IPR policies of various SSOs in India, as well the spate of ongoing patent infringement lawsuits around mobile technologies, we recommend that the government intervene in the setting of royalties and FRAND terms by setting up a patent pool of critical mobile technologies and apply a compulsory license with a five per cent royalty. Further, patent pools should be required to offer FRAND licenses on the same terms to both members and nonmembers of the pool.

Our motivations for this proposal are manifold. In our opinion, it is nearly impossible for potential licensees to avoid inadvertent patent infringement. As a part of our research on technical standards applicable to mobile phones sold in India, we have found nearly 322 standards so far.[4] It is submitted that carrying out patent searches for all the standards would be extremely expensive for potential licensees. Further, even if such searches were to be carried out, different patent owners, SSOs and potential licensees disagree on valuation, essentiality, enforceability, validity, and coverage of patents. In addition, some patent owners are non-practising entities and may not be members of SSOs. The patents held by them are not likely to be disclosed. More importantly, homegrown manufacturers that have no patents to leverage and may be new entrants in the market would be especially disadvantaged by such a scenario. Budget phone manufacturers, standing to incur losses either as a result of heavy licensing fees, or, potential litigation, may close down. Alternatively, they may pass on their losses to consumers, driving the now affordable phones out of their financial reach. With the objectives of Make in India and Digital India in sight, it is essential that Indian consumers continue to have access to devices within their purchasing power.

Further, how did we arrive at a cap of 5 percent? The rationale for this figure is the royalty cap imposed by India in the early 1990s. As part of regulating foreign technology agreements, the (former) Department of Industrial Development (later merged with DIPP) capped royalty rates in the early 1990s. Payment of royalties was capped at either a lump sum payment of $2 million, or, 5 percent on the royalty rates charged for domestic sale, and, 8 percent for export of goods pertaining to “high priority industries”.[5] Royalties higher than 5 percent or 8 percent, as the case may be, required securing approval from the government. While the early 1990s (specifically, 1991) was too early for the mobile device manufacturing industry to be listed among high priority industries, the public announcement by the government covered computer software, consumer electronics, and electrical and electronic appliances for home use. The cap on royalty rates was lifted by the DIPP in 2009.[6] It is submitted in the case of mobile device technology, we are witnessing a situation similar to that of the 1990s. In this sphere, most of the patent holders are multinational corporations which results in large royalty amounts leaving India. At the same time, litigation over patent infringement in India has limited the manufacture and sale of mobile devices of homegrown brands. While SEP litigation in India is indeed comparable to international SEP litigation on broader issues raised, specifically competition law concerns, but differs crucially where the parties are concerned. International SEP litigation is largely between multinational corporations with substantial patent portfolios, capable of engaging in long drawn out litigations, or engaging in other strategies including setting off against each other’s patent portfolios. Dynamics in the Indian market differ – with a larger SEP holder litigating against smaller manufacturers, many of whom are indigenous, homegrown.

In June, 2013, we had recommended to the erstwhile Hon’ble Minister for Human Resource Development[7] that a patent pool of essential technologies be established, with the compulsory licensing mechanism. Subsequently, in February, 2015, we reiterated this request to the Hon’ble Prime Minister.[8] We propose that the Government of India initiate the formation of a patent pool of critical mobile technologies and mandate a five percent compulsory license.[9] As we have stated in our request to the Hon’ble Prime Minister, we believe that such a pool would “possibly avert patent disputes by ensuring that the owners' rights are not infringed on, that budget manufacturers are not put out of business owing to patent feuds, and that consumers continue to get access to inexpensive mobile devices. Several countries including the United States issue compulsory licenses on patents in the pharmaceutical, medical, defence, software, and engineering domains for reasons of public policy, or to thwart or correct anticompetitive practices.”[10] We believe that such a measure will not be in breach of our international obligations under the TRIPS Agreement.
Increase transparency in the patent system by making patentees comply with the law: The Patents Act, 1970 requires patentees and licensees to submit a statement on commercial working of the invention to the Controller every year.[11] Form 27 under section 146(2) of the Act lists the details necessary to be disclosed for compliance of the requirement of “working”. A jurisprudential analysis reveals the rationale and objective behind this mandatory requirement. Undeniably, the scheme of the Indian patent regime makes it amply clear that “working” is a very important requirement, and the public as well as competitors have a right to access this information in a timely manner, without undue hurdles. Indeed, as the decision[12] in Natco Pharma v. Bayer Corporation[13] reveals, the disclosures in Form 27 were crucial to determining the imposition of a compulsory license on the patentee. Thus, broadly, Form 27 disclosures can critically enable willing licensees to access patent “working” information in a timely manner.

However, there has been little compliance of this requirement by the patentees, despite the Indian Patent Office (IPO) reiterating the importance of compliance through the issuance of multiple public notices[14] (suo motu and in response to a public interest litigation filed in 2011[15]), and, reminding the patentees that noncompliance is punishable with a heavy fine.[16] Findings of research submitted by one of the parties[17] in the writ of the 2011 public interest litigation Shamnad Basheer v. Union of India and others[18] reveal as follows. First, a large number of Form 27s are unavailable for download from the website of the IPO. This possibly indicates that the forms have either not been filed by the patentees with the IPO, or have not been uploaded (yet) by the IPO. Second, a large number of filings in the telecom sector remain incomplete.

In 2015, CIS queried the IPO website for Form 27s of mobile device patents to arrive at a similar conclusion. We obtained 4,916 valid Form 27s, corresponding to 3,126 mobile device patents from public online records. These represented only 20.1% of all Forms 27 that should have been filed and corresponded to only 72.5% of all mobile device patents for which Forms 27 should have been filed. Forms 27 were missing for almost all patentees, and even among Forms 27 that were obtained, almost none contained useful information regarding the working of the subject patents or fully complying with the informational requirements of the Indian Patent Rules.[19]

Further, in our study, we observed that patentees adopted drastically different positions regarding the definition of patent working, some arguing that importation of products into India or licensing of Indian suppliers constituted working, while others even went so far as to argue that the granting of a worldwide license to a non-Indian firm constituted working in India. Several significant patentees claimed that they or their patent portfolios were simply too large to enable the provision of information relating to individual patents, and instead provided gross revenue and product sale figures, together with historical anecdotes about their long histories in India.

The Indian government has made little or no effort to monitor or police compliance with Form 27 filings, undoubtedly leading to significant non-compliance. We also propose the alteration of the Form 27 template[20] to include more disclosures.[21] Presently, patentees are required to declare number of licensees and sub-licensees. We specifically propose that the format of Form 27 filings be modified to include patent pool licenses, with an explicit declaration of the names of the licensees and not just the number.
Require royalty rates to be decided on the basis of the Smallest Saleable Patent Practicing Component: Most modern telecommunication and IT devices are complex with numerous technologies working in tandem. Different studies indicate that the number of patents in the US applicable to smartphones is between 200,000 and 250,000.[22] A comprehensive patent landscape of mobile device technologies conducted by CIS reveals that nearly 4,000 patents are applicable to mobile phones sold in India.[23] It is thus extremely difficult to quantify the exact extent of interaction and interdependence between technologies in any device, in such a way that the exact contribution of the patented technology to the entire device can be determined. Thus, we submit that royalty rates for SEPs should be based on the smallest saleable patent practising component, and not on the net price of the downstream product.

The net cost of the device is almost always several times that of the chipset that implements the patented technology. Armstrong et al[24] have found that the cost of a 4G baseband chip costs up to $20 including royalties in a hypothetical $400 phone sold in the US. One of the litigating parties in the ongoing patent infringement lawsuits in India has stated that one of the reasons for preferring to leverage its patents as downstream as possible in the value chain is that it will earn the company more royalties.[25] In instances where patent exhaustion occurs much earlier in the value chain, such as in the case of the company’s cross-licenses with Qualcomm (another company that owns patents to chip technologies), the company does not try to obtain royalties from the selling prices of devices for the cross-licensed technologies. It is submitted that such market practices could be detrimental to the government’s objectives such as providing a mobile handset to every Indian by 2020 as a part of the Digital India programme.[26] It is also worth noting in this context that the mobile device is the first and only medium of access to the Internet and telecom services for a large number of Indians, and, consequently, the only gateway to access to knowledge, information and critical services, including banking.[27]

“Q.5 Please suggest a dispute resolution mechanism for determination of royalty distribution on FRAND (Fair Reasonable and Non Discriminatory) basis.”

The licensing of SEPs on FRAND terms requires the parties to negotiate “reasonable” royalty rates in good faith, and apply the terms uniformly to all willing licensees. It is our submission that if the parties cannot agree to FRAND terms, they may enter into binding arbitration. Further, if all efforts fail, there exist remedies under the Patents Act and the Competition Act, 2002 to address the issues.

Section 115 of the Patents Act empowers the court to appoint an independent scientific adviser “to assist the court or to inquire and report upon any such question of fact or of opinion (not involving a question of interpretation of law) as it may formulate for the purpose.”[28] Such an independent adviser may inform the court on the technical nuances of the matter.

Further, under the Patents Act, pending the decision of infringement proceedings the Court may provide interim relief, if the plaintiff proves first, a prima facie case of infringement; second, that the balance of convenience tilts in plaintiff’s favour; and, third, that if an injunction is not granted the plaintiff shall suffer irreparable damage. However, it is our suggestion that courts adopt a more cautious stance towards granting injunctions in the field of SEP litigation. First, in our opinion, injunctions may prove to be a deterrent to arrive at a FRAND commitment, in particular, egregiously harming the willing licensee. Second, especially in the Indian scenario, where litigating parties operate in vastly different price segments (thereby targeting consumers with different purchasing power), it is difficult to establish that “irreparable damage” has been caused to the patent owner on account of infringement. Third, we note the approach of the European Court of Justice, which prohibited the patent holder from enforcing an injunction provided a willing licensee makes an offer for the price it wishes to pay to use a patent under the condition that it deposited an amount in the bank as a security for the patent holder.[29] Fourth, we also note the approach of the Federal Trade Commission in the USA, which only authorizes patent holders to seek injunctive relief against potential licensees who have either stated that they will not license a patent on any terms, or refuse to enter into a license agreement on terms that have been set in the final ruling of a court or arbitrator.[30] Further, as Contreras (2015)[31] observes, that the precise boundaries of what constitutes as an unwilling licensee remains to be seen. We observe a similar ambiguity in Indian jurisprudence, and accordingly submit that courts should carefully examine the conduct of the licensee to injunct them from the alleged infringement.

Concluding Remarks

We are thankful to TRAI for the opportunity to make these submissions. It would be our pleasure and privilege to discuss these comments with the TRAI; and, supplement these with further submissions if necessary. We also offer our assistance on other matters aimed at developing a suitable policy framework for SEPs and FRAND in India, and, working towards the sustained innovation, manufacture and availability of mobile technologies in India.

[1] Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion Discussion Paper on Standard Essential Patents and their Availability on Frand Terms, available at https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/discussion-paper-on-standard-essential-patents-and-their-availability-on-frand-terms (last accessed November 13, 2017)

[2] Anubha Sinha, Nehaa Chaudhari and Rohini Lakshane, “CIS’ Comments on Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion Discussion Paper on Standard Essential Patents and their Availability on Frand Terms” (April 23, 2016); available at https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/comments-on-department-of-industrial-policy-and-promotion-discussion-paper-on-standard-essential-patents-and-their-availability-on-frand-terms

[3] www.cis-india.org

[4] Rohini Lakshané, CIS, List of Technical Standards and IP Types (Working document), available at https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8SgjShAjhbtaml5eW50bS01d2s/view?usp=sharing (last accessed 13 November, 2017).

[5] Kumkum Sen, News on Royalty Payments Brings Cheer in New Year, available at http://www.businessstandard.com/article/economypolicy/newsonroyaltypaymentbringscheerinnewyear11001 0400044_1.html (last accessed 13 November, 2017).

[6] See Sanjana Govil, Putting a Lid on Royalty Outflows How the RBI Can Help Reduce India’s IP Costs , available at http://cisindia.org/a2k/blogs/lidonroyaltyoutflows (last accessed 13 November, 2017) for a discussion on the introduction of royalty caps in the early 1990s, and its success in reducing the flow of money out of India.

[7] Nehaa Chaudhari, Letter for Establishment of Patent Pool for Low cost Access Devices through Compulsory

Licenses, available at http://cisindia.org/a2k/blogs/letterforestablishmentofpatentpoolforlowcostaccessdevices (last accessed 13 November, 2017).

[8] See Rohini Lakshané, Open Letter to PM Modi, available at http://cisindia.org/a2k/blogs/openlettertoprimeministermodi (last accessed 13 November, 2017) for further details of CIS’ proposal.

[9] Rohini Lakshané, FAQ: CIS’ proposal to form a patent pool of critical mobile technology, September 2015, available at http://cisindia.org/a2k/blogs/faqcisproposalforcompulsorylicensingofcriticalmobiletechnologies (last accessed 13 November, 2017).

[10] Id.

[11] Section 146(2) of the Patents Act, 1970.

[12] Sai Vinod, Patent Office Finally Takes Form 27s Seriously, available at http://spicyip.com/2013/02/patentofficefinallytakesform27s.html (last accessed 13 November, 2017).

[13] Order No. 45/2013 (Intellectual Property Appellate Board, Chennai), available at http://www.ipab.tn.nic.in/0452013.htm (last accessed 13 November, 2017).

[14] Intellectual Property India, Public Notice, available at

http://www.ipindia.nic.in/iponew/publicNotice_Form27_12Feb2013.pdf ((last accessed 13 November, 2017) and Intellectual Property India, Public Notice, available at http://ipindia.nic.in/iponew/publicNotice_24December2009.pdf (last accessed 13 November, 2017).

[15] Supra note 11.

[16] Id.

[17] See research findings available at http://spicyip.com/wpcontent/uploads/2015/05/FORM27WP1Rcopy.pdf (last accessed 13 November, 2017).

[18] In the High Court of Delhi, W.P.(C) 5590/2015. This litigation is currently ongoing. See, illustratively, Mathews P. George, Patent Working in India: Delhi HC issues notice in Shamnad Basheer v. Union of India & Ors. – I , available at http://spicyip.com/2015/09/patentworkinginindiadelhihcissuesnoticeinshamnadbasheervunionofindiaorsi.html (last accessed 13 November, 2017).

[19] Contreras, Jorge L. and Lakshané, Rohini and Lewis, Paxton, Patent Working Requirements and Complex Products (October 1, 2017). NYU Journal of Intellectual Property & Entertainment Law, Forthcoming. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3004283

[20] Form 27, The Patents Act, available at http://ipindia.nic.in/ipr/patent/manual/HTML%20AND%20PDF/Manual%20of%20Patent%20Office%20Practice%20and%20Procedure%20%20html/Forms/Form27.pdf (last accessed November 13, 10`7).

[21] However, we came across some complaints raised by patentees and industry observers regarding the structure of the Form 27 requirement - namely, patents covering complex, multi-component products that embody dozens of technical standards and thousands of patents are not necessarily amenable to the individual-level data requested by Form 27. See Contreras, Jorge L. and Lakshané, Rohini and Lewis, Paxton, Patent Working Requirements and Complex Products (October 1, 2017). NYU Journal of Intellectual Property & Entertainment Law, Forthcoming. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3004283

[22] Mark Lemley and Carl Shapiro, Patent Holdup and Royalty Stacking, 85 Tex. L. Rev. at 2015 ; See also, for e.g.,

RPX Corporation, Amendment No. 3 to Form Sl,11 Apr. 2011, at 59, available at http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1509432/000119312511101007/ds1a.htm (last accessed 22 April, 2016), quoting “Based on our research, we believe there are more than 250,000 active patents relevant to today’s

smartphones…” .; See further Steve Lohr, Apple Samsung Case Shows Smartphone as Legal Magnet, New York Times, 25 Aug. 2012, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/technology/applesamsungcaseshowssmartphoneaslawsuitmagnet.html (last accessed November13, 2017).

[23] Jorge L. Contreras and Rohini Lakshané, Patents and Mobile Devices in India: An Empirical Survey, available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2756486 (last accessed 13 November, 2017).

[24] Ann Armstrong, Joseph J. Mueller and Timothy D. Syrett, The SmartphoneRoyalty Stack:Surveying Royalty Demands for the Components Within Modern Smartphones, available at https://www.wilmerhale.com/uploadedFiles/Shared_Content/Editorial/Publications/Documents/TheSmartphoneRoyaltyStackArmstrongMuellerSyrett.pdf (last accessed 13 November, 2017)

[25] Florian Mueller, Ericsson Explained Publicly why it Collects Patent Royalties from Device (Not Chipset) Makers, available at http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/01/ericssonexplainedpubliclywhyits.Html (last accessed 13 November, 2017).

[26] Romit Guha and Anandita Singh Masinkotia, PM Modi’s Digital India Project:Government to Ensure that Every Indian has a Smartphone by 2019, available at http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/20140825/news/53205445_1_digitalindiaindiatodayfinancialservices (last accessed 13 November, 2017).

[27] Nehaa Chaudhari, Standard Essential Patents on Low Cost Mobile Phones in India: A Case to Strengthen Competition Regulation? available at http://www.manupatra.co.in/newsline/articles/Upload/08483340C1B94BA4B6A9D6B6494391B8.pdf (last accessed 13 November, 2017).

[28] Section 115 of the Patents Act, 1970.

[29] Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v. ZTE Corp. and ZTE Deutschland , Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 July 2015 in GmbH C170/13.

[30] Third Party United States Fed. Trade Commission’s Statement on the Public Interest, In re Certain Wireless Communication Devices, Portable Music and Data Processing Devices, Computers and Components Thereof, U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, Inv. No. 337TA745 (Jun. 6, 2012).

[31] Jorge L. Contreras, A Brief History of FRAND: Analyzing Current Debates in Standard Setting and Antitrust Through a Historical Lens , 80 Antitrust Law Journal 39 (2015), available at h ttp://ssrn.com/abstract=2374983 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2374983 (last accessed 13 November, 2017).

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/telecom/blog/cis-comments-on-promoting-local-telecom-equipment-manufacturing

Call for Participation: Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest

sinha — 2015-06-24T16:11:07Z

We are pleased to announce the call for participation for the fourth edition of the Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest (“Global Congress”), being hosted at New Delhi from December 15 to 17, 2015.

The theme for this year’s Congress will be “Three Decades of Openness; Two Decades of TRIPS.” We are now inviting applications to participate in the Congress, including session participation and presentations. We are also welcoming proposals for panels and workshops.

The application form is available now at [http://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973?] Please note that this form is for application purposes, and does not amount to confirmation of participation. The registrations for the plenary sessions, which are open to the public, will open closer to the date of the Global Congress.

Deadlines

August 1st: Priority Deadline for Applications- Applicants will be considered on a rolling basis, with applications made by August 1st being given first consideration. Applications after August 1st to receive travel assistance will be considered only under exceptional circumstances (these details will be collected in a subsequent form).

November 1st: All applications for session participation and paper submissions will close on November 1st.

Application Information

For applications to participate/host: Applications to present or host workshops shall be considered based on the proposals to be submitted in the form.

For applications to attend sessions: Applications to attend sessions as discussants will be considered based on the statement of purpose and/or any other relevant information provided by the applicant.

Limited travel grants to cover accommodation and/or travel to the Congress will be available, with priority to those from developing countries.

Background, Theme and Expected Outcomes

The Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest is the most significant event on the calendar for scholars and policy advocates working on intellectual property from a public interest perspective. By sharing their research and strategies, the network of experts and activists supported by the Global Congress are empowered to put forward a positive agenda for policy reform. The Global Congress began in Washington D.C. in 2011, moved to Rio de Janeiro in 2012, and was held in Cape Town in 2013. The fourth Global Congress will now be held in New Delhi, in December 2015. The event would be the largest convening of public interest-oriented intellectual property practitioners ever held in Asia, and would help link in the world's most populous region to these global debates around how intellectual property policy can best serve the public interest.

The fourth edition of the Global Congress brings research, civil society, industry and regulatory and policy-making communities together for active, intense engagement on key public-interest intellectual property issues. Opportunities for these groups to interact are rare but valuable; and have been proven to lead to successful policy outcomes. The 4^th edition of the Congress, slated to be held in December, 2015 in New Delhi seeks to be one such opportunity.

The theme for the 2015 Congress is Three Decades of Openness; Two Decades of TRIPS-coming at a pivotal time for reflection, revision, and further strategizing. Specifically, the 2015 Congress seeks to produce three outcomes- first, the mobilization of existing scholarly research directly into the hands of civil society advocates, business leaders and policy makers, leading to evidence-based policies and practices; second, the collaborative identification of urgent, global and local research priorities and generation of a joint research/advocacy agenda; and third, the solidification of an inter-disciplinary, cross-sector and global networked community of experts focused on public interest aspects of IP policy and practice.

Participation Opportunities

Discussions at the Global Congress will be carried out in the form of plenary sessions, thematic tracks, cross-track sessions, and the room of scholars. Participation is invited for the thematic track sessions, cross-track sessions and the room of scholars.

The thematic tracks at the Global Congress are: 1) Openness, 2) Access to Medicines, 3) User Rights, 4) IP and Development. Cross-track sessions will feature research that cuts across tracks in order to facilitate engagement between tracks on themes of mutual interest.

The Room of Scholars will feature presentations of research outputs such as draft works or white papers that may not fit directly within the thematic tracks but fall within the overall theme of the Global Congress.

Participation could be in the form of presenting / discussing conference papers or policy briefs, or by conducting workshops where they may share their own work and solicit feedback from peers, during the aforementioned sessions.

The application form for participation is available now at http://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973?. Please forward this invitation to interested lists and individuals. For more information or questions, you may contact global-congress@cis-india.org.

Organisation

The 4^th Global Congress on Intellectual Property and Public Interest, is being organised in cooperation with National Law University, Delhi, by the American Assembly at Columbia University, the Centre for Internet and Society, Open A.I.R., and the Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property at American University Washington College of Law.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/call-for-participation-global-congress-on-intellectual-property-and-the-public-interest

Breakdown of the list in the July 23rd Order

sinha — 2014-07-08T05:35:42Z

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/copy_of_Untitled.jpg

Breakdown of the list in the July 23rd Order

sinha — 2014-07-08T05:31:47Z

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/Untitled.jpg

Announcing the Tracks for the Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest 2015

sinha — 2014-08-22T09:47:27Z

CIS recently announced that the Centre for Internet and Society will be hosting the fourth edition of the Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest at New Delhi, India, tentatively in the first two weeks of December, 2015. This post declares the track events to be conducted, seeks your participation and invites contributions from potential funders.

The Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest ("Global Congress") was instituted in 2011 at Washington D.C. Since its inception, three editions of the Global Congress have engaged national and international governmental entities, the private sector, civil society, and academia in providing perspectives and future scenarios for intellectual property, innovation and development.

The five tracks at the Global Congress 2015 will be:

a) User Rights
b) Patents (including Access to Medicines, but wider in scope)
c) Enforcement
d) Traditional Knowledge
e) Openness

We will soon post updates on the track leaders. We invite interested participants to send proposals for presentations, workshops and other side events for the Global Congress. Please share with us funding proposals for conferences/events and details of potential funders, or help out with funding, if possible.

You may contact the following CIS members to send in your queries and suggestions for the event:

CIS Global Congress Planning Team

Anubha Sinha- anubha@cis-india.org
M.P. Nagaraj- nagaraj@cis-india.org
Maggie Huang- maggie@cis-india.org
Pranesh Prakash- pranesh@cis-india.org
Rohini Lakshane- rohini@cis-india.org
Sunil Abraham- sunil@cis-india.org
Nehaa Chaudhari- nehaa@cis-india.org

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/announcing-the-tracks-for-the-global-congress-on-intellectual-property-and-the-public-interest-2015

Announcing the Institutional Partner for the Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest 2015

sinha — 2015-01-07T13:34:51Z

We are pleased to announce that National Law University, Delhi will be hosting the fourth edition of the Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest in December 2015.

About National Law University, Delhi

National Law University, Delhi ("NLU-D") is a premier law school located in Dwarka, Delhi. NLU-D aspires to be a University producing stellar research and has already undertaken steps in that direction. The excellent infrastructure offered to its students is in sync with progress on the academic front. The University regularly plays host to international and national events.

About the Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest

Global Congress, December 2015: Save the date

We will soon announce the exact dates for the Global Congress to be hosted in December 2015. Please share with us funding proposals for conferences/events and details of potential funders, or help out with funding, if possible.

You may contact the following CIS members to send in your queries and suggestions for the event:

CIS Global Congress Planning Team

Anubha Sinha- anubha@cis-india.org
M.P. Nagaraj- nagaraj@cis-india.org
Maggie Huang- maggie@cis-india.org
Pranesh Prakash- pranesh@cis-india.org
Rohini Lakshane- rohini@cis-india.org
Sunil Abraham- sunil@cis-india.org
Nehaa Chaudhari- nehaa@cis-india.org

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/announcing-the-institutional-partner-for-the-global-congress-on-intellectual-property-and-the-public-interest-2015

Announcing the dates, theme and tentative tracks for the Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest 2015

sinha — 2015-03-19T06:34:53Z

We are pleased to announce that the Global Congress will be held from 15th-17 December 2015. The theme of the 2015 Global Congress is Three Decades of Openness; Two Decades of TRIPS. The four tentative tracks include Openness, User Rights, Access to Medicines, and Intellectual Property and Development.

Save the date: 15th (Tuesday) to 17th (Thursday) December, 2015 (both dates inclusive) [and 18th (Friday) December, 2015]

This year's Congress will be held over three days, from the 15th to the 17th of December, 2015 (both dates inclusive). Additionally, the venue will be reserved for an extra day (18th Dec, 2015) to accommodate non-scheduled follow up discussions, spillovers and allow for individually organized meetings/discussion sessions.

Theme

The theme for the Global Congress is Three Decades of Openness; Two Decades of TRIPS. Discussions in all tracks, as well as cross track conversations will be tailored around this theme.

Tentative Agenda

Day 1 of the Congress (15th December, 2015) will be open to all interested participants, including representation from the government, the judiciary, industry, academia, research/advocacy/policy organizations and any others. However, Days 2 and 3 of the Congress (16th and 17th December, 2015, respectively) shall comprise closed-door sessions, open only to participants registered/invited for the Congress. An additional day (Day 4 - 18th of December, 2015) has been set aside for smaller meetings and discussions on existing or potential collaborations between participants; to continue conversations begun on Days 1, 2 and 3; or to have meetings/presentations/discussions which we might not be able to strictly accommodate within the agenda.

Tracks and the 'Room of Scholars'

Proposed tracks include the following:

1. Openness
2. User Rights
3. Access to Medicines
4. Intellectual Property and Development.

These may be modified based on funding and logistics. We shall put out more updates on funding, proposed agenda for each track and track leaders as soon as possible.

This year's Congress will also feature an additional 'Room of Scholars'. As in the past three editions of the Congress, since discussions in track sessions might be tailored towards evidence based policy making, a need was felt to create a space for academic conversation as well. 'The Room of Scholars' has been conceptualized as that cross-cutting space, not restricted to a particular track. but as running along side them. The 'Room of Scholars' will be an opportunity for the presentation of longer, more detailed academic research papers.

Venue - National Law University, Delhi.

National Law University, Delhi (http://www.nludelhi.ac.in/) shall be the venue for this year's Congress. Google Map Location - https://www.google.co.in/maps/place/National+Law+University/@28.599374,77.023701,15z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x14217e8eec6152fa

Accommodation

We're negotiating discounted rates with various accommodation options close to the venue. We shall inform you as and when we have more updates.

About the Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest

The Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest was instituted in 2011 at Washington D.C. Since its inception, three editions of the Global Congress have engaged national and international governmental entities, the private sector, civil society, and academia in providing perspectives and future scenarios for intellectual property, innovation and development.

You may contact the following CIS members to send in your queries and suggestions for the event:

CIS Global Congress Planning Team

Swaraj Paul Barooah- swaraj,barooah@gmail.com
Nehaa Chaudhari- nehaa@cis-india.org
Anubha Sinha- anubha@cis-india.org
M.P. Nagaraj- nagaraj@cis-india.org
Maggie Huang- maggie@cis-india.org
Pranesh Prakash- pranesh@cis-india.org
Rohini Lakshane- rohini@cis-india.org
Sunil Abraham- sunil@cis-india.org

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/announcing-the-dates-theme-and-tentative-tracks-for-the-global-congress-on-intellectual-property-and-the-public-interest-2015

Analysing Alice Corporation Pty Ltd v CLS Bank International Et Al

sinha — 2014-08-01T19:09:05Z

The US Supreme Court delivered a unanimous decision in Alice Corporation Pty Ltd v CLS Bank International Et Al last month. The decision concerning software related inventions (with respect to carving an exception to “abstract ideas” patent eligibility category) was the most awaited and the final patent ruling of the US’ Supreme Court’s term. This post presents an analysis of the decision and a timeline of landmark US judicial decisions on software patents.

The Court declared Alice Corporation’s patent claims to be invalid by applying the tests and frameworks propounded in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories Inc.(“Mayo”) and Bilski v. Kappos[1] (“Bilski”). You may read CIS’ analysis of the Bilski decision here and its impact here. A timeline of landmark decisions on software patents is inserted at the end of the analysis.

Background

Section 101 of 35 U. S. Code, 1952 (US Patent Act, 1952) provides that: “Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent thereof, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.”

However, there exist certain judicially recognised exceptions to this section, namely, laws of nature, natural phenomena and abstract ideas.[2] Any claims wholly falling under any of these exceptions shall be ineligible for patent protection. [3]

Facts of the case

Alice Corporation’s software related inventions concerned a computer system which helped close financial transactions by avoiding a settlement risk. Specifically, the patent claims (granted by US Patents and Trademarks Office (“USPTO”)) involved, inter alia (1) a method for exchanging financial obligations, (2) a computer system as a third-party intermediary, and (3) a computer-readable medium (“CRM”) containing program code for performing the method of exchanging obligations.

CLS Bank filed for a declaratory judgment action seeking non-infringement, invalidity, and unenforceability of the patents. The district court granted a summary judgment[4] rendering the impugned patents invalid. Alice appealed in the Federal Circuit which reversed[5] the district court decision and found that the patent claims were not directed to an “abstract idea”, therefore were patent-eligible subject matter. Consequently CLS Bank appealed for an en banc hearing, which led to the Federal Circuit reversing its decision and ruling that the patents were indeed directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.[6] This decision was rather fragmented consisting of seven opinions without any clear majority[7], and did not address any of the unanswered issues pertaining to software patenting in wake of the Mayo and Bilski rulings.

Alice filed a certiorari writ at the Supreme Court which was granted in 2013, and the Court in the instant ruling affirmed the Federal Circuit’s decision by invalidating the patents. The opinion was authored by Justice Clarence Thomas. Relying on Bilski, the Court held that the claims were not patent eligible under section 101 since they were drawn to an “abstract idea”. It expressed the importance of pre-empting patenting of concepts fundamental to scientific and technological progress.

Determination of patent-worthiness of the subject matter

To ensure the openness of fundamental scientific concepts the Court highlighted the pressing need to “distinguish between patents that claim the ‘building blocks’ of human ingenuity and those that integrate the building blocks into something more.” The latter would qualify as a patent-eligible invention after the said transformation. However, instead of formulating a test to distinguish between the two kinds of claims, it went ahead and applied the framework devised in Mayo Collaborative Services v Prometheus. In the instant case, the Court elucidated on section 101, stating that:

“Section 101 framework has two parts: (1) determine if the claim at issue is directed towards an abstract idea; and (2) examine the elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an inventive “concept” sufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.”

The Court applied the first part by turning to its recent decision in Bilski v. Kappos and held that the patent claims were indeed directed towards an abstract idea. The Court explained, illustratively, that in Bilski v. Kappos the claim consisted of a method for hedging against financial risk and in the instant case the claim consists of the concept of intermediated settlement. “Like the hedging risk in Bilski, the concept of intermediated settlement is “a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce.” The Court squarely rejected Alice’s argument that an “abstract idea” is merely confined to “pre-existing, fundamental truths which exist in principle apart from any human action.” It refrained from setting any definitive limitations on the “abstract idea” category.

Applying the second part of the framework, the Court concluded that Alice’s claims merely involved implementing a method on a generic computer which was insufficient to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. The implementation of a method on a generic computer did not qualify as an “additional (inventive) element.” The Court reiterated Bilski v. Kappos at this point, stating (in the instant case) “..none of the hardware recited by the system claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment,' that is, implementation via computers."

Observations and Implications

1. Reiterated focus on substance of claim - The Court concentrated on substance of the claim and not form thereof. It “warned” against interpretation of section 101 in ways that make patent eligibility depend simply on the draftsman’s art. The Court noted that the CRM and apparatus/system claims were only “transformed method claims”. This highlighted the prevalent style of drafting claim sets (CRM, apparatus/system, method) when the hardware/apparatus used was generic.

2. USPTO soon thereafter issued “Preliminary Examination Instructions [8]” – As per the memorandum, this decision "neither creates a per se excluded category of subject matter, such as software or business methods, nor imposes any special requirements for eligibility of software or business methods." Further, examiners have been instructed to apply the framework set forth in the Mayo case, “to analyze all claims directed to laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas for subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101.”

This instruction has had twofold implications –

The Bilski standard was followed to determine the eligibility of “abstract ideas”[9], and Mayo was applied in the “laws of nature” category[10]. Now Mayo shall be uniformly applicable to both categories, and also all statutory classes of claims, not just method claims.

The memorandum also has illustrated the theoretical exposition of the Court on “abstract ideas” by stating that abstract ideas include:

· Fundamental economic practices;

· Certain methods of organizing human activities;

· An idea of itself; and,

· Mathematical relationships / formulas.

It also exemplifies the limitations which may allow patent eligibility of an “abstract idea”:

· Improvements to another technology or technical fields;

· Improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; and

· Meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.

What can you patent after Alice Corporation v CLS Bank?

Evidently, the Court did not seize the opportunity to plug gaps in the framework propounded by it in an earlier decision (Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories Inc.[11]]). It refrained from pronouncing a definitive test (to the extent avoided mentioning software patent in the judgment). Instead it relied on its recent decisions, inter alia, Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories Inc.(“Mayo”) and Bilski v. Kappos[12]. In consideration of the illustrative reasoning provided by the Court, and it declining from delving into setting of any parameters to define an “abstract idea” and to not clarify the second prong in the Mayo test; the decision completely deals with the rejection of Alice’s patents. A few aspects have emerged to be applicable precedents-wise. However, the decision is bound to limit poor quality software related inventions, at both appeals and prosecution stage. To conclude, the Supreme Court has narrowed the scope of software related inventions, without addressing pressing issues on the existing framework.

Timeline of US Court decisions on software patents

2014

Alice Corporation v CLS Bank [13]

SCOTUS declared Alice Corporation’s patent claims invalid by applying tests previously held in the cases of Mayo Medical Laboratories v Prometheus Laboratories [14] and Bilski v Kappos [15]. The principle question in the instant case was whether the claims spoke directly to an abstract idea- which would render the claims invalid on the basis of being patent ineligible subject matter.
The Court elucidated on section 101, stating that:

2012

Mayo Medical Laboratories v Prometheus Laboratories [16]

SCOTUS ruled that Prometheus Laboratories’ process patent which provided correlations between blood test results and the patient’s health in determining an appropriate dosage of a specific medication for the patient, was essentially a correlation of that of a law of nature, which was a judicially recognised exception to patentable subject matter.

2010

Bilski v Kappos [17]

SCOTUS upheld the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision in In re Bilski. It however, rejected the lower court’s holding that “machine-or-transformation test” was the sole test for patent subject matter eligibility.

2008

In re Bilski [18]

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit narrowed the scope for patenting software and business methods and declared the “machine-or-transformation test” as the sole determinative test to decide the patent eligibility of subject matter. The claim in question consisted of a method for hedging against financial risk.

1998

State Street Bank v. Signature Financial Group [19]

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a software patent granted to Signature Financial Group. The case is widely quoted as one of the first judicially recognised software patents- it set the stage for a deluge of software patent grants in the US.[20] The invention in question was a business method.
The Court held that an invention was patentable if it involved some practical application and produced a “useful, concrete and tangible result.”

1995

In Re Beauregard [21]

A claim which includes a manufactured article containing a Computer Readable Medium and instructions anointed as a “Beauregard claim”. Illustratively, floppy disks, CD-ROMS, etc would include a Beauregard claim.

1980s

Diamond v. Diehr [22] (1981)

SCOTUS held that a physical machine or a process making use of a mathematical algorithm which involves “transforming or reducing an article to a different state or thing” is patent eligible subject matter even if it includes a software component.

1970s

Parker v. Flook [23] (1978)

The Court held that unless the implementation of an algorithm was novel and non-obvious, the algorithm shall be regarded as prior-art, hence would be patent ineligible subject matter.

Gottschalk v. Benson [24] (1972)

SCOTUS addressed the patentability of software for the first time. The Court rejected a “process” patent for a method to convert binary-coded decimal numerals into pure binary numerals on a general purpose digital computer since it was solely directed to an algorithm (patent ineligible subject matter).

[1] 561 U.S. __, 130 S. Ct. 3218, 95 U.S.P.Q.2d 1001 (2010).

[2] Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 206 USPQ 193 (1980).

[3] ibid.

[4] 768 F.Supp.2d 221, 252 (D.D.C. 2011).

[5] 685 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

[6] 717 F.3d 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2013)

[7] ibid.

[8] USPTO, Memo to the Patent Examining Corps, “Preliminary Examination Instructions in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Ply. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al”, 2014.

[9] USPTO, “Interim Guidance for Determining Subject Matter Eligibility for Process Claims in View of Bilski v. Kappos”, 2010.

[10] USPTO, Memo to the Patent Examining Corps,“2012 Interim Procedure for Subject Matter Eligibility of Process Claims Involving Laws of Nature”, 2012.

[11] 566 U.S. ___ ,132 S. Ct. 1289, 101 U.S.P.Q.2d 1961 (2012).

[12] 561 U.S. __, 130 S. Ct. 3218, 95 U.S.P.Q.2d 1001 (2010).

[13] 573 U.S. __ (2014); 110 U.S.P.Q.2d 1976, 2014 ILRC 2109 (U.S. 2014) [2014 BL 170103].

[14] 566 U.S. ___ ,132 S. Ct. 1289, 101 U.S.P.Q.2d 1961 (2012)

[15] 561 U. S. 593 (2010)

[16] 566 U.S. ___ ,132 S. Ct. 1289, 101 U.S.P.Q.2d 1961 (2012)

[17] 561 U. S. 593 (2010)

[18] 545 f.3d 943 (2008)

[19] 149 F.3d 1368; 47 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1596

[20] “1998 July The State Street software patents decision” available at <http://www.thomasalspaugh.org/pub/fnd/ipswd-timeline.html#y1998-StateStreet> (last accessed July 29, 2014)

[21] 53 F.3d 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1995)

[22] 450 U.S. 175 (1981)

[23] 437 U.S. 584 (1978)

[24] 409 U.S. 63 (1972)

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/analysing-alice-corporation-pty-ltd-v-cls-bank-international-et-al

Academia and Civil Society submit critical comments to DIPP on draft National IPR Policy

sinha — 2015-03-08T11:27:05Z

As our readers may be aware, the DIPP had initiated public consultation on the drafting of India’s first National IPR policy in November 2014.

These were published as two separate blog posts on Spicy IP (Part I and Part II).

The second round of consultation on the National IPR Draft Policy (draft policy) ended on January 31, 2015. Last week, we brought to you a guest post by Raghul Sudheesh who presented criticisms submitted by Prof. NS Gopalakrishnan, Director and Dr. TG Agitha, Associate Professor at Inter University Centre for Intellectual Property Rights Studies (IUCIPRS at CUSAT).

This two part post highlights two more submissions: first, made by Prof. Srividhya Ragavan (University of Oklahoma), Prof. Brook Baker (Northeastern University), Prof. Sean Flynn(American University) (click here); and second, by Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore (CIS). In November 2014, the professors also made submissions to the Office of United States Trade Representative (USTR) objecting to US’ threats of unilateral trade sanctions, and argued in support of India’s current IPR regime.

The following sections discuss the submission made by Prof. Srividhya Ragavan, Prof. Brook Baker and Prof. Sean Flynn. The authors have shared with us a draft version of the submission as well (authored by Prof. Raghavan and Prof Baker) and you may access it here. The two submissions are substantially similar, and therefore, I have discussed the points made in the final submission only.

Broad observations and caveats

According to the authors, the policy begins with a noble objective to maintain a balance between rights and obligations (protections, limitations and exceptions) as a means to serve constitutionally recognized ends of developing scientific and creative capacities of Indian society. However, the objective soon loses steam when one comes across clauses disturbing the balance in favour of rights holders (highlighted in subsequent sections).

The document also erroneously treats IP as an end in itself, rather than a means to higher social goals and functions; and fails to mention that there exist non-IP centric policies, which are equally, possibly better suited to meet such goals. The document depicts IP as a magic tool to disperse greater creativity and innovation. In view of such dubious characterisation of IP, the authors are quick to add that the policy would be more aptly titled “Views on the Future of Creativity and Innovation in India”! To fix this muddled projection of IP, the authors at the very outset recommend that the policy imbibe the following norms, broadly:

Firstly, intellectual property systems are means to the greater ends of society, not ends in themselves.
Secondly, the ends that IP is meant to serve include to promote both production of and access to fruits of science and creativity.
Thirdly, in order to achieve the production and access promoting ends of there is a need for context-specific tailoring of protections and exceptions and limitations to achieve a proper balance of rights and obligations.

Further, the policy recommends India becoming more active in negotiations at the international level, and in this regard the authors suggest India to actively resist and reject any TRIPS plus provisions. They express concern about the policy’s intent on commercializing IP, and warn about not going overboard with the commercialization, lest it interferes or diminishes access to medicines, and state that this is where the policy should have mentioned flexibilities in Indian IP law. While addressing specific clauses, the authors warn that steps to introduce a trade secret legislation should be mulled over more, and the proposed law should reconcile with protection of traditional knowledge. Reviewing legislations and their implementation is a welcome step, but law makers need to be extremely cautious before adding more protections to the IP mix. The authors also raise their doubts about the competence and expertise of the think-tank constituted to draft the policy.

What the policy should have done instead (as per the submission)

Articulated the limited role of IP in fostering innovation, creativity and societal goals more accurately – the policy goes as far as to deem copyright and patents as ‘intellectual creations’ on page one! The policy should also have highlighted literature which indicated that IP promises are grossly overemphasized particularly with respect to low- and lower-middle income countries.
Not glorified IP as a magic tool at the altar of other instruments (effective instruments include capacity building, technology transfer, and investment strategies) to increase economic growth. For instance, the IP Hall of Fame section proposes to celebrate only ‘IP innovators &creators’ and ignores other innovators/creators.
Stressed on the importance of limitations and exceptions – the policy calls for case studies of “successful use of IPRs” but not of limitations and exceptions to intellectual property rights, nor of open access tools like Creative Commons licensing or of any other knowledge governance policies. By neglecting the role of limitations and exceptions and focusing on IPRs only, the policy also takes two steps backwards by ignoring amendments to patent and design laws – changes which facilitated the introduction of flexibilities into India’s IPR law. The policy should have also defended India’s compulsory licensing decisions and produced evidence to support the same.
Held back on its enthusiasm to increase the infrastructure for IP specialist courts. In a country where the poor is struggling with access to justice, it is unjustified to put such matters on the backburner and focus on IP adjudication.

In the end, the authors draw up a list of core IP debates that the policy should address, inter alia: clarification of patent eligibility threshold on controversial subject matters; reexamination of the policy on exhaustion of IP rights; calibration and defining the impact of competition law on the exercise of IP exclusive rights; deciding whether India will continue to improve the compulsory and government use licensing regime to broaden permissible grounds for such licenses; articulating India’s position on counter IP overreach of other countries on IP and trade such as USTR’s unilateral Special 301 Watch List and US International Trade Commission investigations; increasing collaboration with developing countries to take a coordinated stand on common IP and trade issues; clarifying and broadening standards for fair use and affordable access to copyright protected works and translation of the same, especially with respect to educational and scientific resources, etc.

Public consultation on the first draft of the National IPR Policy concluded this month. The DIPP received many submissions on the draft policy and also held stakeholder meetings. We’ve discussed two other submissions on SpicyIP (here and here), and this post discusses the submission made by Centre for Internet and Society, India. For our readers’ information, Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) is a non-profit research organisation that works in the areas of issues of intellectual property law reform, openness, privacy, freedom of speech and expression and Internet governance, accessibility for persons with disabilities, and engages in academic research on digital humanities and digital natives.

Like the other two submissions, CIS’ submission also reiterates that a National IPR Policy is not something to be rushed into without adequate evidence and consultation. The submission highlights certain principles that should be followed in the the formulation of a National IPR Policy, and also provides comments and recommendations for the draft policy. To begin with, the submission claims that the vision and mission are at odds with the methods suggested by the draft Policy. While the vision encourages growth for the ‘benefit of all’ and embraces the philosophy that knowledge owned (should be) ‘transformed into knowledge shared’ and, the mission expresses a commitment to establish a balanced, dynamic and vibrant intellectual property system in India, both sections leave much to be desired. The policy should also have envisioned (and set a mission) towards:

The creation of a balanced IP framework and committing to do so by including adequate limitations and exceptions; duly acknowledged that IP is not necessarily the best and the only solution to promoting creativity, innovation and access; and prevent unreasonable and disproportionate remedies to IPR law violations; and
Recognized that upholding freedom of expression and due process of law are essential pillars of any IP regime.

One of the (many) assumptions made by the policy is that increased IP will lead to a corresponding growth in innovation. The submission flags this and cites evidence to prove that there exists no established nexus between intellectual property and innovation, and there are reports which suggest that an increase in patents is not directly proportional to an increase in innovation and productivity. Many academic papers have concluded that the connection between patents and innovation/productivity is at best, unambiguous, and there are no positive correlations in the developing countries.

The submission also warns against introduction of a utility model protection system and mentions a couple of drawbacks- explosion in litigation of poor quality patents and legal uncertainty – which impact small business the maximum in terms of costs; risk of the system being used by foreign companies more than local firms. Utility model rights can be, and have been, used by companies to cordon off entire areas of research. Reports also suggest that in China, the abundance of utility models has led to lowering of quality of innovation. Creation of a second-tier patent protection system would lead to a deluge of low quality patents, and the impact of such a system remains debatable, especially in a developing country like India.

The policy also makes an unequivocal commitment to increase IP output at national research labs and universities. The submission cautions against use of excessive IP to cordon off timely access to valuable research produced at public funded institutions and points out that the commitment is at odds with its vision of ‘knowledge sharing’. Any IP resulting from of publicly funded research should automatically belong to the funder. Further, a focus on maximising IP will lead to research being conducted only in areas of commercial value. The objective of the section goes against the recent steps by the government to make research openly accessible in Department of Science and Technology and the Department of Biotechnology as well as other institutions. On a similar note, the submission recommends that the government develop and support the evolution of open standards. The Policy must not encourage use of IP to limit access to standards, because these are the foundational rules any technology must adhere to enter the market or ensure quality. To make the government’s ‘Digital India’ and ‘Make in India’ initiatives a success, it is imperative that standards are openly accessible – not just for the technology sector, but also India’s manufacturing sector. It would also help to establish reasonable and non-discriminatory patent pools, so that even small scale entities can commercialise their inventions based on standards with relative ease. For instance, CIS has earlier proposed that the establishment of a a government-aided patent pool of standard essential technologies in mobile phones will facilitate cross-licensing. This may potentially help avoid a patent thicket and patent licensing war in India, the kind that has erupted internationally.

On the issue of negotiating international treaties and agreement, the submission recommends that the policy state that such negotiations shall be conducted in consultation with various stakeholders, and in a transparent manner. Regional FTAs should not override nor dilute TRIPS’ flexibilities.

Lastly, it strongly pushes the policy to not just ‘study the role of limitations and exceptions’ as future policy development, but also commit to include, adopt and periodically renew of limitations and exceptions in India’s intellectual property laws.

In conclusion, the submission seeks the creation of a policy which encourages greater use of exceptions and limitations to the otherwise exclusionary use of intellectual property, encourages the expansion of the public domain, secures proportionality in enforcement of IP rights, promotes alternatives to IP – including open access to scholarly literature, open educational resources, free/open source software, open standards, open data, and aims to create a regime of intellectual property that aims to serve the public interest and not just the narrow interest of private right holders.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/academia-and-civil-society-submit-critical-comments-to-dipp-on-draft-national-ipr-policy

2015 USTR Report: Old Wine in New Bottle

sinha — 2015-06-16T10:24:49Z

Every year, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) undertakes an elaborate exercise to castigate countries' domestic intellectual property (IP) law and policy. The criticisms and recommendations are presented in a document called the Special 301 Report. This year's edition puts India on the Priority Watch List for the twenty-sixth time in a row. Below, I rebut the report's prejudicial claims and demands, and argue that the report puts free speech, innovation and public interest in jeopardy.

Keeping in tradition , the 2015 report yet again exposes US' hypocrisy by faithfully serving Hollywood and Big Pharma. In the past, countries such as Israel and Canada have publicly rejected the USTR's findings and derided the US for unwarranted interference with domestic law and policy. Last year, India too had refused to cooperate with a USTR initiated unilateral investigation (Out of Cycle review) of its IP regime because the investigation violated international law.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has released a hard-hitting response to the report. It draws case studies of countries where overbroad IP law has affected public interest, free speech and innovation. For instance, it mentions how Colombia's 'reformed' copyright law has become a travesty. Colombia introduced extreme enforcement and harsh criminal sanctions for unauthorised sharing of works at the behest of the US. Last year, news surfaced that a Colombian biodiversity researcher faced upto eight years in prison for sharing an academic article on Scribd. Any balanced IP regime (including India) permits such use of copyrighted works under the fair use principle, however, Colombia's narrow fair use provision has led to a situation where citizens now face prison for ordinary use of academic works.

This year the Special 301 Report in its section on India approves the Prime Minister's statements to align IP law with international standards, which is a cause for concern. Firstly, what are these “international standards” that both US and India refer to exactly? The most comprehensive international agreement on IP that binds 160 member nations is the WTO Agreement on Trade related aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS Agreement). Ergo, this agreement would qualify as the most accepted “international standard”, which India already complies with. Secondly, the TRIPS Agreement sets down certain global minimum standards for protecting and enforcing IP, simultaneously providing countries a certain degree of flexibility. However, the US has consistently pushed India to enact tougher provisions known as TRIPS Plus provisions. This is reflected in the report as well. Legally speaking, under international law India is not obligated to accede to such demands, and it should not if it wants a balanced IP regime to protect and serve the interests both of rights holders and its citizens.

The report shamelessly aligns its concerns with the financial interests of foreign rights holders and American companies. It erroneously projects IP as a tool to only maximise revenues, agnostic to public interest. While IP rights are temporary monopolies, they also are a tool to ensure innovation, social, scientific and cultural progress and further access to knowledge. It is well established that flexible IP laws enable access to knowledge and promote innovation. Such a flexible regime is critical to developing countries like India. The USTR conveniently forgets that lax IP law and enforcement for a large part of the 19th century helped the US to accelerate into an economic powerhouse and a front-runner in innovation. It also brazenly threatens to impose unilateral sanctions against a country designated as a Priority Foreign Country on the list. This treatment is usually reserved for the worst offender on the list. Such unilateral threats and sanctions are again a direct violation of international law.

Unsurprisingly, the report is critical of India's under-enforcement of copyright laws and the impact of patent law on pharmaceuticals. It demands a specific legislation to counter camcording and video piracy. The prospective legislation is unnecessary because all movie theatres in India prohibit camcorders and the prevailing Copyright Act, 1957 contains penalties to punish offenders. Instead of creating new offences, we should re-evaluate the need of existing offences. For instance, copyright infringement on non-commercial scales should not be a criminal offence at all . Instead, the law should provide convenient and affordable access to such works to counter petty infringement.

India is home to the world's largest apothecary. The Indian pharmaceutical and medical device industry provides affordable healthcare to the citizens, and also exports drugs to countries in need. In fact, the compulsory licensing mechanism has ensured affordable access to life saving liver and kidney drugs in India. The report comments on the undesirability of section 3(d) and the compulsory licensing mechanism in Indian patent law. With respect to section 3(d), the US wishes India to to change its patent law to enable large pharma companies to patent new forms of known substances that aren't even better. This alarmist outlook smacks of hypocrisy because the US, in fact, has a higher rate of patent invalidation and compulsory license grants! It also demands data exclusivity – which would extend proprietary rights to patentees over government mandated drug data, and would be detrimental to the local pharma industry. Further, the report states that the Indian system is biased against enforcement of foreign patent rights holders - which is mere speculation. There is no evidence to draw such a conclusion. The claims relating to localisation trends in pharma are half- baked and speculative again.

The report observes that at the UNFCCC negotiations, India recognised patents as an obstacle to dissemination of climate change technologies. It wishes India understood the critical role of patent protection and competitiveness to ensure innovation, which is a flawed co-relation. While strong IP rights may protect inventors against infringement and provide return on investment, however, stronger IP rights also raise the cost of innovation by raising the price of technological inputs into innovation and lower the frequency of innovation.

As far as the issue of counterfeit medicines is concerned, a better remedy lies in health safety laws and consumer laws, than the trademark law. The report also approves of state legislatures' version of the Goondas Act. These Acts provide for detainment of criminals and lumpen elements in society, and with recent amendments have expanded to include video pirates and digital offenders. Karnataka's Goonda Act enabling preventive detention violates constitutional rights. While the Sixth Amendment to the United States Bill of rights protects offenders against preventive detention, the US has no qualms about approving such unconstitutional procedures in India.

The arguments above underscore the irrelevance of the report. The Prime Minister may have made appeasing statements to the USA, however, in a welcome development Commerce and Industry Minister Nirmala Sithraman in response to the report stated “India is fully aligned with international intellectual property rights standards and "there is no need for anyone to question us."” Our IP regime with its inherent flexibilities should be preserved and not sacrificed at the altar of US' business interests. Using compulsory licensing across sectors would indeed accelerate technology transfer and diminish initial capex for manufacturers, a move promoted by the National Manufacturing Policy. The ambitious Make in India and Digital India campaigns are set to suffer if India incorporates TRIPS plus standards into its IP regime. The government supports opennes s and has implemented policies mandating use of open standards and open source software as a part of the Digital India campaign. India should not let foreign hands dictate its IPR Policy, and proceed to develop a policy which is informed by broader principles of fairness and equity, balancing intellectual property protections with limitations and exceptions/user rights such as those for research, education and access to medicines.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/2015-ustr-report-old-wine-in-new-bottle

37th SCCR: CIS Statement on the Proposed Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations

sinha — 2018-11-29T10:08:46Z

Anubha Sinha, attending the 37th Session of the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (“SCCR”) at Geneva from November 26, 2018 to November 30, 2018, made this statement on the Proposed Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations on behalf of CIS on Day 1, November 26.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

There still remain concerns about the weak language on limitations and exceptions in the proposed treaty.

The proposed treaty is bound to have adverse effects on legally accepted existing practices of sharing and using online works. Libraries, archives, museums, educational and research institutions, public interest organisations such as Creative Commons, organisations and efforts directed at making orphan works available online - all perform critical roles to advance the progress of society. There is a looming threat on the continuation of their ability to access and to provide the public subsequent access to their collections. Thus, there is a dire need to incorporate robust solutions into the treaty text to not have unintended consequences on the society.

We must also make note of developments such as Facebook acquiring rights to stream La Liga matches in the Indian subcontinent and acquisition of Pandora by a broadcaster (Sirius XM). In such an environment, it is becoming impossible to technically eliminate the role of computer networks insofar as creating the signal and transmitting it is concerned. The treaty still envisages to not benefit those transmissions that occur exclusively on computer networks. In light of new business and technological realities, the deficiencies in the Committee's discussions are already apparent. We urge the committee to work to ensure that the resultant treaty is balanced in letter and spirit, both.

Thank you.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/37th-sccr-cis-statement-on-cis-statement-on-the-proposed-treaty-for-the-protection-of-broadcasting-organizations

37th SCCR: CIS Statement on the Agenda on Limitations and Exceptions

sinha — 2018-11-29T10:20:13Z

Anubha Sinha, attending the 37th Session of the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (“SCCR”) at Geneva from November 26, 2018 to November 30, 2018, made this statement on the agenda on limitations and exceptions on behalf of CIS on Day 3, November 28.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Centre for Internet and Society is a civil society organisation based in India working on issues of openness and access to knowledge, amongst others.

India is a diverse country with thriving communities working on and promoting access to research, data, archival material, educational material, and developing material to benefit persons with other disabilities. As such, the regional seminars will be an excellent opportunity for such communities to interact with various stakeholders and government delegates; and help formulate concrete principles that should inform the international legal instrument that we hope is developed and discussed soon.

To enable comprehensive and substantive participation and discussions, I urge member states and WIPO to undertake steps to make the regional seminars as inclusive as possible. I request the secretariat and member states to actively work with civil society to identify and invite such community leaders.

Thank you very much.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/37th-sccr-cis-statement-on-the-agenda-on-limitations-and-exceptions

36th SCCR: CIS Statement on the Proposed Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations

sinha — 2018-05-28T14:04:53Z

Anubha Sinha, attending the 36th Session of the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (“SCCR”) at Geneva from May 28, 2018 to June 1, 2018, made this statement on the Proposed Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations on behalf of CIS on Day 1, May 28.

Thank you Mr. Chair

We would like to highlight that some of the existing alternatives to the text of the Broadcasting treaty have serious issues.

Some of the points that bear re-emphasizing are problems with watering down of limitations and exceptions, and the contemplation of a fifty year term of protection without any rationale or justifications.

If you look at the history of the Committee’s deliberations, the limitations and exceptions have been significantly diluted over the years. On the other hand, the ask for increased protections in terms of number of rights, scope and term has only increased.

Further, if the protection extends only to the signal and not to the programmes contained therein, it is not clear as to why a 50 year protection is needed for an ephemeral signal.

Reiterating the words of the Asia-Pacific Group - this matter requires proper balancing from a developmental perspective. I submit that in my opinion, it does not appear that we are anywhere close to achieving that.

Thank you.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/36th-sccr-cis-statement-on-the-proposed-treaty-for-the-protection-of-broadcasting-organizations