The Centre for Internet and Society
http://editors.cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 91 to 105.
PERVASIVE TECHNOLOGIES PROJECT WORKING DOCUMENT SERIES: DOCUMENT 1 - RESEARCH METHODOLOGY FOR A PAPER ON COMPETITION LAW + IPR + ACCESS TO < $100 MOBILE DEVICES
http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/methodology-sub-hundred-dollar-mobile-devices-and-competition-law
<b>This blog post is the research methodology for my research paper under the Pervasive Technologies Project. This is a work in progress and is likely to be modified from time to time.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">See a subsequent version titled <a class="external-link" href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/pervasive-technologies-working-document-series-research-questions-and-a-literature-review-on-actor-network-theory">Pervasive Technologies: Working Document Series - Research Questions and a Literature Review on the Actor-Network Theory</a></p>
<hr />
<h2 style="text-align: justify; "></h2>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; "><b>Preliminary</b></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The realization of the promise of the sub hundred dollar mobile device as a facilitator of access to knowledge is contingent <i>inter alia </i>on its availability in the market place. In turn, the market availability of the sub hundred dollar mobile device is influenced by the existence of an enabling environment for producers to produce, and consumers to consume. From a regulatory perspective, the enabling environment itself is a function of existing laws and policies, and the 'developmental effects' of certain laws and policies (Saraswati, 2012).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This research paper under the <i>Pervasive Technologies: Access to Knowledge in the Market Place</i> Project (<b>"PT Project"</b>) examines one such legal and policy lever and the role of a regulator in the development of an enabling environment for access to sub hundred dollar mobile devices. This paper is founded on four assumptions: <i>first, </i>that access to sub hundred dollar mobile devices is influenced by their price; <i>second, </i>that the question of access necessitates conversation between the intellectual property regime and several other actors, sites and tools; <i>third</i>, that one of the fundamental goals of regulatory reform is the creation of a 'stable, open and future- proof environment' (Guermazi and Satola, 2005) that encourages access to these devices; and <i>fourth,</i> that there exist public law implications of intellectual property that justify the involvement of State actors and regulators in matters that may arise out of private transactions.</p>
<h3><b>Research Questions</b></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This research paper will examine whether there is a role to be played by one regulator, that is, the Competition Commission of India (“CCI”), in this narrative of innovation, intellectual property and access to sub hundred dollar mobile devices. Specifically, the following research questions will be addressed:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">First, what is the relationship between intellectual property and competition law? Second, what are the competition law/antitrust concerns that arise around the licensing of intellectual property (standard essential patents)? Third, can existing mechanisms in competition law address concerns around the licensing of standard essential patents on sub hundred dollar devices, and is competition law a viable solution to address this issue? If so, which ones? Fourth, given the frequency of these litigations, is there a role to be played by an <i>ex-post</i> regulator, such as the CCI, or is there a need for <i>ex-ante</i> regulation?</p>
<h3><b>Research Objects</b></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In an attempt to address these research questions, this paper will examine the role of the Competition Commission of India and the Indian Judiciary. This paper will also examine the role of similarly placed institutions in the United States of America as well as some member states of the European Union.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This research paper will also examine select tools and sites sought to be used to create an enabling environment to facilitate access to these sub hundred dollar mobile devices: first, principles, legal frameworks and provisions of competition law/antitrust law; second, all relevant judicial decisions.</p>
<h3><b>Research Method</b></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">First , this research paper will begin with establishing the case for the intervention of the regulator and/or the judiciary in the sub hundred dollar mobile device market by undertaking a review of primary and secondary literature<a name="_ftnref1"></a><a href="#_ftn1">[1]</a>("literature"). Second, also through a literature review, the research will be contextualized to India in terms of the market, the actors involved and the legal framework. Third, a cross jurisdictional comparative legal search will be undertaken to understand the potential areas of intervention for the judiciary and the Competition Commission of India based on existing legal disputes in other jurisdictions; and the possible challenges that might ensue. Fourth, in a scenario building exercise, an attempt will be made to outline the role that the judiciary and the regulator might play in India, in order to ensure access to sub hundred dollar mobile devices is not impeded by litigation around standard essential patents.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Generally, in the writing of this paper, inputs will be sought from experts including MHRD Chair Professors, legal practitioners in India, academics in India and abroad and members of relevant departments of the Indian Government.</p>
<h3><b>Research Communication</b></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This research will be communicated through a series of blog posts- one every month from December, 2014 to December, 2015. A preliminary draft of a research paper will be produced by December, 2015, tentatively to be presented at the 4th Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, New Delhi. The final output will be a research paper.</p>
<h3><b>References</b></h3>
<ol>
<li>Bouthenia Guermazi and David Satola, Creating the "Right" Enabling Environment for ICT, in Robert Schware (ed.), E-development: From Excitement to Effectiveness (2005, World Bank Publications).</li>
<li>Jyoti Saraswati, Dot. Compradors- Power and Policy in the Development of the Indian Software Industry (2012, Pluto Press)</li>
</ol>
<div style="text-align: justify; ">
<hr align="left" size="1" width="100%" />
</div>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a name="_ftn1"></a><a href="#_ftnref1">[1]</a> Unless otherwise specified, for the purposes of this document, primary and secondary literature includes academic articles and books, newspaper articles and opinion pieces, blog posts, case law and other legal provisions.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/methodology-sub-hundred-dollar-mobile-devices-and-competition-law'>http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/methodology-sub-hundred-dollar-mobile-devices-and-competition-law</a>
</p>
No publishernehaaIntellectual Property RightsAccess to KnowledgePervasive Technologies2015-10-04T02:51:06ZBlog EntryAnnouncing the Tracks for the Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest 2015
http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/announcing-the-tracks-for-the-global-congress-on-intellectual-property-and-the-public-interest-2015
<b>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.</b>
<p>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.</p>
<p>The five tracks at the Global Congress 2015 will be:</p>
<p>a) User Rights
<br />b) Patents (including Access to Medicines, but wider in scope)
<br />c) Enforcement
<br />d) Traditional Knowledge
<br />e) Openness
<br />
<br />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.</p>
<h3>You may contact the following CIS members
to send in your queries and suggestions for the event:</h3>
<div> </div>
<p>CIS Global Congress Planning Team </p>
<ol><li>Anubha Sinha- <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:anubha@cis-india.org">anubha@cis-india.org</a></li><li>M.P. Nagaraj- <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:nagaraj@cis-india.org">nagaraj@cis-india.org</a></li><li>Maggie Huang- <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:maggie@cis-india.org">maggie@cis-india.org</a></li><li>Pranesh Prakash- <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:pranesh@cis-india.org">pranesh@cis-india.org</a></li><li>Rohini Lakshane- <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:rohini@cis-india.org">rohini@cis-india.org</a></li><li>Sunil Abraham- <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:sunil@cis-india.org">sunil@cis-india.org</a></li><li>Nehaa Chaudhari- <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:nehaa@cis-india.org">nehaa@cis-india.org</a> </li></ol>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/announcing-the-tracks-for-the-global-congress-on-intellectual-property-and-the-public-interest-2015'>http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/announcing-the-tracks-for-the-global-congress-on-intellectual-property-and-the-public-interest-2015</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaIntellectual Property RightsGlobal CongressAccess to Knowledge2014-08-22T09:47:27ZBlog EntryAnalysing Alice Corporation Pty Ltd v CLS Bank International Et Al
http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/analysing-alice-corporation-pty-ltd-v-cls-bank-international-et-al
<b>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.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The Court declared
Alice Corporation’s patent claims to be invalid by applying the tests and
frameworks propounded in <em>Mayo Collaborative
Services v. Prometheus Laboratories Inc.(“Mayo”)</em><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>and<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-964.pdf"><em>Bilski
v. Kappos<span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><strong><u>[1]</u></strong></span></span> </em>(“<em>Bilski”</em>)</a>. You may read CIS’
analysis of the <em>Bilski</em> decision <a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blog/bilski-case">here</a> and its impact <a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blog/post-bilski">here</a>. A timeline of landmark decisions on software patents is inserted at the end of the analysis. </p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Background</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Section
101 of <a href="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title35/pdf/USCODE-2011-title35.pdf">35
U. S. Code, 1952</a> (US Patent Act, 1952) provides that: <em>“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.</em>”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">However,
there exist certain <a href="http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2105.html">judicially
recognised exceptions</a> to this section, namely, laws of
nature, natural phenomena and abstract ideas.<a name="_ftnref2" href="file:///E:/CIS/Blog%20Posts/Alice%20v%20CLS%20Bank%20Post%20final.docx#_ftn2"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[2]</span></span></a>
Any claims wholly falling under any of these exceptions shall be ineligible for
patent protection. <a name="_ftnref3" href="file:///E:/CIS/Blog%20Posts/Alice%20v%20CLS%20Bank%20Post%20final.docx#_ftn3"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[3]</span></span></a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Facts
of the case</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">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 (“<strong>USPTO</strong>”)) involved<span class="msoDel"><del cite="mailto:Nehaa" datetime="2014-08-01T15:05">,</del></span> <em>inter
alia</em> (1) a method for exchanging financial obligations, (2) a computer
system as a third-party intermediary, and (3) a computer-readable medium (“<strong>CRM</strong>”) containing program code for
performing the method of exchanging obligations.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">CLS Bank filed for a
declaratory judgment action seeking non-infringement, invalidity, and
unenforceability of the patents. The district court granted a summary judgment<a name="_ftnref4" href="file:///E:/CIS/Blog%20Posts/Alice%20v%20CLS%20Bank%20Post%20final.docx#_ftn4"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[4]</span></span></a>
rendering the impugned patents invalid. Alice appealed in the Federal Circuit
which reversed<a name="_ftnref5" href="file:///E:/CIS/Blog%20Posts/Alice%20v%20CLS%20Bank%20Post%20final.docx#_ftn5"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[5]</span></span></a>
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 <em>en banc</em>
hearing, which led to the Federal Circuit <a href="http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/11-1301.pdf">reversing <em>its</em> decision</a> and ruling that the patents were indeed directed to
patent-ineligible subject matter.<a name="_ftnref6" href="file:///E:/CIS/Blog%20Posts/Alice%20v%20CLS%20Bank%20Post%20final.docx#_ftn6"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[6]</span></span></a> This<span class="apple-converted-space"> decision was rather
fragmented consisting of seven opinions without any clear majority</span><a name="_ftnref7" href="file:///E:/CIS/Blog%20Posts/Alice%20v%20CLS%20Bank%20Post%20final.docx#_ftn7"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[7]</span></span></a><span class="apple-converted-space">, and did not
address any of the unanswered issues pertaining to software patenting in wake
of the <em>Mayo</em> and <em>Bilski</em> rulings. </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><span class="apple-converted-space">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. </span>Relying on <em>Bilski</em>, 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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Determination of patent-worthiness of the subject matter</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">To
ensure the openness of fundamental scientific concepts the Court highlighted
the pressing need to “<em>distinguish between
patents that claim the ‘building blocks’ of human ingenuity and those that
integrate the building blocks into something more.” </em>The latter would
qualify as a patent-eligible invention after the said <em>transformation</em>. However, instead of formulating a test to
distinguish between the two kinds of claims, it went ahead and applied the
framework devised in <em>Mayo Collaborative
Services v Prometheus</em>. In the instant case, the Court elucidated on section
101, stating that:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em>“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.”</em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The
Court applied the first part by turning to its recent decision in <em>Bilski v. Kappos</em> and held that the
patent claims were indeed directed towards an abstract idea. The Court
explained, illustratively, that in <em>Bilski
v. Kappos</em> the claim consisted of<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>a
method for hedging against financial risk<span class="apple-converted-space"> and
in the instant case the claim consists of the concept of intermediated
settlement. “<em>Like the hedging risk in
Bilski, the concept of intermediated settlement is “a fundamental economic
practice long prevalent in our system of commerce.” </em>The Court squarely
rejected Alice’s argument that </span>an “abstract idea” is merely confined to
“pre-existing, fundamental truths which exist in principle apart from any
human action.”<span class="apple-converted-space"> It refrained from setting
any definitive limitations on the “abstract idea” category.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><span class="apple-converted-space">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 <em>Bilski v. Kappos</em> at this point, stating
(in the instant case) <em>“</em></span><em>..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."</em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Observations and Implications</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst">1.
<u>Reiterated focus on substance of claim</u> - 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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast"><em>2.
</em><u>USPTO soon thereafter issued “</u><a href="http://www.uspto.gov/patents/announce/alice_pec_25jun2014.pdf">Preliminary Examination Instructions</a><a name="_ftnref8" href="file:///E:/CIS/Blog%20Posts/Alice%20v%20CLS%20Bank%20Post%20final.docx#_ftn8"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[8]</span></span></a><u>”</u> – As
per the memorandum, this decision "<em>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." </em>Further, examiners have been instructed
to apply the framework set forth in the Mayo case, “<em>to analyze all claims directed to laws of nature, natural phenomena,
and abstract ideas for subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101.”</em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">This
instruction has had <a href="http://www.patentdocs.org/2014/06/uspto-issues-preliminary-examination-instructions-regarding-alice-corp-v-cls-bank-international.html">twofold implications</a> –</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The <em>Bilski</em> standard was followed to <a href="http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/exam/101_training_aug2012.pdf">determine the
eligibility of “abstract ideas</a>”<a name="_ftnref9" href="file:///E:/CIS/Blog%20Posts/Alice%20v%20CLS%20Bank%20Post%20final.docx#_ftn9"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[9]</span></span></a>,
and <em>Mayo</em> was applied in the “laws of
nature” category<a name="_ftnref10" href="file:///E:/CIS/Blog%20Posts/Alice%20v%20CLS%20Bank%20Post%20final.docx#_ftn10"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[10]</span></span></a>. Now <em>Mayo</em> shall be uniformly applicable to both categories, <em>and </em>also all statutory classes of
claims, not just method claims.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The
memorandum also has illustrated the theoretical exposition of the Court on
“abstract ideas” by stating that abstract ideas <em>include</em>:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst">·
Fundamental economic practices;</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">·
Certain methods of organizing human activities;</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">·
An idea of itself; and,</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast">·
Mathematical relationships / formulas.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">It
also exemplifies the limitations which may allow patent eligibility of an
“abstract idea”:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst">·
Improvements to another technology or technical fields;</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">·
Improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; and</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast">·
Meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an
abstract idea to a particular technological environment.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><span class="apple-converted-space"><strong>What
can you patent after Alice Corporation v CLS Bank?</strong></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Evidently, the Court
did not seize the opportunity to plug gaps in the framework propounded by it in
an earlier decision (<em><a href="https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.supremecourt.gov%2Fopinions%2F11pdf%2F10-1150.pdf">Mayo
Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories Inc.<span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><strong><u>[11]</u></strong></span></span></a>]</em>). It refrained from
pronouncing a definitive test (to the extent avoided mentioning software patent
in the judgment). Instead it relied on its recent decisions, <em>inter alia</em>, <em>Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories Inc.(“Mayo”)</em><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>and<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.supremecourt.gov%2Fopinions%2F09pdf%2F08-964.pdf"><em>Bilski
v. Kappos<span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><strong><u>[12]</u></strong></span></span></em></a>. 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 <em>Mayo</em> test; the decision completely
deals with the <em>rejection</em> 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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong> </strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong> </strong></p>
<p align="center" style="text-align: center;"><strong><u>Timeline
of US Court decisions on software patents</u></strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>2014</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a href="http://www2.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Alice_Corp_v_CLS_Bank_Intl_No_13298_US_June_19_2014_Court_Opinion">Alice
Corporation v CLS Bank</a><a name="_ftnref13" href="file:///E:/CIS/Blog%20Posts/Alice%20v%20CLS%20Bank%20Post%20final.docx#_ftn13"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><strong><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><strong>[13]</strong></span></strong></span></a></p>
<ul><li>SCOTUS declared Alice Corporation’s patent claims invalid by
applying tests previously held in the cases of <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1150.pdf">Mayo Medical
Laboratories v Prometheus Laboratories</a><a name="_ftnref14" href="file:///E:/CIS/Blog%20Posts/Alice%20v%20CLS%20Bank%20Post%20final.docx#_ftn14"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[14]</span></span></a> and <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1150.pdf">Bilski v Kappos</a><a name="_ftnref15" href="file:///E:/CIS/Blog%20Posts/Alice%20v%20CLS%20Bank%20Post%20final.docx#_ftn15"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[15]</span></span></a>. 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.</li><li>The
Court elucidated on section 101, stating that:</li></ul>
<p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast"><em>“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.”</em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>2012</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1150.pdf">Mayo Medical
Laboratories v Prometheus Laboratories</a><a name="_ftnref16" href="file:///E:/CIS/Blog%20Posts/Alice%20v%20CLS%20Bank%20Post%20final.docx#_ftn16"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[16]</span></span></a></p>
<ul><li>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.</li></ul>
<p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoListParagraph"></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>2010</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1150.pdf">Bilski v Kappos</a><a name="_ftnref17" href="file:///E:/CIS/Blog%20Posts/Alice%20v%20CLS%20Bank%20Post%20final.docx#_ftn17"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[17]</span></span></a></p>
<ul><li>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.</li></ul>
<p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast"> </p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>2008</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a href="http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/07-1130.pdf">In re Bilski</a><a name="_ftnref18" href="file:///E:/CIS/Blog%20Posts/Alice%20v%20CLS%20Bank%20Post%20final.docx#_ftn18"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[18]</span></span></a></p>
<ul><li> 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<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>a
method for hedging against financial risk.</li></ul>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>1998</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a href="http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/property00/patents/StateStreet.html">State Street
Bank v. Signature Financial Group</a><a name="_ftnref19" href="file:///E:/CIS/Blog%20Posts/Alice%20v%20CLS%20Bank%20Post%20final.docx#_ftn19"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[19]</span></span></a></p>
<ul><li>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.<a name="_ftnref20" href="file:///E:/CIS/Blog%20Posts/Alice%20v%20CLS%20Bank%20Post%20final.docx#_ftn20"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[20]</span></span></a><strong> </strong>The invention in question was a business
method.</li><li>The Court held that an invention was patentable if it
involved some practical application and produced a “useful, concrete and
tangible result.”</li></ul>
<p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst"></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>1995</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a href="https://casetext.com/case/in-re-beauregard">In Re Beauregard</a><a name="_ftnref21" href="file:///E:/CIS/Blog%20Posts/Alice%20v%20CLS%20Bank%20Post%20final.docx#_ftn21"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[21]</span></span></a></p>
<ul><li>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.</li></ul>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>1980s</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=450&invol=175">Diamond v. Diehr</a><a name="_ftnref22" href="file:///E:/CIS/Blog%20Posts/Alice%20v%20CLS%20Bank%20Post%20final.docx#_ftn22"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[22]</span></span></a> (1981)</p>
<ul><li>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. </li></ul>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>1970s</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a href="http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/437/584/case.html">Parker v. Flook</a><a name="_ftnref23" href="file:///E:/CIS/Blog%20Posts/Alice%20v%20CLS%20Bank%20Post%20final.docx#_ftn23"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[23]</span></span></a> (1978)</p>
<ul><li>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.</li></ul>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a href="http://laws.findlaw.com/us/409/63.html">Gottschalk v.
Benson</a><a name="_ftnref24" href="file:///E:/CIS/Blog%20Posts/Alice%20v%20CLS%20Bank%20Post%20final.docx#_ftn24"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[24]</span></span></a> (1972)</p>
<ul><li>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).</li></ul>
<p> </p>
<div><br clear="all" />
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<div id="ftn1">
<p><a name="_ftn1" href="file:///E:/CIS/Blog%20Posts/Alice%20v%20CLS%20Bank%20Post%20final.docx#_ftnref1"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[1]</span></span></a> 561 U.S. __, 130 S. Ct. 3218, 95 U.S.P.Q.2d
1001 (2010).</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn2">
<p><a name="_ftn2" href="file:///E:/CIS/Blog%20Posts/Alice%20v%20CLS%20Bank%20Post%20final.docx#_ftnref2"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[2]</span></span></a> <em>Diamond v. Chakrabarty,</em><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>447 U.S. 303, 206 USPQ 193 (1980).</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn3">
<p><a name="_ftn3" href="file:///E:/CIS/Blog%20Posts/Alice%20v%20CLS%20Bank%20Post%20final.docx#_ftnref3"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[3]</span></span></a> <em>ibid. </em><em></em></p>
</div>
<div id="ftn4">
<p><a name="_ftn4" href="file:///E:/CIS/Blog%20Posts/Alice%20v%20CLS%20Bank%20Post%20final.docx#_ftnref4"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[4]</span></span></a> 768 F.Supp.2d 221,
252 (D.D.C. 2011).</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn5">
<p><a name="_ftn5" href="file:///E:/CIS/Blog%20Posts/Alice%20v%20CLS%20Bank%20Post%20final.docx#_ftnref5"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[5]</span></span></a> 685 F.3d 1341 (Fed.
Cir. 2012).</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn6">
<p><a name="_ftn6" href="file:///E:/CIS/Blog%20Posts/Alice%20v%20CLS%20Bank%20Post%20final.docx#_ftnref6"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[6]</span></span></a> 717 F.3d 1269 (Fed.
Cir. 2013)</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn7">
<p><a name="_ftn7" href="file:///E:/CIS/Blog%20Posts/Alice%20v%20CLS%20Bank%20Post%20final.docx#_ftnref7"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[7]</span></span></a> <em>ibid.</em></p>
</div>
<div id="ftn8">
<p><a name="_ftn8" href="file:///E:/CIS/Blog%20Posts/Alice%20v%20CLS%20Bank%20Post%20final.docx#_ftnref8"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[8]</span></span></a> 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.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn9">
<p><a name="_ftn9" href="file:///E:/CIS/Blog%20Posts/Alice%20v%20CLS%20Bank%20Post%20final.docx#_ftnref9"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[9]</span></span></a> USPTO, “Interim
Guidance for Determining Subject Matter Eligibility for Process Claims in View
of Bilski v. Kappos”, 2010.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn10">
<p><a name="_ftn10" href="file:///E:/CIS/Blog%20Posts/Alice%20v%20CLS%20Bank%20Post%20final.docx#_ftnref10"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[10]</span></span></a> USPTO,
Memo to the Patent Examining Corps,“2012 Interim Procedure for Subject Matter
Eligibility of Process Claims Involving Laws of Nature”, 2012.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn11">
<p><a name="_ftn11" href="file:///E:/CIS/Blog%20Posts/Alice%20v%20CLS%20Bank%20Post%20final.docx#_ftnref11"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[11]</span></span></a> 566 U.S. ___ ,132 S. Ct. 1289, 101 U.S.P.Q.2d
1961 (2012).</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn12">
<p><a name="_ftn12" href="file:///E:/CIS/Blog%20Posts/Alice%20v%20CLS%20Bank%20Post%20final.docx#_ftnref12"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[12]</span></span></a> 561 U.S. __, 130 S. Ct. 3218, 95 U.S.P.Q.2d
1001 (2010).</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn13">
<p><a name="_ftn13" href="file:///E:/CIS/Blog%20Posts/Alice%20v%20CLS%20Bank%20Post%20final.docx#_ftnref13"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[13]</span></span></a> <span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>573 U.S. __ (2014); 110 U.S.P.Q.2d 1976, 2014 ILRC 2109 (U.S. 2014)
[2014 BL 170103].</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn14">
<p><a name="_ftn14" href="file:///E:/CIS/Blog%20Posts/Alice%20v%20CLS%20Bank%20Post%20final.docx#_ftnref14"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[14]</span></span></a> 566 U.S. ___ ,132 S.
Ct. 1289, 101 U.S.P.Q.2d 1961 (2012)</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn15">
<p><a name="_ftn15" href="file:///E:/CIS/Blog%20Posts/Alice%20v%20CLS%20Bank%20Post%20final.docx#_ftnref15"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[15]</span></span></a> 561 U. S. 593 (2010)</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn16">
<p><a name="_ftn16" href="file:///E:/CIS/Blog%20Posts/Alice%20v%20CLS%20Bank%20Post%20final.docx#_ftnref16"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[16]</span></span></a> 566 U.S. ___ ,132 S.
Ct. 1289, 101 U.S.P.Q.2d 1961 (2012)</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn17">
<p><a name="_ftn17" href="file:///E:/CIS/Blog%20Posts/Alice%20v%20CLS%20Bank%20Post%20final.docx#_ftnref17"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[17]</span></span></a> 561 U. S. 593 (2010)</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn18">
<p><a name="_ftn18" href="file:///E:/CIS/Blog%20Posts/Alice%20v%20CLS%20Bank%20Post%20final.docx#_ftnref18"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[18]</span></span></a> 545 f.3d 943 (2008)</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn19">
<p><a name="_ftn19" href="file:///E:/CIS/Blog%20Posts/Alice%20v%20CLS%20Bank%20Post%20final.docx#_ftnref19"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[19]</span></span></a> 149 F.3d 1368; 47
U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1596</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn20">
<p><a name="_ftn20" href="file:///E:/CIS/Blog%20Posts/Alice%20v%20CLS%20Bank%20Post%20final.docx#_ftnref20"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[20]</span></span></a> “1998
July The State Street software patents decision” available at <<a href="http://www.thomasalspaugh.org/pub/fnd/ipswd-timeline.html#y1998-StateStreet">http://www.thomasalspaugh.org/pub/fnd/ipswd-timeline.html#y1998-StateStreet</a>>
(last accessed July 29, 2014)</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn21">
<p><a name="_ftn21" href="file:///E:/CIS/Blog%20Posts/Alice%20v%20CLS%20Bank%20Post%20final.docx#_ftnref21"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[21]</span></span></a> 53 F.3d 1583 (Fed.
Cir. 1995)</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn22">
<p><a name="_ftn22" href="file:///E:/CIS/Blog%20Posts/Alice%20v%20CLS%20Bank%20Post%20final.docx#_ftnref22"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[22]</span></span></a> 450 U.S. 175 (1981)</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn23">
<p><a name="_ftn23" href="file:///E:/CIS/Blog%20Posts/Alice%20v%20CLS%20Bank%20Post%20final.docx#_ftnref23"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[23]</span></span></a> 437 U.S. 584 (1978)</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn24">
<p><a name="_ftn24" href="file:///E:/CIS/Blog%20Posts/Alice%20v%20CLS%20Bank%20Post%20final.docx#_ftnref24"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[24]</span></span></a> 409 U.S. 63 (1972)</p>
</div>
</div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/analysing-alice-corporation-pty-ltd-v-cls-bank-international-et-al'>http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/analysing-alice-corporation-pty-ltd-v-cls-bank-international-et-al</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaIntellectual Property RightsSoftware Patents2014-08-01T19:09:05ZBlog EntryGlobal Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, 2015
http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/2015-global-congress-on-intellectual-property-and-the-public-interest
<b>We are pleased to announce 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 seeks your participation and invites your queries and suggestions for the event. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The theme for this year’s Congress will be “<i>Three Decades of Openness; Two Decades of TRIPS</i>.” We are now inviting applications to participate in the Congress, including session participation and presentations. We are also welcoming proposals for panels and workshops.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The application form is available now at [<a href="http://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973">http://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973?</a>] 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.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Deadlines</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>August 1st: </b>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).</p>
<p><b>November 1st: </b>All applications for session participation and paper submissions will close on November 1st.</p>
<h3>Application Information</h3>
<p><i>For applications to participate/host</i>: Applications to present or host workshops shall be considered based on the proposals to be submitted in the form.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>For applications to attend sessions:</i> 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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Limited travel grants to cover accommodation and/or travel to the Congress will be available, with priority to those from developing countries.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Background, Theme and Expected Outcomes</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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<sup>th</sup> edition of the Congress, slated to be held in December, 2015 in New Delhi seeks to be one such opportunity.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The theme for the 2015 Congress is <i>Three Decades of Openness; Two Decades of TRIPS-</i>coming at a pivotal time for reflection, revision, and further strategizing. Specifically, the 2015 Congress seeks to produce three outcomes- <i>first, </i>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; <i>second,</i> the collaborative identification of urgent, global and local research priorities and generation of a joint research/advocacy agenda; and <i>third</i>, the solidification of an inter-disciplinary, cross-sector and global networked community of experts focused on public interest aspects of IP policy and practice.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Participation Opportunities</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The application form for participation is available now at <a href="http://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973">http://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973?</a>. Please forward this invitation to interested lists and individuals. For more information or questions, you may contact <a href="mailto:global-congress@cis-india.org">global-congress@cis-india.org</a>.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Organisation</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The 4<sup>th</sup> Global Congress on Intellectual Property and Public Interest, is being organised in cooperation with <a href="http://www.nludelhi.ac.in/">National Law University, Delhi</a>, by the <a href="http://americanassembly.org/">American Assembly</a> at Columbia University, the <a href="http://cis-india.org/">Centre for Internet and Society</a>, <a href="http://www.openair.org.za/">Open A.I.R</a>., and the <a href="http://www.pijip.org/">Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property</a> at American University Washington College of Law.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">For any clarifications or queries, please contact:</p>
<ul>
<li>Global Congress organising team: <a href="mailto:global-congress@cis-india.org" target="_blank">global-congress@cis-india.org</a></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Swaraj Paul Barooah: <a href="mailto:swaraj.barooah@gmail.com" target="_blank">swaraj.barooah@gmail.com</a></li>
<li>Shruthi Chandrasekaran: <a href="mailto:shruthi.chandrasekaran@gmail.com" target="_blank">shruthi.chandrasekaran@gmail.com</a></li>
</ul>
<p>The planning team also includes:</p>
<ul>
<li>Anubha Sinha: <a href="mailto:anubha@cis-india.org" target="_blank">anubha@cis-india.org</a></li>
<li>M.P. Nagaraj: <a href="mailto:nagaraj@cis-india.org" target="_blank">nagaraj@cis-india.org</a></li>
<li>Maggie Huang: <a href="mailto:maggie@cis-india.org" target="_blank">maggie@cis-india.org</a></li>
<li>Pranesh Prakash: <a href="mailto:pranesh@cis-india.org" target="_blank">pranesh@cis-india.org</a></li>
<li>Rohini Lakshane: <a href="mailto:rohini@cis-india.org" target="_blank">rohini@cis-india.org</a></li>
<li>Sunil Abraham: <a href="mailto:sunil@cis-india.org" target="_blank">sunil@cis-india.org</a></li>
<li>Nehaa Chaudhari: <a href="mailto:nehaa@cis-india.org" target="_blank">nehaa@cis-india.org</a></li>
</ul>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/2015-global-congress-on-intellectual-property-and-the-public-interest'>http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/2015-global-congress-on-intellectual-property-and-the-public-interest</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaIntellectual Property RightsAccess to Knowledge2015-06-24T16:45:21ZBlog EntryMapping Institutions of Intellectual Property: Part C — Comparing Intellectual Property Institutions
http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/mapping-institutions-of-intellectual-property-part-c
<b>Earlier this year, a proposal to establish a National Institute of Intellectual Property Rights (“NIIPR”) was presented at a Stakeholders Consultation held in New Delhi organized by the Planning Commission and the Ministry of Human Resource Development (“MHRD”), Government of India. As a third part in the series on Mapping Institutions of Intellectual Property, this article undertakes a comparison of the functions of this proposed Institute with similarly placed Institutions of Intellectual Property around the world. </b>
<hr />
<p>View Parts A and B <a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/mapping-institutions-of-intellectual-property-part-a">here</a> and <a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/mapping-institutions-of-intellectual-property-part-a">here</a></p>
<hr />
<h2>Preliminary</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Intellectual Property Institutes/Institutes of Intellectual Property (<b>“Institutes”</b>) world over usually perform two kinds of functions- <i>first, </i>they may serve as the Intellectual Property Office (the nodal agency for matters relating to intellectual property) in their respective countries and <i>second,</i> they may provide policy inputs to their respective governments. From discussions at a Stakeholders Consultation in New Delhi earlier this year (which I have written about <a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/mapping-institutions-of-intellectual-property-part-a">here</a> and <a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/mapping-institutions-of-intellectual-property-part-b">here</a>), it emerged that the Indian government (specifically, the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, India’s nodal agency for IPR related matters except copyright, and the MHRD, India’s nodal agency for copyright related matters ) lacked an institutional framework for policy feedback to the government, which in turn would supplement international negotiations. In order to address this lacuna, the Planning Commission and the MHRD presented <a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/mapping-institutions-of-intellectual-property-part-a">a proposal</a> (<b>“the Proposal”)</b> to set up the NIIPR, which would, <i>inter alia, </i>perform the function of advising the Indian government on matters of intellectual property law and policy and inform international negotiations pursuant to the same. This article examines Institutes other jurisdictions on the basis of their functions, and attempts to ascertain what functions an ‘ideal’ Institute might perform.</p>
<h2>Methodology and Preliminary Findings</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/list-of-ip-institutes.xls" class="internal-link">A list of two hundred and fifty seven territorie<b>s</b> was prepared and attempts were made to trace Institutes in each of these territories</a>. Out of these, those Institutes that had websites, and whose websites had content available in English (or for which an official or credible translation was available) were earmarked. Once the Institutes had been thus identified, their distinctive features and past achievements were studied on the basis of disclosures available on the websites of the Institutes.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It emerged that twenty three (23) countries had Institutes that performed functions similar to those envisaged for the proposed NIIPR. These countries include Albania, Australia, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Chile, France, Gabon, Greece, Iceland, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Malaysia, New Zealand, Pakistan, Portugal, Romania, Switzerland, Taiwan and Vietnam. However, this number cannot be said to be exhaustive as for 10 Countries, the translated page could not be availed. Further, in a few countries including Belgium, Belize, Iceland, New Zealand, Trinidad and Tobago, Sri Lanka and United States, the Intellectual Property Office performed the additional function of providing policy inputs to the government, in addition to administering and granting Intellectual Property Rights.</p>
<p>A diagrammatic representation of these preliminary findings and the methodology is available in Figures 1 and 2 (below).</p>
<table class="invisible">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th><img src="http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/Fig1.png" alt="Fig1" class="image-inline" title="Fig1" /></th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Figure 1</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table class="invisible">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th><img src="http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/copy_of_Fig2.png" alt="Fig2" class="image-inline" title="Fig2" /></th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Figure 2</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<h2>Observations on Functions</h2>
<table class="invisible">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th><img src="http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/Fig3.png" title="Fig3" height="323" width="451" alt="Fig3" class="image-inline" /></th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Figure 3</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>Institutes across the world are varied in their functioning, structure and organization. Some observations (that could aid the establishment of the NIIPR) on the functioning of some of these Institutes are as under:</p>
<ol>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">The Institute for Intellectual Property Rights of Bosnia and Herzegovina performs a dual role of the Patent Office as well as that of a research institute. In addition to assisting the government when it enters into agreements, it also performs documentation tasks and implements regulations related to intellectual property. It is also entrusted with the task of maintaining a record of industrial property applied for and granted.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">The National Institute of Industrial Property, France contributes to the development and implementation of public policies in the field of anti-counterfeiting.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">The Centre for Industrial property of Gabon presents and defends the interests of the Gabonese government at the international level.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">The Hellenic Industrial Property Organisation registers inventions in Greece by granting patents and utility model certificates. It also registers industrial designs and community designs and models. Moreover, it also acts as a receiving office for the European Patent and the PCT certificate among others.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">The National Institute of Intellectual Property, Kazakhstan performs the functions of the National Patent Office, including examination of applications for patents, useful models, trademarks, appellation of origin of goods and industrial designs. </li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">The Intellectual Property Organization, Pakistan seeks to serve as the nodal organisation for the integrated management of intellectual property and seeks to coordinate the enforcement of intellectual property as well.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">The Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property performs the task of examining national filing applications and grants and administers intellectual property rights. It has also developed a patent database (ESPACEMENT) which has ensured access to over eighty (80) million patent documents. </li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">The Japanese Institute of Intellectual Property provides inputs on existing laws to the Government of Japan. These inputs have influenced the revision of Japanese laws relating to patents, trademarks, utility models and the prevention of unfair competition.</li>
</ol>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; ">Takeaways for the NIIPR</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This attempt at an overview of Intellectual Property Institutes around the world has revealed broad similarities in their functioning. These similarities are also seen with the proposed functions of the NIIPR, as outlined in the Proposal of the MHRD and the Planning Commission. It would therefore lead one to believe that the establishment of this institution is potentially headed in the right direction. However, even while the functions of these existing Institutions might guide the establishment of the NIIPR, it would do well to tailor itself to meet India’s specific requirements. With pre-existing ministries, departments and offices in place to deal with the enforcement of intellectual property rights, India needs a body that informs the government on issues of intellectual property law and policy reform, in preparation for international negotiations, which is a lacuna that the NIIPR ought to address. In addition to this core function, the NIIPR may be the institution that oversees the role and functioning of the MHRD Chairs, and also be developed as a research institution aiding the government in developing an intellectual property framework addressing the needs of all stakeholders. Further, the NIIPR may also consider undertaking activities such as the establishment of databases containing patent documents and other publications in Indic languages to ensure access to a larger group of people. The NIIPR could also play an influential role in shaping regional discussions on intellectual property at the international level and encourage and facilitate South-South dialogue.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">With nine thousand nine hundred and eighty (9980) lakh Indian rupees <a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/mapping-institutions-of-intellectual-property-part-a">being allocated</a> for the National Programme on Intellectual Property Management under the current Five Year Plan (2012-2017), which includes the establishment of the NIIPR, one awaits further developments that might well change the face of India’s intellectual property framework in the long run, with a sense restrained excitement.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/mapping-institutions-of-intellectual-property-part-c'>http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/mapping-institutions-of-intellectual-property-part-c</a>
</p>
No publishernehaaIntellectual Property RightsAccess to Knowledge2014-07-22T04:24:23ZBlog EntryMapping Institutions of Intellectual Property (Part A): India's National Programme on Intellectual Property Management
http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/mapping-institutions-of-intellectual-property-part-a
<b>This blog post discusses India’s National Program on Intellectual Property Management, including the establishment of a National Institute of Intellectual Property Rights. </b>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On the 21<sup>st</sup> of February, 2014, the Planning Commission and the Ministry of Human Resource Development (“MHRD”), Government of India organized a Stakeholders Consultation at New Delhi (“the Consultation”). I attended this meeting on behalf of CIS. The discussion was centred around devising a strategy for India’s National Program on Intellectual Property Management under our 12<sup>th</sup> Five Year Plan (2012 to 2017). On the agenda were two key issues:</p>
<ol>
<li>Evaluating and rethinking the role of IPR Chairs established by the MHRD</li>
<li>Establishing a National Institute of Intellectual Property Rights</li>
</ol>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>Pawan Agarwal</i>, Advisor, Higher Education, Planning Commission, Government of India made a detailed presentation on both of these issues. The key parts of his presentation and the ensuing discussions have been reproduced below.</p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; ">Presentation and Ensuing Discussions</h2>
<p>The diagrams in this section correspond to those in <i>Pawan. Agarwal’s</i> presentation.</p>
<h3>Ecosystem</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In Figure 1, the proposed structure of the national intellectual property system has been outlined. Those government departments and ministries that would have a role to play have been identified, as well as the functions expected to be performed.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In the discussion that followed it was observed that traditional knowledge should also be included within this ecosystem. The Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (“DIPP”) could coordinate and seek inputs from the Ministry of Culture and the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.</p>
<table class="invisible">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th><img src="http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/copy_of_IP1.png" alt="IP1" class="image-inline" title="IP1" /><br /></th>
</tr>
<tr>
<th style="text-align: center; ">Figure 1</th>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Education: Programs and Courses</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Figure 2 details the proposed structure of IPR education, including courses, financial aid and the nature of the program. Members attending the Consultation were of the opinion that having ten centres for doctoral education was an ambitious target. They were also of the opinion that there was need to integrate IPR education with more courses, for instance, MBA and MSc.</p>
<table class="invisible">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th><img src="http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/IP2.png" alt="IP2" class="image-inline" title="IP2" /></th>
</tr>
<tr>
<th style="text-align: center; ">Figure 2</th>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Education: Various Elements</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Figure 3 deals with other elements of the IP education universe- curriculum development (envisaged as a joint effort), faculty development (of selected faculty) and funding. Various suggestions emerged on the role of the IP Chairs. This has been examined in greater detail subsequently in this blog post. A key suggestion was made regarding the establishment of more law schools in the IITs, along the lines of the Rajiv Gandhi School of Intellectual Property Law at the Indian Institute of Technology (“IIT”), Kharagpur.</p>
<table class="invisible">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th><img src="http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/copy2_of_IP3.png" alt="IP3" class="image-inline" title="IP3" /><br /></th>
</tr>
<tr>
<th style="text-align: center; ">Figure 3</th>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Research and Policy Support</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Figure 4 lays out the details of the research and policy support to be provided by the Government towards developing this IPR ecosystem. The Government seeks to achieve this through the existing institutions of the IP Chairs, by way of awarding fellowships and research grants. Once again, concerns and questions were raised regarding the role of MHRD IP Chairs, which will be discussed subsequently in this blog post.</p>
<table class="invisible">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th><img src="http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/IP4.png" alt="IP4" class="image-inline" title="IP4" /></th>
</tr>
<tr>
<th style="text-align: center; ">Figure 4</th>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<h3>Training & Capacity building</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Training and capacity building has been visualised on two levels- basic awareness building about intellectual property rights in institutions of higher education and on the advanced level, dealing with specialised courses on trademark/patent drafting or technology licensing, among others.</p>
<table class="invisible">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th><img src="http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/IP5.png" alt="IP5" class="image-inline" title="IP5" /></th>
</tr>
<tr>
<th style="text-align: center; ">Figure 5</th>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<h3>Creation/ Protection and Management</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">For the creation, protection and management of intellectual property, a two pronged approach has been envisaged- the establishment of cells for the management of intellectual property in institutions of higher education and an increased focus on patents, including the creation of incentives for patenting for researchers. Figure 6 lays out the scheme.</p>
<table class="invisible">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th><img src="http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/copy_of_IP6.png" alt="IP6" class="image-inline" title="IP6" /><br /></th>
</tr>
<tr>
<th style="text-align: center; ">Figure 6</th>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">National/ Regional Centres/ Chairs</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This program on intellectual property outlines a proposal for the establishment of one national centre, five regional centres and twenty chairs, with a distinct role outlined for each. Details are available in Figure 7.</p>
<table class="invisible">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th><img src="http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/IP7.png" alt="IP7" class="image-inline" title="IP7" /></th>
</tr>
<tr>
<th style="text-align: center; ">Figure 7</th>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<h3>Governance</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The National Program on intellectual Property Management lays out a three tiered governance structure, headed by the National Steering Committee on IPR, assisted by the Advisory and Project Approval Committees, with five Regional Committees constituting the final tier. This has been represented in Figure 8.</p>
<table class="invisible">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th><img src="http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/copy_of_IP8.png" alt="IP8" class="image-inline" title="IP8" /><br /></th>
</tr>
<tr>
<th style="text-align: center; ">Figure 8</th>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Funding Arrangements</h3>
<table class="invisible">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th><img src="http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/IP9.png" alt="IP9" class="image-inline" title="IP9" /></th>
</tr>
<tr>
<th style="text-align: center; ">Figure 9</th>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The discussion that occurred after <i>Pawan Agarwal’s </i>presentation was centred around the issues of intellectual property education, revisiting the role of the MHRD IPR Chair Professor and on the establishment of a National Institute of Intellectual Property Rights.</p>
<h3>Intellectual Property Education</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On a broader level, the Consultation dealt with the subject of intellectual property education, which the proposed plan envisaged on a generic basic level as well as a more advanced technical level. <i>Narendra Sabharwal, </i>former Deputy Director General, World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) was had a three pronged opinion on intellectual property education- <i>first, </i>that intellectual property education had to be mainstreamed, and that this mainstreaming should be a part of the vision and strategy of any national plan on intellectual property; <i>second, </i>that intellectual property education should be used to synergise and encourage the creation of more IP assets and <i>third</i> that the proposed national institute should play an advisory role in the intellectual property education framework.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Evaluating and Rethinking the Role of IPR Chairs Established by the MHRD</h3>
<p><b>Background</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The MHRD has, under <a href="http://copyright.gov.in/Documents/scheme.pdf">the Scheme for Intellectual Property Education, Research and Public Outreach</a> (“the Scheme”), established twenty IPR Chairs in various universities and other institutions of higher learning across the country. According to the <a href="http://mhrdiprchairs.org/AboutChairs.aspx">MHRD IPR Chairs website</a>, six of these Chairs have been set up in Universities (University of Delhi, University of Madras, Tezpur University, CUSAT- Kochi, JNU- Delhi and the Delhi School of Economics); five in National Law Universities (NLSIU- Bangalore, NALSAR- Hyderabad, NLU- Jodhpur, NLIU- Bhopal and WBNUJS- Kolkata); six in the Indian Institutes of Technology (IIT- Delhi, IIT- Madras, IIT- Kanpur, IIT- Kharagpur, IIT- Bombay and IIT- Roorkee) and three in the Indian Institutes of Management (IIM- Bangalore, IIM- Kolkata and IIM- Ahmedabad).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">With the purpose of creating awareness among the “general public intelligentsia etc. on IPR Copyright and WTO Studies”<a href="#fn1" name="fr1">[1] </a>, the Scheme has been implemented with the objectives of encouraging the study of intellectual property rights in universities and other institutions of higher learning and developing and encouraging study in specialized courses of IPR; creating awareness about IPRs; organizing activities such as seminars and workshops for IPR awareness; creating knowledge resources, developing policy inputs and negotiating strategies and course awareness- all on WTO matters and evolving strategies of Regional Cooperation and Regional Trading Agreements. Expenditure under the Scheme may be incurred by the MHRD (directly or indirectly) for a wide array of purposes including <i>inter alia, </i>the institution of “Chairs” for IPR Studies for higher education and “also on WTO Studies” (sic.).</p>
<h3>At the Consultation</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There was a general consensus on the need to restructure the existing ‘MHRD Chair’ institutions and questions were raised regarding their longevity and the sustainability. Veena Ish, Joint Secretary, Department of Higher Education, MHRD, Government of India, spoke of the need to strengthen the existing IPR Chairs and bring about changes in the funding scheme. She also sought inputs on what form and structure the institutions should adopt.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Faculty members of various educational institutions present at the meeting were of the opinion that there was an urgent need to set norms clarifying the role of Chairs. Out of the various suggestions put forth, some of them were as under:</p>
<ol>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Specify the number of hours (if any) that a Chair was expected to teach. This proved to be a contentious issue at the meeting, with various members of the faculty raising questions on how one was to balance teaching requirements with research and policy feedback obligations.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Envisage the role of the Chair as that of a mentor who would not teach except for the occasional guest lecture, but would guide younger faculty in teaching. The Chairs would then instead produce at least three research outputs in a year based on topic inputs from the National Institute/Centre for Intellectual Property Rights. These research outputs would then act as policy inputs to the government. </li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">The Chair would liaison with industry, academia and policy makers to identify issues of policy concern and research interest.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">The institution of the MHRD Chair should be delinked from the university set up. Chairs should be appointed directly by the MHRD through a transparent and accountable process, distinct from the present state of affairs where the Vice Chancellors of universities were allowed to exercise discretion in appointments.</li>
</ol>
<h3>Establishment of a National Institute of Intellectual Property Rights</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Context</b><br />The present circumstances that might necessitate the establishment of a National Institute of Intellectual property Rights were highlighted at the Consultation by <i>D.V. Prasad, </i>Joint Secretary, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (“DIPP”), Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India. He said that there was a need for a nodal agency for World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) matters. He also said that there was a need for a body to focus on government policy and provide policy inputs to the DIPP and other departments and ministries working on intellectual property law and policy issues. At the moment, he said, there were no formal mechanisms in place though which the DIPP sought policy input, and instead relied on basic inputs from paid external consultants.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">At the Consultation</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The discussion at the Consultation pertained to the form and functions of this proposed institution. <i>D.V. Prasad</i> emphasised that this institution ought not to become an academic exercise or a university and that the focus should remain policy inputs to the government. This view was echoed by <i>Shilpi Jha</i> of the Confederation of Indian Industries. <i>V.C .Vivekanandan</i>, MHRD Chair Professor, NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad, was also in agreement with <i>D.V. Prasad </i>and <i>Shilpi Jha, </i>and said that the proposed institution ought to be a ‘stand alone model’. <i>Narendra Sabharwal</i> envisaged this institution as a think-tank that would research on legal and policy issues and international relations on emerging areas of technology. This would be distinct from university research undertaken by MHRD Chairs, although some of the university research ought to feed into the think-tank. <i>N.S. Gopalakrishnan, </i>former MHRD Chair Professor at CUSAT, Kochi was of the opinion that this proposed institution ought not to be within the aegis of the University Grants Commission. Further, he said that it was critical to develop capacity for policy research within the country, but until that time, it was critical to attract people from both within as well as outside India to undertake policy research. <i>Sunita Tripathy</i>, Assistant Professor, Jindal Global Law School was also of the opinion that there was a need to build capacity for policy research in India.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Concluding Observations</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">From the conversation at the Consultation it seems evident that there is a need to revisit the institution of the MHRD Chair Professor, but what remains moot is the form that it should take. The viability of the proposed national institute would also have to be studied in further detail, against similar models in other countries.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This is an exercise that we shall continue to undertake in subsequent blog posts as a part of this series of mapping institutions of intellectual property.</p>
<hr align="left" size="1" width="100%" />
<p>[<a href="#fr1" name="fn1">1</a>].See<i> Scheme for Intellectual Property Education, Research and Public Outreach</i>, available at http://copyright.gov.in/Documents/scheme.pdf (last accessed 03 June, 2014) at page 1.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/mapping-institutions-of-intellectual-property-part-a'>http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/mapping-institutions-of-intellectual-property-part-a</a>
</p>
No publishernehaaFeaturedIntellectual Property RightsAccess to Knowledge2014-06-10T07:34:34ZBlog EntryTranscripts of Discussions at WIPO SCCR 27
http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-27-discussions-transcripts
<b>We are providing archival copies of the transcripts of the 27th session of the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights, which is being held in Geneva from April 28, 2014 to May 2, 2014. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Note: This is an unedited transcript of the discussions at SCCR 27. We are hosting the text for archival purposes:</p>
<hr style="text-align: justify; " />
<ul>
</ul>
<p>Day 1: April 28, 2014:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/2014-04-28_sccr.txt" class="external-link">WIPO SCCR 27 Text</a></li>
<li><a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-27-day-1-april-28-2014.pdf" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 27 PDF</a></li>
</ul>
<p>Day 2: April 29, 2014:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/2014-04-29-sccr-27.txt" class="external-link">WIPO SCCR 27 Text</a></li>
<li><a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-day-2-april-29-2014.pdf" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 27 PDF</a></li>
</ul>
<p>Day 3: April 30, 2014</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-27-discussions-transcripts-day-3.txt" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 27 Text</a></li>
<li><a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-27-discussion-transcripts-day-3.pdf" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 27 PDF</a></li>
</ul>
<p>Day 4: May 1, 2014</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-27-may-1-2014.txt" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 27 Text</a></li>
<li><a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-27-day-4-may-1-2014.pdf" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 27 PDF</a></li>
</ul>
<p>Day 5: May 2, 2014</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/2014-05-02-sccr-27.txt" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 27 Text</a></li>
<li><a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-27-discussions-transcripts-day-5.pdf" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 27 PDF</a></li>
</ul>
<ul>
</ul>
<ul>
</ul>
<hr />
<p>Click for <a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-marakkesh-treaty" class="internal-link">WIPO Signing Ceremony for Marrakesh Treaty</a></p>
<ul>
</ul>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-27-discussions-transcripts'>http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-27-discussions-transcripts</a>
</p>
No publishernehaaIntellectual Property RightsCopyrightAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2014-05-25T04:50:59ZBlog EntryCIS Statement at 27th SCCR on the WIPO Proposed Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations
http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-27-sccr-on-wipo-proposed-treaty-for-protection-of-broadcasting-organizations
<b>The 27th Session of the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights is being held in Geneva from April 28, 2014 to May 2, 2014. Nehaa Chaudhari, on behalf of CIS made the following statement on April 29, 2014.</b>
<p>This statement was in response to the Chairperson seeking NGO inputs specifically on the Scope of the Treaty and the Rights of Broadcasting Organizations. The statement makes references to a specific Working Document <a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/sccr-27-cis-wipo.pdf" class="internal-link">available here</a>. CIS statement is quoted in <a class="external-link" href="http://keionline.org/node/1994">Knowledge Ecology International</a> on April 29, 2014 and in the <a class="external-link" href="http://www.ip-watch.org/2014/05/01/at-wipo-authors-civil-society-watchful-of-rights-for-broadcasters/">Intellectual Property Watch</a> on May 1, 2014.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Thank you, Mister Chair.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">We have some concerns regarding the intended scope and language of Article 9 in Working Document SCCR/27/2 Rev. We believe that this expands the scope of this proposed treaty and is likely to have the effect of granting broadcasters rights over the content being carried and not just the signal. On this issue, we have two brief observations to make:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">First- Article 9 envisages fixation and post fixation rights for broadcasting organizations- for instance among others, those of reproduction, distribution and public performance This, we believe is not within the mandate of this Committee, being as it is, inconsistent with a signal based approach.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Second- we express our reservations on the inclusion of “communication to the public” reflected in Article 9 Alternative B, which also relates to the definition of communication to the public under alternative to d of Article 5 of this document. Communication to the public is an element of copyright and governs the content layer, as distinct from the “broadcast” or “transmission” of a signal. Therefore, attempts to regulate “communication to the public” would not be consistent with a signal based approach, which we believe is the mandate binding on this Committee. <br /> <br /> That is all, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much.<br /> <br /> In response to CIS' statement, the Chair had this to say:<br /> <br /> <i>Thank you, CIS,. That was a very clear statement and gave us a very clear explanation of the situation. We will indeed take due account of that in the course of this afternoon's further discussion. </i></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-27-sccr-on-wipo-proposed-treaty-for-protection-of-broadcasting-organizations'>http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-27-sccr-on-wipo-proposed-treaty-for-protection-of-broadcasting-organizations</a>
</p>
No publishernehaaIntellectual Property RightsCopyrightAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2014-05-01T14:27:48ZBlog EntryReport on the 31st Session of the Standing Committee on Trademarks
http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/report-on-31-session-of-standing-committee-on-trademarks
<b>Puneeth Nagraj reports about the 31st Session of the Standing Committee on Trademarks (SCT) that he attended.</b>
<p>The 31st meeting of the SCT was held from March 17 to 21, 2014.<a href="#fn1" name="fr1">[1]</a>The meeting was important as Members sought to finalise the issues in the Design Law Treaty (DLT) before the Diplomatic Conference. The session also saw proposals by the delegations of Jamaica, the United States and Hungary.[<a href="#fr2" name="fn2">2</a>].</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Adil El Maliki of Morocco was elected Chair, and Mr. Imre Gonda of Hungary and Ms. Günseli Güven of Turkey were elected Vice-Chairs of the 31<sup>st</sup> session. The Session was dominated by negotiations around the DLT and very little time was devoted to the Plenary attended by this observer.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Design Law Treaty</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The 31<sup>st</sup> session had a mandate from the WIPO General Assembly to finalise the text of the DLT before the Diplomatic Conference. However, disagreements over the technical assistance and capacity building provisions threatened to delay the process further. While Developing Countries preferred a provision in the Treaty on technical assistance, developed countries were against a binding provision and were in favour of a resolution on the issue.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Members of the African Group insisted that a Diplomatic Conference would be convened only if the Treaty included a provision on Technical Assistance and Capacity Building. The Delegate of Kenya said that the adoption of this treaty would require significant changes in the national IP systems of developing countries which are likely to go beyond the capacity and ability of individual countries to implement the treaty. The Delegate then emphasised the need for such a provision in upgrading their national IP system to conform with and to implement the treaty. The stance of the Kenyan delegate was further supported by Brazil, the GRULAC and Bangladesh in addition to other DAG members.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The delegate of Japan on behalf of Group B said that the text of the designs law treaty aimed to streamline and enhance design law formalities and would benefit all countries irrespective of their status of development. The delegate also stated that the issue of technical assistance should not stop the convening of a Diplomatic Conference. The EU on a similar note said that the convening of a Diplomatic Conference should be priority outcome of the 31<sup>st</sup> Session.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Proposals</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The delegate of Jamaica submitted a proposal for the protection of country names.<a href="#fn3" name="fr3">[3]</a>The proposal sought to establish a coherent and consistent framework to deal with trademark cases which deal with country names. The proposal received support from some delegations in addition to suggestions to revise it. Switzerland emphasised the need for “pragmatic affordable way to protect country names” and to ensure that product names were used only for countries that produce such products. The EU also noted that this issue has been under discussion since 2009 and called for an awareness mechanism to ensure refusal of trademarks for products with country names. The US raised many doubts as to whether such a proposal would be feasible arguing that the government would have to act as a brand owner like others and that this was not a historical role that governments have played. The US also stated that not all countries shared an interest in protecting such rights and that it was premature to initiate text based questions on the proposal. Instead, the delegate called on the chair to conduct research on whether a system to protect country names could exist. In response to suggestions, the delegation of Jamaica offered to consider them and present a revised proposal at the next session.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There were also two proposals on Geographical Indications. The US submitted a proposal to suggest a work plan for the reform of the GI filing system.<a href="#fn4" name="fr4">[4]</a> While some delegations supported this proposal, others expressed opposition. The delegation of Hungary submitted a joint proposal to conduct a study concerning the protection of geographical indications in the domain name system. Again opinion on this proposal was divided- with some asking for more time to consider the proposal since it was submitted late. The Chair cited the lack of agreement on these proposals to put off further discussions until the next session.</p>
<hr />
<p>[<a href="#fr1" name="fn1">1</a>]. See <a href="http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=32083">http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=32083</a>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr2" name="fn2">2</a>]. The Hungarian proposal was jointly sponsored by Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Moldova and Switzerland.</p>
<p>[<a href="#fr3" name="fn3">3</a>]. See SCT/31/5.</p>
<p>[<a href="#fr4" name="fn4">4</a>].See SCT/31/7.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/report-on-31-session-of-standing-committee-on-trademarks'>http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/report-on-31-session-of-standing-committee-on-trademarks</a>
</p>
No publisherpuneethIntellectual Property RightsAccess to Knowledge2014-05-06T07:22:11ZBlog EntryBroadcast Treaty: An Overview
http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/broadcast-treaty-an-overview
<b>In this blog post, CIS intern Varun Baliga, a third year law student at NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad, presents an overview of the Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations, currently being deliberated by nations at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR).</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Negotiations on the Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations (“Broadcast Treaty”) (draft circulated for discussion at the 26<sup>th</sup> SCCR available here- <a href="http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_26/sccr_26_6.pdf">http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_26/sccr_26_6.pdf</a>) were initiated for the purpose of protecting such organizations from signal piracy. For a broadcasting organization, their signal is the prime source of revenue. Therefore, state intervention at the international level was required to quell the transnational issue of signal piracy. Moves by a majority of nations indicated that the mood was in favour of drafting a treaty that would codify certain protections for broadcasting organizations in the form of rights. The obvious concerns that arose were the nature and scope of those rights. Overbroad rights often posed significant obstacles to the free flow of information. A number of developing nations were concerned that the latest move was a further entrenchment of the colonization of information and knowledge. It was in the common interest to balance the dire need to combat signal piracy in order to maintain the integrity of the business of broadcasting organizations while at the same time ensuring that it doesn’t come at the cost of the access to the information itself.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">From the perspective of the Global South, the focus of the text was Article that protected possible action that states may take in the public interest. The South was interested in elevating the status of the public interest to that of an aspiration that states must seek to live up to. So, public interest must continue to guide even negotiations that seek to protect the interests of multinational corporations. The Broadcast Treaty also protects against the restriction of free flow of technology and access to the same in Article 4. One of the sticking points of negotiations has been the nature and scope of the protection that is to be offered to broadcasting organizations. India, among other countries, has advocated for a strict signal-based approach to the protection. It opines that protection should be offered to the signal alone and not the subject matter that is carried by the signal. Many nations of the developed world look at this as a distinction without a difference. There has also been a strong push from the South to limit protection only to transmission and not cover the retransmission of signals within the aegis of the treaty. Another cleavage of opinion has been on definitional concerns that have plagued the negotiations ever since they commenced. Institutions such as Knowledge Ecology International among others have noted with caution the wide meanings conferred on beneficiaries of protection. Understanding broadcasting organizations and cablecasting organizations in an all-encompassing way would result in not just the proliferation of rights, thereby harming the sanctity associated with the concept, but would also lead to the manifestation of those rights on contexts that harm free speech and access to information. For example, the protection of the rights of broadcasting organizations on the internet could play out in a pernicious fashion, particularly since the internet space has long been one of open and free access.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Many countries, including India, Brazil and South Africa, have questioned the need for the treaty in the first place. Adopting this position doesn’t mean a devaluation of the harms of signal piracy. On the other hand, questions have been raised as to whether the creation of rights is the most effective, or even the right, solution. The harms of this problem-solution mismatch mean that the stakes are high; therefore, subjecting this treaty to critical scrutiny assumes great importance.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India, South Africa and the entire bloc has also argued against the inclusion of webcasts and netcasts in the spectrum of rights being conferred on broadcasting organizations. Broadcasting and webcasting work on completely different investment models and don’t work on the same kind of infrastructure. For that and other speech and access reasons, protection should be given, it was argued, only for traditional transmission of the signal. Consensus was ultimately achieved with the US agreeing that the focus of the treaty should be “true signal piracy, real-time transmission of the signal to the public without authorization".<a href="#fn1" name="fr1">[1]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Centre for Internet and Society has expressed its reservations about the treaty in no uncertain terms in the past. The underlying philosophy has consistently been a robust signal-based approach to the treaty. A consequence of this would be no term of protection for signals since the rights would exist only for infinitesimal amount of time that the signal does. The absence of a term of protection would also preclude concerns about harm to free flow of information from creeping up. CIS noted that there was a need for greater clarity on the meaning of ‘mere retransmissions’ which would not be granted any rights in the April 2007 Non-Paper circulated for the delegates. When the transmission is over a computer networks, there should be inkling of doubt as to the exclusion of both transmission and retransmission from the ambit of protection. Finally, it has called for a different structure of limitations and exceptions to be conceptualized for the treaty. A simplistic transplantation of the Berne Convention provisions would be ignorant of the particular needs of broadcasting. It is critical that the limitations and exceptions be actualized in a manner that is enabling and empowering for the most vulnerable stakeholders.</p>
<hr />
<p>[<a href="#fr1" name="fn1">1</a>]. <a class="external-link" href="http://keionline.org/node/1701">http://keionline.org/node/1701</a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/broadcast-treaty-an-overview'>http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/broadcast-treaty-an-overview</a>
</p>
No publishernehaaIntellectual Property RightsAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2014-03-20T09:55:45ZBlog EntryPranesh Prakash: Influencing India's IP Laws
http://editors.cis-india.org/news/forbes-india-february-15-2014-samar-srivastava-pranesh-prakash-influencing-indias-ip-laws
<b>Pranesh Prakash believes intellectual property laws need to evolve and change with time.</b>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Samar Srivastava's article was <a class="external-link" href="http://forbesindia.com/article/30-under-30/pranesh-prakash-influencing-indias-ip-laws/37177/1">published in Forbes India Magazine</a> on February 15, 2014.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">At an age where his contemporaries are still junior litigators and aspiring lawyers, Pranesh Prakash, 28, is already a recognisable name in the filed of legal activism.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In 2013 he worked with the World Intellectual Property Organization to draft a treaty for the blind. It provides for an exception to copyright laws so that books can be converted into accessible formats for the blind and visually impaired, and exchanged across borders.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">For Prakash the treaty capped a signal achievement in intellectual property and copyright—an area he has been working in since graduating from the National Law School, Bangalore. In his closing speech at the diplomatic conference at Marrakesh, Morocco, Prakash said: “When copyright doesn’t serve public welfare, states must intervene... Importantly, markets alone cannot be relied upon to achieve a just allocation of informational resources, as we have seen clearly from the book famine that the blind are experiencing.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Prakash’s work on intellectual property has brought him recognition through affiliations: He is an Access to Knowledge Fellow at the Information Society Project at Yale Law School. In 2012, he was selected as an Internet Freedom Fellow by the US State Department.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“I was always interested in doing public interest work,” says Prakash. An internship with activist lawyer Rajeev Dhawan cemented his desire. Prakash is now prominent in a line of thinkers working in the area of freedom of expression, internet governance and intellectual property.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It is clear that existing laws in these areas are inadequate and a new jurisprudential setup needs to evolve. For example, the same standards often apply to print and internet media; they fail to recognise that, say, tweets have a different impact than newspapers headlines.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Prakash’s criticism of governments blocking websites stood out, but his recommendations were not accepted. He proposed that all intermediaries, like the ISP and the domain host, not be bunched, and separate standards be imposed on them, based on their editorial role in content creation.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“What distinguishes his work is the impact it has on the public at large,” says Gautam John, head, Karnataka Learning Partnership at the Akshara Foundation. “His work in the area is cutting edge. There is no one doing that work.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Then there is his work with Section 66A of the IT Act. Under the section, anyone who sends false, offensive or inappropriate content by a computer or communication device can be punished with three years of imprisonment. This section has been misused by the police. Prakash has long argued that the law must be more specific in what it defines as offensive, and that the government needs to engage more with civil society and industry to end the antagonistic and selective manner in which the law is imposed.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Efforts of the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), Bangalore, where Prakash is policy director, have resulted in rules being amended. Now, only officers of the rank of DCP and above can make an arrest. CIS, set up in 2008, has also made representations on the copyright law to Parliamentary Standing Committees.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Prakash’s activism has had another significant effect on intellectual property in India. By a 2008 Bill, the government had tried to privatise publicly-funded intellectual property. Prakash was part of a sustained campaign against the Bill, and in 2011 it was shelved.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/news/forbes-india-february-15-2014-samar-srivastava-pranesh-prakash-influencing-indias-ip-laws'>http://editors.cis-india.org/news/forbes-india-february-15-2014-samar-srivastava-pranesh-prakash-influencing-indias-ip-laws</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaIntellectual Property RightsCopyrightAccess to Knowledge2014-02-25T06:20:31ZNews ItemThe Game of IPR: Insights from the 6th Global Intellectual Property Convention in Hyderabad
http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/the-game-of-ipr-insights-from-the-6th-global-intellectual-property-convention-in-hyderabad
<b>IP practitioners and IP creators were among the 1700 participants to gather at the Hyderabad International Convention Centre earlier this month. Here, CIS had the opportunity of listening in on perspectives around the “Optimization of economic value of innovation & IPR in the global market” while attending numerous talks and sessions that were held over the course of the convention’s three days.</b>
<hr />
<p><img src="http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/NarendraSabharwal.JPG/image_large" alt="Narendra Sabharwal" class="image-inline" title="Narendra Sabharwal" /></p>
<p class="discreet">One of the event's speakers, Mr. Narendra Sabharwal, IPR-Chair of FICCI, speaks of the immense value of IPR, while serving as protection as well as collateral for investors. (Photo credit: GIPC 2014)</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify;">This year’s Global Intellectual Property Convention (GIPC) was held in Hyderabad January 16-18, 2014 by ITAG Business Solutions Ltd. in association with the Institute of International Trade (iitrade). As the 6th of its kind, the event was held in hopeful contribution “towards society with the active support and cooperation of the IP fraternity,” says ITAG Founder and Director, Dr. D. R. Agarwal, while offering a “good opportunity for learning and business networking through one to one interaction in a pre-arranged manner under a conducive environment.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The theme at bay had been “<em>Optimizing the economic value of innovation & IPR in global market</em>.” In respect of this central focus, common themes across panel discussions and workshops included IP management, monetisation, application drafting, and litigation, with particular emphasis on India’s ‘Pharma’ industry. Over 100 speakers and panelists shared their personal knowledge from experience in the industry, and largely consisted of representatives from law firms, IP consultancies, pharmaceutical companies, and business organisations; all of which from India, Europe and the USA. As an attendee representing the Centre for Internet & Society (CIS), a research institute that works to address issues related to intellectual property (IP) reform, I had the privilege of listening to such perspectives on intellectual property from an alternative outlook.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">On the other hand, if exploiting too much by “abusing one’s monopoly, you are [setting] certain conditions, which are neither germane nor connected to the patent, and more than what is statutory permissible.” Kumaran stresses the necessity for the intellectual property right (IPR) holder to comply to the rights given by statutory law.</p>
<blockquote style="text-align: justify;" class="pullquote">The name of the game is the quality of drafting. It is the first and last chance." <span class="discreet">Vaidya D.P., </span><br />
<div align="right"><span class="discreet"></span></div>
<div align="right"><span class="discreet">Lakshmi Kumaran & Sridharan</span></div>
</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Mr. Narendra Sabharwal, Panellist and IPR-Chair for the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce (FICCI), sought to demonstrate the immense value of innovation and IPR in technology, arts and culture globally, in explaining that a large portion of the EU’s GDP (39%), and employment (26%) are derived from IP-intensive industries (See study by European Patent Office <a class="external-link" href="http://www.novagraaf.com/en/news?newspath=/NewsItems/en/ip-contributes-just-under-40-percent-eus-gdp">here</a>). Also argued was that enterprises and institutions can increase value through licensing of products and services, while also serving as protection, and which can then become “excellent collateral for investors,” he says. Among other points made, Sabharwal mentioned the need for more incubators in India. Currently, India acquires 200 new incubators each year compared to China’s 8000 new incubators annually. Opening more incubators will encourage innovation, he argues, leading to more marketable products and solutions.</p>
<p><span class="discreet"> </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Mr. William H. Manning, Partner of Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P (USA), took on the role of the story teller while sharing particularly interesting cases of previous clients. Manning had explained the necessity to ask one question over and over throughout the entire IPR application process; that question being: “What difference does the invention make?”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">In doing so, Manning was even able to take what would have been an ‘incremental’ patent—which is just distinct enough from prior art to get by—and turn it into a ‘foundational’ patent—generally adopted by the industry for 10-20 years before moving to a different technology. The better of these two types, however, is the ‘pioneering’ patent, an inventive leap in itself. This client success story definitely affirmed Speaker and Director of Lakshmi Kumaran & Sridharan, Vaidya D. P., when he said that “the name of the game is the quality of drafting. It is the first and last chance.” Manning had also claimed that 99.9% of patent in India are said to be incremental patents, with none being pioneering—at least not from the patent applications he’s seen in his 34 years of experience, anyway.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Also a rule of this game is the “Take now—pay later” rule, according to Manning, in which enterprises may “ignore the problem for now and move ahead with the product. If somebody sues you for patent litigation…. Take now—pay later.” Here, he makes reference to the judgements enterprises may make when misusing or infringing upon an IPR, while assessing the worth of doing so with the risks that may lie ahead. Often, an enterprise may find that it is more worthwhile to misuse or infringe and reap the benefits in the “now” while knowing there may be a chance they will have to “pay later.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Throughout the convention, what I expected to be the elephant in the auditorium was surprisingly addressed quite often. Best said by Panellist, Mr. Mohan Dewan, “IPR only becomes an asset when it is misused or infringed upon.” Principal to R K Dewan & Co., Dewan compares IP rights with car insurance, which can only be cashed in when the car is stolen.</p>
<table class="invisible">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th>
<div align="center"><img src="http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/pacman.png/image_preview" title="Pacman" height="329" width="274" alt="Pacman" class="image-inline" /></div>
<br />
<p style="text-align: justify;" class="discreet">Applying for an IPR is a game in itself, that requires much knowledge of how it is played. Grab those power-ups or get eaten.</p>
<br /></th>
<td>
<p style="text-align: justify;">He then posed the question “how can we increase the economic value of an asset?”—presumingly so that one can capitalize when opportunity comes knocking—and responded to it in recommending the following measures: 1) ensuring one’s IPR is as strong as possible by drafting it according to national standards, 2) optimal protection—it is easier to register more than one at once! 3) diligence in auditing and licensing, and 4) staying alert and questioning what people are doing around you.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">These are only a few excerpts of the event’s many talks and panel discussions, yet these insights alone help to reveal the nature of the system where intellectual property rights reign. This is surely a system to be familiar with if it is within one’s interest to receive IPR for protection, yet I find it difficult to stop at the word “protection.” When you must learn how to play the game to ensure that you stay in it, I would say that IPR can extend well beyond protection, to be better off referred to as <em>strategy</em>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">A strategy that enables you to reach a higher level and protects you from your opponents’ wrath. The higher the level, the more power-ups in reach and the higher you go. All the while undermining their chances of climbing up to where you are, and knocking them to even lower levels when possible. Lucky for you the majority of players are still stuck at level 1, but the nasty ones may be right behind you.</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/the-game-of-ipr-insights-from-the-6th-global-intellectual-property-convention-in-hyderabad'>http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/the-game-of-ipr-insights-from-the-6th-global-intellectual-property-convention-in-hyderabad</a>
</p>
No publishersamanthaPatentsIntellectual Property RightsCopyrightAccess to Knowledge2014-01-31T09:56:10ZBlog EntryOpen Letter to the Vatican: Request for Holy See to Comment on IPR
http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/open-letter-to-the-vatican-request-for-holy-see-to-comment-on-ipr
<b>Due to the Holy See’s demonstrated pro-access position to medicines and published materials for persons with disabilities, the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) requested for His Excellency, Archbishop Silvano M. Tomasi, to also consider copyrights, patents or IPR more generally, as the Holy See’s Permanent Observer at WIPO. We strongly encourage other organizations and civil society groups to modify this letter, as needed, and to contact the Holy See Mission to the United Nations (and WIPO) in Geneva in order to help us prompt His Excellency to contribute to the international dialogue on IPR.</b>
<hr />
<p>You may view the original letter sent by CIS <a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-original-open-letter-to-the-vatican-request-for-holy-see-to-comment-on-ipr" class="internal-link">here</a>.</p>
<hr />
<p>His Excellency, Archbishop Silvano M. Tomasi, Apostolic Nuncio<br />Holy See Mission to the United Nations in Geneva<br />P.O. Box 28<br />1292 Chambésy<br />Geneva, Switzerland<br />mission.holy-see@ties.itu.int<br />+41 22 758 98 20</p>
<p><strong>Friday, January 24, 2014<br /><br /></strong></p>
<p align="justify">Your Excellency Archbishop Silvano M. Tomasi,</p>
<p align="justify"><strong>Subject: Call for the Holy See’s comment on Intellectual Property Rights</strong></p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p align="justify">On behalf of the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), Bangalore, India, I, Samantha Cassar, write to Your Excellency’s opinion on copyrights, patents and intellectual property rights.</p>
<p align="justify">We are a not-for-profit, non-governmental research organization that works on addressing policy issues related to access to knowledge and intellectual property law reform (http://cis-india.org/a2k), and accessibility for persons with disabilities (http://cis-india.org/accessibility) among other areas related to internet and information and communication technologies.</p>
<p align="justify">CIS is an accredited organization with the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) and a regular participant at the meetings of the Standing Committee on Copyrights and Related Rights (SCCR), the Standing Committee on the Law of Patents (SCP), as well as the Committee on Development and Intellectual Property.</p>
<p align="justify">At the outset, we commend Your Excellency for signing the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired, or Otherwise Print Disabled. As one of the contributors to this treaty, we appreciate the concern of the Holy See for those who are marginalised within our information society by their disabilities.</p>
<p align="justify">As Pranesh Prakash, Policy Director from CIS noted at Marrakesh during the adoption of this treaty, “When copyright doesn't serve public welfare, states must intervene, and the law must change to promote human rights, the freedom of expression and to receive and impart information, and to protect authors and consumers.” We are happy to see this being done through a treaty as such.</p>
<p align="justify">Also said by Your Excellency, within the Holy See’s statement at the 9th Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organization (WTO), “Among the most damaging concessions developing countries make in regional and bilateral agreements are those enhancing the monopolies on life-saving medicines, which reduce access and affordability and those that provide excessive legal rights to foreign investors, limiting the policy space for nations to promote sustainable and inclusive development.”</p>
<p align="justify">Given the Holy See’s demonstrated standpoint on the accessing of medicines and published works, we at the Centre for Internet and Society would like to request Your Excellency to also consider <strong>copyrights, patents or more generally, intellectual property rights (IPR)</strong>, as Permanent Observer of the Holy See to the United Nations and Other International Organizations in Geneva.</p>
<p align="justify">On behalf of CIS, I am honoured to be writing to Your Excellency and for this request to be considered. Due to the ability of copyright and other forms of IPR to obstruct the access of one’s own human rights and even the sustainable development of one’s country, we feel this area must be crucially considered within an international dialogue—not only from a place of political strategy but also from principles of mercy and compassion.</p>
<p align="justify">With meetings approaching for both <strong>WIPO’s Standing Committee on the Law of Patents</strong> (January 27-31, 2014) and <strong>WIPO’s Committee on Development and Intellectual Property</strong> (May 19-23, 2014), we are very excited at the possibility of the Holy See enriching this discussion, and hope for such a contribution to take place when the international community is listening—at these meetings, or in any other form.<br /><br /></p>
<p>With Every Best Wish,<br />Sincerely Yours,</p>
<p><br />Samantha Cassar<br /><br />Programme Associate<br />The Centre for Internet & Society</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/open-letter-to-the-vatican-request-for-holy-see-to-comment-on-ipr'>http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/open-letter-to-the-vatican-request-for-holy-see-to-comment-on-ipr</a>
</p>
No publishersamanthaAccess to KnowledgeCopyrightPublic AccountabilityIntellectual Property RightsOpen Content2014-01-31T07:14:07ZBlog EntryGlobal Congress On IP and Public Interest Adopts Principles for Negotiations
http://editors.cis-india.org/news/ip-watch-january-6-2014-william-new-global-congress-on-ip-and-public-interest-adopts-principles-for-negotiations
<b>A recent conference on intellectual property and the public interest concluded with the adoption of public interest principles to guide international trade negotiations and international organisations. </b>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This article by William New was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.ip-watch.org/2014/01/06/global-congress-on-ip-and-public-interest-adopts-principles-for-negotiations/">published in the Intellectual Property Watch</a> on January 6, 2014.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The <a href="http://www.openair.org.za/capetown2013" target="_blank">Open African Innovation Research (Open A.I.R.) conference and the Global Congress on IP & the Public Interest</a> took place in Cape Town, South Africa from 9-13 December. The conference hosted by the University of Cape Town was funded by Canada’s International Development Research Centre (IDRC), and Germany’s Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ), among others.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Principles adopted at the conference included transparency, preservation of rights within international agreements such as national flexibilities, protection for internet service providers, strengthening of the public domain, and access to knowledge and to medicines.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The event included a fairly diverse representation, and not all participants necessarily signed on to the principles that emerged from the event.</p>
<p>According to infojustice.org, some 200 people have signed the “Global Congress Declaration on Public Interest Principles for International IP Negotiations,” which is <a href="http://infojustice.org/archives/31804" target="_blank">available here</a>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The declaration calls for “’a positive agenda in international intellectual property law making’ which would include a more open negotiating process, respect for stakeholders’ social and economic welfare, and preserve states’ freedoms to protect access to knowledge goods,” infojustice.org said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In particular, the declaration took aim at the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPP) being negotiated by 12 countries led by the United States. It urged negotiators of the TPP and future negotiations to ensure the “ongoing release of proposed legal provisions for public comment and maximize the ability of all interested persons and organizations to observe and participate in negotiation processes.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Other principles, which echo debates at international organisations in Geneva, include ensuring that nations: retain sovereignty to take actions in their public interest without constraint from intellectual property rights, be able to use anti-circumvention measures without liability, and that IP enforcement measures be “reasonable and proportional.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Additional principles called for avoiding “the creation of new dispute resolution fora parallel to, and that may conflict with, the multilateral system,” and ensuring that IP agreements are “consistent with international law, including international human rights law and the Convention on Biological Diversity.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Finally, the declaration said: "We record our serious concerns about the closed and secretive processes being used for current international negotiations while acknowledging the efforts of some countries to promote positive proposals within them."</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Statement on Global Fund IP Policy and Generics</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Also at the Cape Town event, a statement was adopted raising concern over a policy being considered by the Global Fund for AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria that would establish tiered pricing for medicines.<br /><br />“We note with growing concern the weakening of the Global Fund’s support for expanding access to safe, affordable generic medications as the answer to unaffordable essential drugs,” the statement said. “We are extremely concerned about the recent announcement of a ‘blue-ribbon Task Force’ on tiered-pricing of medicines in middle-income countries.”<br /><br />In addition, the statement raised concern about a new Global Fund partnership with the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations on “fake medicines.” It said the effort could create confusion in consumers’ minds about generic medicines. For them, the best approach would be “strong drug regulatory agencies together with effective technology transfer.”<br /><br />"The Global Fund should retain its public interest focus and disentangle the interests of public health from the interests of those who claim intellectual-property over drugs," it said. "Regressive policy suggestions and public campaigns that undermine generic competition are counter to the Fund’s public mission."</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Open A.I.R.</h3>
<p>One aspect of the Open A.I.R. project is that the fellows who have been trained over the past few years now will go out and spread the word.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Seble Baraki, legal researcher at the Justice and Legal Systems Research Institute in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, told Intellectual Property Watch, “I go and tell people what I’ve learned and see how it is going to help” on issues like health or branding to ensure high quality products.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"By being here, I think I have brought the issue of IP in my government," she said. For instance, they have a conference on law and development with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), and she has consistently mentioned that they should include something on development and IP. Now, they have agreed to do it, she said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">From studying in the North (Sweden), she had a certain idea about intellectual property. "Being part of this project helped me to see how to look at how to use IP from a public interest and development perspective.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Now, she said, she plans to go home and look at how it really makes a difference in her city, to see how IP can be used. Being part of this project, she added, "changed how you think about IP."</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Other Highlights</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The weeklong conference was packed with speakers and activities, and involved many of the leading figures in the public interest movement related to intellectual property rights. It also involved a first-time training on traditional knowledge related to IP rights.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The death of South African leader and “father” Nelson Mandela profoundly impacted the meeting. For example, a participant from Côte d’Ivoire said he was going to “live tweet” a journey through Mandela’s whole life, traveling from country to country.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Separately, Diane Peters, general counsel at Creative Commons, suggested a focus on a positive agenda, not taking away the right of another. There are ways to structure a dialogue so that everyone’s needs are addressed, she said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“We are all part of some ecosystem,” she said, thinking and learning from the ideas of others. Limitations and exceptions are a right, Peters said. Authors should recognise that they also are re-using others’ ideas, same for the people who re-use and remix. “I’m really happy with how the dialogue-shaping is going,” she said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Peters also said Creative Commons takes the view that their licences are not an answer to the problems of the copyright system. (CC licences include the version used by Intellectual Property Watch allowing re-use of our content for non-commercial purposes with attribution).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[Update: Creative Commons recently issued a <a href="http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/39639" target="_blank">policy statement</a> on copyright reform].</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">The Struggle for Balance</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Discussions during the week showed the diversity of topics and interests in fields affected by intellectual property rights. There were few vocal champions of the IP system, but there also was no blanket condemnation of it. Rather, discussions were attempts to address specific opportunities within IP, or concerns about its effects in certain cases. Not everyone held the same view and there were some debates during the week.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">But given the variety and number of advocates from different sectors, such as the access to medicines and access to knowledge movements, there were some rallying cries around certain issues.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">One relatively common area was the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPP), as concerns are high about raising IP protection levels without the participation of public interest groups. A speaker asserted that the United States is using the TPP to target BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China) as it did in the negotiations for the 1994 World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There also were a number of discussions about the meaning of “open,” in issues like open access, open education, and open source. On a related note, Sunil Abraham, executive director of the Bangalore, India-based Centre for Internet and Society, said there are different types of open standards, and that using digital signatures instead of biometrics gives a decentralised system that protects human rights.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">One speaker said they had been struck during the week by the need for a South-South network. Another asked how developing countries can use IP frameworks that have been predetermined in the North and that are not appropriate.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Participants repeatedly expressed positive attitudes about such a large and high-energy gathering (which the beautiful setting did nothing to diminish), allowing endless networking opportunities. But there was an urgency about the gathering for many, as global efforts to strengthen the IP system are working against their goals.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“We are seeing an assault on pretty much every single level,” one public health advocate said at the closing session. “Even when we win” and are able to advance the cause for access to medicines, the judges have been trained by the North (meaning with a pro-IP slant) and “turn the whole thing over.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">George Washington University Prof. Susan Sell described the “forum-shifting” that occurs with forces seeking to strengthen global intellectual property rules, as they seek international organisations where they can effect change in their favour. She likened it to a “cat and mouse” situation. She also said that IP policy is not an end in itself, but is public policy.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A participant from Jordan said that country did not play “cat-and-mouse” very well as when it signed its bilateral free trade agreement with the United States it took in all the bad aspects of the US copyright law.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Another speaker said the IP system does not encourage innovation for need but rather innovation for profit. He said governments in countries with strong rights holders are “captured,” and that governments need to be recaptured. He said organisations like the Gates and Clinton foundations are promoters of strong IP protection. Developing countries, activists, need to stop being the mouse, he said, and “start becoming the dog that chases the cat.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“How do we forum-shift to all of the spaces we can win,” another speaker asked later, “[and] push the IP maximalist agenda to where we are not always on the defensive?”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“We are seeing an assault on pretty much every single level,” said a third. “Even when we win and are able to insert an agenda for [access to medicines], the judges have been trained by the North and turn the whole thing over.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The mood, as Sell characterised it, is that “we can never stop and congratulate ourselves too much, because it just keeps coming.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The annual event will continue next December, this time in Kuala Lumpur.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/news/ip-watch-january-6-2014-william-new-global-congress-on-ip-and-public-interest-adopts-principles-for-negotiations'>http://editors.cis-india.org/news/ip-watch-january-6-2014-william-new-global-congress-on-ip-and-public-interest-adopts-principles-for-negotiations</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaIntellectual Property RightsAccess to Knowledge2014-01-13T08:32:25ZNews ItemDictionary words in software patent guidelines puzzle industry
http://editors.cis-india.org/news/livemint-august-26-2013-ch-unnikrishnan-dictionary-words-in-software-patent-guidelines-puzzle-industry
<b>Terms not defined in draft guidelines on patents for computer-related inventions leaves room for misinterpretation </b>
<hr />
<p>The article by C.H.Unnikrishnan was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.livemint.com/Industry/rWpIXY700ZNsVuYfut9ljM/Dictionary-words-in-software-patent-guidelines-puzzle-indust.html">published in Livemint on August 26, 2013</a>. The Centre for Internet and Society's work on access to knowledge is mentioned.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Could the simple Latin phrase, per se, which translates as “in itself”, lead to confusion in verifying whether a computer-related invention deserves a patent or not? Some members of the $108 billion Indian information technology industry, intellectual property (IP) law firms and anti-patent lobby groups say it can.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The inclusion of some terms that are not defined by local laws in the government’s draft guidelines on patents for computer-related inventions (CRIs) leaves room for ambiguity and misinterpretation when examiners grant or reject such a patent, they say. The guidelines were released in early August.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The terms include ‘per se’, algorithm, hardware, firmware —and CRI itself.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">CRI “has not been defined in any of the Indian statutes and is construed to mean, for the purpose of these guidelines, any invention which involves the use of computers, computer networks or other programmable apparatus and includes such inventions, one or more features of which are realized wholly or partially by means of a computer programme/programmes”, the Indian Patent Office (IPO) acknowledged in the draft guidelines, and called for feedback from industry stakeholders by 8 August.</p>
<table class="invisible">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th><img src="http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/Patent.png" title="Patent" height="372" width="357" alt="Patent" class="image-inline" /></th>
<td style="text-align: justify; ">
<p>Patent examination is the most crucial function performed by a patent office. An examiner verifies the invention claims made by an applicant by relying on scientific parameters, industrial applicability and previously known technologies, among others, to decide whether the claims are genuine and deserve a patent.</p>
<p>IPO’s draft guidelines are aimed at helping examiners in this task. However, with new technologies, the task of granting or rejecting patents has become tougher, as acknowledged by the patent office, in its draft guidelines. The confusion is only compounded with the inclusion of dictionary terms such as <i>per se</i>.</p>
<p>The Indian Patent Law does not contain any specific provision regarding the protection of computer software that includes programs, musical and artistic works, studio and video recordings, databases and preparation material and associated documents such as manuals. India does not grant pure software patents (i.e., a patent over a “computer programme per se”).</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Software, instead, is protected by the Copyright Law, similar to literary and aesthetic works.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In the feedback, a copy which was reviewed by <i>Mint</i>, India’s largest software services exporter <span class="company"><a href="http://www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/Tata%20Consultancy%20Services%20Ltd">Tata Consultancy Services Ltd</a></span> (<span class="brand"><a href="http://www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/TCS">TCS</a></span>), said it “is happy to note that IPO is taking the right steps in the direction of protecting inventions...Moving from the notion of ‘Computer Implemented Invention’ to ‘Computer Related Invention’ itself is a positive shift...”</p>
<table class="invisible">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th><iframe frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/1rKdm5wSNUE" width="320"></iframe></th>
<td>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“Primary objective of the CRI guidelines, as expected and understood by the stakeholders, is to deliberate on the meaning of “per se” in Section 3(k) for Software Inventions with example pertaining to Software Inventions and not interpret them to be the Hardware-led inventions,” said TCS in its feedback.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It added that “while examining the technical character of a CRI, mere usage of the words such as enterprise, business, business rules, supply-chain, order, sales, transactions, commerce, payment, etc. in the (patent) claims should not lead to conclusion of the CRI being just a ‘Business Method’ without any technical character. These terminologies actually qualify the contextual utility and fitment of the inventions..”</p>
<p> </p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">According to <span class="person"><a href="http://www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/Rajiv%20Kumar%20Choudhari">Rajiv Kumar Choudhari</a></span>, a lawyer specializing in IT patent law, a computer program is software ‘per se’ because there may be no transformation of data/signal/input, or there is no tangible benefit to the device if this software is run on the device. “The benefit to the device may be in terms of efficiency, or increase/decrease in certain attributes,” he said in a blog in <i>SpicyIP</i> where he analyzed software patenting position in India earlier.</p>
<p class="mceContentBody documentContent" style="text-align: justify; ">In such cases, if the applicant fails to define the exact benefit to the device in a tangible manner, the examiner may refuse to grant a patent. In January 2012, for instance, the Delhi patent office rejected a software patent application filed by <span class="company"><a href="http://www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/Netomat%20Inc.">Netomat Inc.</a></span>, on grounds that it did not fulfil the requirement of Section 3(k).</p>
<p class="mceContentBody documentContent" style="text-align: justify; ">According to section 3(k) of the Indian Patent Act, “a mathematical or business method or computer programs per se or algorithms” are not inventions.</p>
<p class="mceContentBody documentContent" style="text-align: justify; ">Between 2006 and 2011, the latest available data, 34,967 IT patent applications were filed with the Indian patent office. It granted about 5,594 patents during the same period.</p>
<p class="mceContentBody documentContent" style="text-align: justify; ">“We hope that through this consultation (feedback) the prevailing evaluation methods for computer related inventions will become more efficient and encourage the Industry to file and protect their IP. However, we have some major concerns related to the draft guidelines,” said Nassom, the country’s software lobby body.</p>
<p class="mceContentBody documentContent" style="text-align: justify; ">Overall, the guidelines appear to be “restrictive and may be a hindrance to grant of patents in India, even when such rights would be granted in other countries like Europe, Japan, etc,” said Nasscom, adding that “over a period of time”, it will discourage innovative activities from being carried out in India.</p>
<p class="mceContentBody documentContent" style="text-align: justify; ">For instance, Nasscom pointed out that since the patent office has not defined ‘per se’, the phrase “computer program per se” should mean a set of instructions by itself or computer program by itself. “This meaning is generally accepted even in the UK and before the EPO (European Patent Office),” it added. The software lobby body has suggested that the scope of the “per se” limitation in Section 3(k) should be changed to cover hardware features, irrespective of whether the features are novel or not.</p>
<p class="mceContentBody documentContent" style="text-align: justify; ">The guidelines, said Nasscom, seem to imply that for computer program-related claims to be allowed, the software needs to be “machine specific”, which “will unfortunately exclude patent protection for any computer-implemented invention designed to be interoperable across platforms, and not specific to a machine”.</p>
<p class="mceContentBody documentContent" style="text-align: justify; ">In its feedback to the patent office, the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), an organization that works on Internet privacy-related issues, underscored the complexity that new technologies could introduce by citing the example of CRIs in the field of data storage.</p>
<p class="mceContentBody documentContent" style="text-align: justify; ">The first compact disc (CD) was invented in 1982, the digital video disc (DVD) in 1995 and the flash drive in 1999.</p>
<p class="mceContentBody documentContent" style="text-align: justify; ">“While each of these inventions was far superior to their predecessor, the time between each incremental innovation has drastically reduced,” CIS noted in its feedback</p>
<p class="mceContentBody documentContent" style="text-align: justify; ">“If an invention can become obsolete in as little as 2 years, it would make little sense to grant monopoly rights for 20 years. So even if a CRI passes the three tests of novelty, inventive step and industrial applicability, it needs to be evaluated from the perspective of its possible obsolescence. In such a scenario, the examiner should look at the history of innovation in that particular field to ascertain that the invention does not become obsolete in a short time.”</p>
<p class="mceContentBody documentContent" style="text-align: justify; ">Also consider for instance the term, “business methods”. It involves a whole gamut of activities in a commercial or industrial enterprise relating to transaction of goods or services but “the claims are at times drafted not directly as business methods but apparently with hitherto available technical features such as Internet, networks, satellites, tele-communications, etc”, the draft stated.</p>
<p class="mceContentBody documentContent" style="text-align: justify; ">“The exclusions are carved out for all business methods and, therefore, if in substance the claims relate to business method even with the help of technology, they are not considered patentable,” the guidelines added.</p>
<p class="mceContentBody documentContent" style="text-align: justify; ">The Japan intellectual Property Association, in its reaction to the India’s new CRI patenting guidelines, also noted that recent computers, including processors or memories, mostly do not rely on any specific programs.</p>
<p class="mceContentBody documentContent" style="text-align: justify; ">“In addition, software-related inventions should be patentable originally for their functioning on the basis of novel computer programs in combination with general purpose devices. However, these computer-related inventions would be excluded from protection under the new standards for patentability,” it cautioned.</p>
<p class="mceContentBody documentContent" style="text-align: justify; ">The draft guidelines “have interpreted and applied Section 3(k) of the Indian Patent Act 1970 in a more restrictive way to conclude as to what is patentable, which is a cause of concern to various stakeholders”, said Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industries (FICCI) in its reaction.</p>
<p class="mceContentBody documentContent">Software patents remain an emotive issue.</p>
<p class="mceContentBody documentContent" style="text-align: justify; ">Their proponents argue that patents promote investment in research and development, accelerate software development by making previously unknown and not obvious software inventions public and protect IP of software companies. They also encourage the creation of software companies and jobs and increase the valuation of small companies, the proponents add.</p>
<p class="mceContentBody documentContent" style="text-align: justify; ">Critics counter that traditional copyright has provided sufficient protection to facilitate massive investment in software development and that most software patents cover either trivial inventions or inventions that would have been obvious to persons of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.</p>
<p class="mceContentBody documentContent" style="text-align: justify; ">Globally, patents in the IT and software sector are being revisited due to litigation and compensation claims over misuse of patents including the much-hyped patent battle of <span class="company"><a href="http://www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/Apple%20Inc.">Apple Inc.</a></span> with <span class="brand"><a href="http://www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/Samsung%20Electronics">Samsung Electronics</a></span> and <span class="company"><a href="http://www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/Google%20Inc.">Google Inc.</a></span> with <span class="company"><a href="http://www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/Microsoft%20Corp">Microsoft Corp</a></span>.</p>
<p class="mceContentBody documentContent" style="text-align: justify; ">In June 2008, technology companies including <span class="brand"><a href="http://www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/Google">Google</a></span>, <span class="company"><a href="http://www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/Intel%20Corp">Intel Corp</a></span>, <span class="company"><a href="http://www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/Oracle%20Corp">Oracle Corp</a></span>, <span class="brand"><a href="http://www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/Cisco">Cisco</a></span> and <span class="company"><a href="http://www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/Hewlett-Packard%20Co.">Hewlett-Packard Co.</a></span> set up the ‘Allied Security Trust’ to address the risk of patent-infringement suits by buying those patents which they feel are most important to their businesses.</p>
<p class="mceContentBody documentContent" style="text-align: justify; ">AST has 26 members from Europe, North America and Asia. It buys patents that its members have expressed interest from the patent holder, and the cost would be deducted from those companies’ Escrow accounts. AST argues that non-practicing entities, or NPEs, also known as patent trolls, produce no products or services of their own, and yet acquire patents—sometimes hundreds of them—with the sole intention of asserting their right and conduct patent litigation to extract settlements or licensing fees.</p>
<p class="mceContentBody documentContent" style="text-align: justify; ">In 2008, AST estimated that it costs operating companies an average of $3.2 million through the end of discovery and $5.2 million through trial to defend cases in which there is more than $25 million at stake.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The costs of determining if a particular piece of software infringes any issued patents are too high and the results too are uncertain. A software patent costs, on average, around $20,000, it said.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/news/livemint-august-26-2013-ch-unnikrishnan-dictionary-words-in-software-patent-guidelines-puzzle-industry'>http://editors.cis-india.org/news/livemint-august-26-2013-ch-unnikrishnan-dictionary-words-in-software-patent-guidelines-puzzle-industry</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaIntellectual Property RightsPatentsAccess to Knowledge2013-09-04T06:20:24ZNews Item