DOCSLIB.ORG

Study on Patents and the Public Domain12

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Study on Patents and the Public Domain12 E CDIP/4/3 REV./STUDY/INF/2 ORIGINAL: ENGLISH DATE: APRIL 27, 2011 STUDY ON PATENTS AND THE PUBLIC DOMAIN12 1 The views expressed in the study are those of the authors, and not necessarily those of the WIPO Secretariat or its Member States. 2 The Patents and the Public Domain part of the study was prepared by Mr. Jeremy Phillips, Professorial Fellow, Queen Mary Intellectual Property Research Institute, University of London, London, United Kingdom. The Development Dimension: National Practices and Experiences part was prepared by: A. Mr. McLean Sibanda, Chief Executive Officer, The Innovation Hub, Pretoria, South Africa; B. Mr. Hossam El Saghir, Professor of Commercial Law and General Director of the, Regional Institute for Intellectual Property, Helwan University, and Attorney at Law, Cairo, Egypt; C. Mr. Ernesto Rengifo García, Professor, Universidad Externado de Colombia, Bogota, Colombia; D. Mrs. Olena Pavlina Orlyuk, Director, Scientific Research Institute of Intellectual Property, Kyiv, Ukraine; and E. Mr. Calab Gabriel, Senior Partner, K&S Partners, Intellectual Property Attorneys, Gurgaon, National Capital Region, India. CDIP/4/3 Rev./STUDY/INF/2. page i CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................. 2 I. PATENTS AND THE PUBLIC DOMAIN 1. Introduction.................................................................................................................. 7 2. The notion of “public domain” in relation to the patent system.................................. 10 3. Rationale of the patent system and the public domain ............................................. 18 4. Relationship and interplay between the patent system, public domain and public policy................................................................................. 43 5. The international dimension ...................................................................................... 56 II. DEVELOPMENT DIMENSION: NATIONAL PRACTICES AND EXPERIENCES A. South Africa 1. Overview of the South African Patent System .......................................................... 58 2. Relationship and interplay between patent system and domain name..................... 61 3. Discussions................................................................................................................ 61 4. Conclusions ............................................................................................................... 63 B. Egypt 1. The development dimension of the public domain in the Egyptian Patent System .. 64 2. Review of the Egyptian patent system in respect of public domain .......................... 68 3. Relationship and interplay between the Egyptian patent system and the public domain ............................................................................................... 72 4. Specific challenges in the Egyptian patent system analyzed on the basis of practical experiences and case studies ............................................ 75 C. Colombia 1. Development of access to information in the public domain in Colombia and its relationship with the patent system................................................................ 78 2. Strategies presented as public policy of the Colombian State with respect to exploitation and access to information on patents belonging to the public domain .. 82 3. Tools implemented by the academic sector regarding access and knowledge of information belonging to the public domain ................................. 88 4. Insufficient utilization of public domain patent information ........................................ 89 5. Challenges of the system .......................................................................................... 90 6. Conclusions ............................................................................................................... 91 D. Ukraine 1. Development dimension of the concept of the public domain in Ukraine ................. 92 2. Mutual cooperation and relations between the national patent system of Ukraine and the public domain, and specific challenges facing society ............... 99 E. India 1. Overview of the term ‘Public domain’ and its related terms in India and identifying subject matters that could fall into public domain......................... 109 2. Influence of public domain in the Indian Patent System – Certain peculiar provisions in the Indian Patents Act of 1970 relating to public domain and public disclosure ..................................................................... 110 CDIP/4/3 Rev./STUDY/INF/2. page ii 3. Existing legislations and proposed legislations governing certain aspects of public domain such as bio-diversity, traditional knowledge, plant variety protection and folklore ...................................................................... 113 4. Benefits of accessible public domain knowledge in India..................................... 114 5. Identifying available tools to access the subject matter and information available in public domain.................................................................. 115 6. How the subject matter of patents fall into public domain .................................... 116 7. Peculiar patent linkage between the India Patent System ........................................ and bio-diversity/traditional knowledge imposed by the legislation in India ................................................................................................. 117 8. The proposed legislation relating to traditional knowledge and its impact on the Indian Patent System................................................................................. 118 9. Development dimension of the patent system and patent domain in India .......... 122 CDIP/4/3 Rev./STUDY/INF/2 page 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Study is comprised of an overview of patents and the public domain, together with a number of country-specific accounts concerning the relationship between the public domain, national patent law and relevant information-retrieval mechanisms. As is explained below in Section I.1.2, this Study is only one of a number of initiatives undertaken on behalf of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) by commissioned experts and it should not be considered in isolation from those initiatives. The conclusions of this Study may be stated as follows: - While there is a literature on the nature and the legal status of the public domain within intellectual property, it is mainly of recent origin and refers predominantly to issues relating to copyright. Since the role played by the public domain in the field of technological innovation is very different to the role played by the public domain within the sphere of copyright, this Study is therefore both timely and necessary and may be of assistance to those seeking to use its content as a basis for the further discussion and analysis of the many and complex issues raised in it; - There does not yet appear to be any literature which records that there exists a conclusively demonstrable causative link between access to patent public domain information and any form of inventiveness or creativity. However, it is reasonable to suppose that the provision of better means for identifying and accessing public domain information will confer a benefit on all sectors of the innovation community, if only by assisting in the elimination of previously fruitless attempts to solve technical problems and in the avoidance of duplication of research the results of which have already entered the public domain. Additional benefits may be assumed to exist by virtue of the potential which is contained with an accessible public domain for furnishing analogies in the resolution of technical difficulties which may be applied in later comparable situations; - Information which enters the public domain as a by-product of the patent system possesses a number of features which make it more readily identifiable and accessible than information at large. This is because: (i) documentation relating to such information is generally related to its subject matter by its being coded under the International Patent Classification scheme, (ii) legal rulings on the meaning and interpretation of contested patent documentation are increasingly reported and made publicly available on the internet, (iii) there is a legal requirement that the description of an invention in a patent application be of such a quality that it at least in theory enables an addressee who is skilled in the field of implementation of the invention to put it into use, and (iv) earlier patent documents can be identified in later documents in which they are cited by patent examiners in the course of examination of novelty and inventiveness, which enables members of the public more easily to link one invention with another; - There is an increasing awareness on the part of in particular developing countries, which may not have a long tradition of patent filing and documentation on which to draw, of the desirability of creating and maintaining a system for facilitating access to expired patents and other public domain materials; CDIP/4/3 Rev./STUDY/INF/2 page 3 - There is at present no international legal framework for cooperation in the development of the patent public domain as a resource in its own right. However, it is encouraging to note that patents are a field in which there is a strong tradition of cooperation between granting authorities at
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Patent Law As Public Law
    The Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law CUA Law Scholarship Repository Scholarly Articles and Other Contributions Faculty Scholarship 2012 Patent Law as Public Law Megan M. La Belle The Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.edu/scholar Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons, and the Litigation Commons Recommended Citation Megan M. La Belle, Patent Law as Public Law, 20 GEO. MASON. L. REV. 41 (2012). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at CUA Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Scholarly Articles and Other Contributions by an authorized administrator of CUA Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 2012] PATENT LAW AS PUBLIC LAW Megan M La Belle* INTRODUCTION Public law, or public impact, litigation takes many forms. The para- digm of public law litigation includes structural challenges to public institu- tions like segregated schools and overcrowded prisons,' yet it also encom- passes employment discrimination, securities fraud, antitrust, and environ- mental cases.2 In his seminal article on the subject, Professor Abram Chayes explains that public law adjudication usually concerns complaints about governmental conduct, and is characterized by complex party struc- tures and requests for ongoing remedial measures that have widespread effects on individuals not before the court.' Public law adjudication is fur- ther typified by active judges who decide substantive matters and are re- sponsible for the overall management of the suit.4 Patent litigation historically has been regarded as private law litiga- tion, meaning "disputes between private parties about private rights."5 It has been compared to property, contract, and tort litigation, all of which fall within the realm of private law adjudication.6 Were patent litigation to con- Assistant Professor, The Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law.
    [Show full text]
  • An Overview of Changes to the Patent Law of the United States After the Patent Law Treaty, 26 J
    UIC Law Review Volume 26 Issue 3 Article 3 Spring 1993 An Overview of Changes to the Patent Law of the United States after the Patent Law Treaty, 26 J. Marshall L. Rev. 497 (1993) Richard C. Wilder Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.uic.edu/lawreview Part of the Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, Intellectual Property Law Commons, International Law Commons, International Trade Law Commons, and the Transnational Law Commons Recommended Citation Richard C. Wilder, An Overview of Changes to the Patent Law of the United States after the Patent Law Treaty, 26 J. Marshall L. Rev. 497 (1993) https://repository.law.uic.edu/lawreview/vol26/iss3/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by UIC Law Open Access Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in UIC Law Review by an authorized administrator of UIC Law Open Access Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. AN OVERVIEW OF CHANGES TO THE PATENT LAW OF THE UNITED STATES AFTER THE PATENT LAW TREATY RICHARD C. WILDER* INTRODUCTION A. The Negotiations on the PatentLaw Treaty In 1984, negotiations began under the auspices of the World In- tellectual Property Organization ("WIPO")' to harmonize "grace period" provisions.2 These negotiations soon developed beyond their original scope and eventually led to the Diplomatic Confer- ence for the Conclusion of a Treaty Supplementing the Paris Con- vention as Far as Patents are Concerned ("Diplomatic Conference"). The first part of the Diplomatic Conference was held June 3 to 21, 1991. While a second part of the Diplomatic Con- ference was scheduled for July 12 to 30, 1993, 3 this has been post- 4 poned at the request of the United States of America.
    [Show full text]
  • GEG WP 93 the Governance of the World Intellectual Property
    Updated 26 MarchMay 2015 2015 The Global Economic Governance Programme University of Oxford The Governance of the World Intellectual Property Organization: A Reference Guide Carolyn Deere Birkbeck* Abstract The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is the multilateral system’s key agency charged with intellectual property (IP). This working paper is the first of two documents prepared as background for a political analysis of WIPO’s governance and reform debates. This first paper presents an overview of the core components of WIPO’s governance system, described in practical, readily-accessible terms for policymakers and stakeholders in the form of a factual reference guide. The second paper provides a chronological review of governance discussions at WIPO since 1967, as well as actions taken by Member States and the Secretariat to date. The third paper offers a political assessment of WIPO’s governance and reform efforts, critically reviewing the power politics and dynamics of governance. After presenting a framework for analysing WIPO’s governance system, this paper reviews the origins of WIPO and sets out its current functions and activities, as well as the leadership, size and structure of the Secretariat. The core of the paper identifies and examines the core components of WIPO’s current governance system in five thematic areas: mandate and legal foundations; decision-making structures, processes and practices for Member State representation; financial arrangements (e.g., income sources and budget process); accountability mechanisms (i.e., for oversight, audit and evaluation); and transparency and external relations. The paper highlights that WIPO’s financial model is unique among UN organisations: the organization relies almost entirely on self-financing, raising revenue from private sector fees in exchange for treaty-related services rather than from Member State contributions.
    [Show full text]
  • Journal of the Licensing Executives Society International
    MARCH 2013 2013 SEMINAR SERIES lesles NouvellesNouvelles JOURNALJOURNAL OF OF THE THE LICENSING LICENSING EXECUTIVES EXECUTIVES SOCIETY SOCIETY INTERNATIONAL INTERNATIONAL L L U.S. Trademark L Summer Patent Advanced Patent Practice Seminar Seminar & Licensing Seminar Volume XLVIII No. 1 March 2013 April 8 - 12, 2013 June 5 - 28, 2013 September 23 - October 4, 2013 A one week seminar which addresses all aspects This three and a half week seminar A two week seminar focusing on advanced of trademark practice before the United States covers all major areas of U.S. patent topics in U.S. patent law which includes LES NOUVELLES Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) and the law, beginning with an overview of the workshops and problem solving in order to courts, including the preparation of trademark U.S. patent system and moving on to illustrate the more advanced concepts with applications, practice before the Trademark Trial more complex subjects such as patent regard to prosecution, claim interpretation, and Advancing the Business of Intellectual Property Globally and Appeal Board, licensing, inter partes matters prosecution, infringement litigation, validity and infringement issues. Participants including opposition and cancellation and interference practice. Includes learn how to modify and determine the scope proceedings, and the enforcement of trademark practical problems and discussion of of a granted U.S. patent, as well as how to Recent Rulings On The Entire Market Value Rule And Impacts On rights in the federal and state courts. recent cases where applicable. address significant licensing issues. Patent Litigation And Valuation ERIC PHILLIPS AND DAVID BOAg — Page 1 Visit www.bskb.comfo r further seminar details.
    [Show full text]
  • Evergreening" Metaphor in Intellectual Property Scholarship
    University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository Faculty Publications Faculty Scholarship 2019 The "Evergreening" Metaphor in Intellectual Property Scholarship Erika Lietzan University of Missouri School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/facpubs Part of the Food and Drug Law Commons, Intellectual Property Law Commons, and the Science and Technology Law Commons Recommended Citation Erika Lietzan, The "Evergreening" Metaphor in Intellectual Property Scholarship, 53 Akron Law Review 805 (2019). Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/facpubs/984 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. DATE DOWNLOADED: Wed Jan 20 13:42:00 2021 SOURCE: Content Downloaded from HeinOnline Citations: Bluebook 21st ed. Erika Lietzan, The "Evergreening" Metaphor in Intellectual Property Scholarship, 53 AKRON L. REV. 805 (2019). ALWD 6th ed. Lietzan, E. ., The "evergreening" metaphor in intellectual property scholarship, 53(4) Akron L. Rev. 805 (2019). APA 7th ed. Lietzan, E. (2019). The "evergreening" metaphor in intellectual property scholarship. Akron Law Review, 53(4), 805-872. Chicago 7th ed. Erika Lietzan, "The "Evergreening" Metaphor in Intellectual Property Scholarship," Akron Law Review 53, no. 4 (2019): 805-872 McGill Guide 9th ed. Erika Lietzan, "The "Evergreening" Metaphor in Intellectual Property Scholarship" (2019) 53:4 Akron L Rev 805. AGLC 4th ed. Erika Lietzan, 'The "Evergreening" Metaphor in Intellectual Property Scholarship' (2019) 53(4) Akron Law Review 805.
    [Show full text]
  • Secret Prior Art and the Duty of Disclosure
    DePaul Law Review Volume 30 Issue 4 Summer 1981 Article 3 Secret Prior Art and the Duty of Disclosure Bradley J. Hulbert Follow this and additional works at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/law-review Recommended Citation Bradley J. Hulbert, Secret Prior Art and the Duty of Disclosure, 30 DePaul L. Rev. 819 (1981) Available at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/law-review/vol30/iss4/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Law at Via Sapientiae. It has been accepted for inclusion in DePaul Law Review by an authorized editor of Via Sapientiae. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SECRET PRIOR ART AND THE DUTY OF DISCLOSURE Bradley J. Hulbert* The federal district courts and the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals have issued conflicting opinions as to the use of "secret, ' section 102 (g) technical developments as prior art to invalidate a patent. The courts should now rationalize the decisions so as to maintain the principle that only the first inventor is entitled to a patent. Moreover, the United States Patent and Trademark Office rules must be construed as specifically requiringapplicants to state what they know, or what they are in a position to find out, regard- ing whether the inventor is entitled to a patent in light of "secret" technical developments. I. INTRODUCTION A person who invents or discovers something useful may apply for a patent, a special type of contract with the United States government. 2 In return for fully disclosing how to make and use the new discovery 3 and thus * Allegretti, Newitt, Witcoff& McAndrews, Ltd., Chicago, Illinois.
    [Show full text]
  • Patent Eligibility and Physicality in the Early History of Patent Law and Practice
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by University of Arkansas at Little Rock: UALR Bowen Law Repository University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review Volume 38 Issue 2 Article 2 2016 Patent Eligibility and Physicality in the Early History of Patent Law and Practice Ben McEniery Follow this and additional works at: https://lawrepository.ualr.edu/lawreview Part of the European Law Commons, and the Legal History Commons Recommended Citation Ben McEniery, Patent Eligibility and Physicality in the Early History of Patent Law and Practice, 38 U. ARK. LITTLE ROCK L. REV. 175 (2016). Available at: https://lawrepository.ualr.edu/lawreview/vol38/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Bowen Law Repository: Scholarship & Archives. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review by an authorized editor of Bowen Law Repository: Scholarship & Archives. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PATENT ELIGIBILITY AND PHYSICALITY IN THE EARLY HISTORY OF PATENT LAW AND PRACTICE Ben McEniery* I. INTRODUCTION In recent times, the courts have been asked to determine whether, and to what extent, the patent system protects claims to inventions that do not involve a machine or other physical device and do not involve a physical transformation of matter from one state to another. It is uncontroversial that the patent system exists to provide an incentive to encourage the invention and commercialization of new products and processes and the disclosure by the patent applicant of information sufficient to enable a person skilled in the relevant field of technology to reproduce the claimed invention.
    [Show full text]
  • The Governance of the World Intellectual Property Organization: a Reference Guide
    A Service of Leibniz-Informationszentrum econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible. zbw for Economics Deere Birkbeck, Carolyn Working Paper The governance of the World Intellectual Property Organization: A reference guide GEG Working Paper, No. 2014/93 Provided in Cooperation with: University of Oxford, Global Economic Governance Programme (GEG) Suggested Citation: Deere Birkbeck, Carolyn (2014) : The governance of the World Intellectual Property Organization: A reference guide, GEG Working Paper, No. 2014/93, University of Oxford, Global Economic Governance Programme (GEG), Oxford This Version is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/196353 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. personal and scholarly purposes. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle You are not to copy documents for public or commercial Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, If the documents have been made available under an Open gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen
    [Show full text]
  • PCT NEWSLETTER No. 10/2008
    PCT NEWSLETTER PATENT COOPERATION TREATY www.wipo.int/pct/en October 2008 | No. 10/2008 Assemblies of the Member States of WIPO The Assemblies of the member States of WIPO, including the 38th session of the Assembly of the PCT Union, were held in Geneva from 22 to 30 September 2008. Appointment of new Director General Following his nomination by the WIPO Coordination Committee on 13 May 2008, the WIPO General Assembly appointed Mr. Francis Gurry, on 22 September 2008, as Director General of WIPO for a six-year term that began on 1 October. Mr. Gurry, a national of Australia, is the fourth Director General of WIPO, following Georg Bodenhausen of the Netherlands (1970-1973), Arpad Bogsch of the United States of America (1973-1997) and Kamil Idris of Sudan (1997-2008). Representatives of the WIPO member States congratulated Mr. Gurry on his appointment and highlighted his wealth of experience in intellectual property and the professionalism that he brings to this position. Mr. Francis Gurry, WIPO’s new Director General Prior to joining WIPO, Mr. Gurry practiced law and held a number of academic positions. Mr. Gurry has held a number of positions since he joined WIPO in 1985, his latest one being Deputy Director General responsible, inter alia, for the PCT – his full curriculum vitae is available at: http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/govbody/en/wo_ga_36/wo_ga_36_1.pdf In his acceptance speech, Mr. Gurry highlighted the importance of the patent system as well as the problems which had been brought on by its own success, and expressed the belief that the PCT provides a better basis for constructing a solution to those problems than any other solution under consideration or in the range of current imagination.
    [Show full text]
  • Best Mode: a Plea to Repair Or Sacrifice This Broken Requirement of United States Patent Law Steven B
    Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review Volume 9 | Issue 1 2002 Best Mode: A Plea to Repair or Sacrifice this Broken Requirement of United States Patent Law Steven B. Walmsley Follow this and additional works at: http://repository.law.umich.edu/mttlr Part of the Courts Commons, Intellectual Property Law Commons, and the Legislation Commons Recommended Citation Steven B. Walmsley, Best Mode: A Plea to Repair or Sacrifice ht is Broken Requirement of United States Patent Law, 9 Mich. Telecomm. & Tech. L. Rev. 125 (2002). Available at: http://repository.law.umich.edu/mttlr/vol9/iss1/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. BEST MODE: A PLEA TO REPAIR OR SACRIFICE THIS BROKEN REQUIREMENT OF UNITED STATES PATENT LAWt Steven B. Walmsley* Cite as: Steven B. Walmsley, Best Mode: A Plea to Repair or Sacrifice This Broken Requirement of United States Patent Law, 9 Mica. TELECOMM. TECH. L. REV. 125 (2002), available at http://www.mttlr.org/volnine/walmsley.pdf I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................. 125 II. EVOLUTION OF THE BEST MODE REQUIREMENT .......................... 126 III. DEFINITION OF BEST M ODE .......................................................... 128 A . Deducedfrom the Statute ..................................................... 128 B. Induced by OrdinaryMeaning ............................................. 132 IV. SCOPE OF INVENTION DISCLOSURE NEEDED TO SATISFY THE BEST M ODE REQUIREMENT ................................................... 133 A. Best Mode Analysis: Proceduraland Substantive ........... 133 B. Case Law Paradox: Claimed Elements Only, or Broader...
    [Show full text]
  • 1. the Foundation of the World Intellectual Property Organization: What Came Before Gillian Davies and Sam Ricketson
    1. The foundation of the World Intellectual Property Organization: what came before Gillian Davies and Sam Ricketson ORIGINS In formal terms, WIPO was constituted by the provisions of a multilateral treaty negotiated in Stockholm in July 1967. This was signed by 51 countries from the developed and developing worlds and the former socialist bloc,1 and came into force formally on 26 April 1970, with the required number of accessions and ratifications by countries that were members of the Paris Union (10) and of the Berne Union (7). By the end of 1970, there were 22 member states, with a somewhat larger number (31) taking advantage of a provisional or transitional membership that was availa- ble for the first five years of the Organization’s existence. At the time of writing, there are 193 member states, and the Organization occupies impressive premises in Geneva, with a number of ‘External Offices’ around the world,2 and a staff establish- ment of over 1,500. It has been a specialized agency of the UN since 1974 and is now a well-established and mature member of the international institutional legal order. The creation of an international body such as WIPO was hardly a surprise and had been anticipated for some time. For more than a decade prior to 1967, there had been ongoing discussions and debates concerning the need for a new, modernized struc- ture to take over the administration of the various ‘traditional’ intellectual property conventions, such as the Paris and Berne Conventions. A further issue was meeting the challenges of the new world order that was emerging with the post-World War II process of decolonization and the development of the UN system of international organizations.
    [Show full text]
  • Charting a Course of TRIPS Patent Protection in a Fair and Balanced
    Innovation as Capability and Freedom: Charting a Course of TRIPS Patent Protection in a Fair and Balanced Global Innovation System Sa Yu Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Laws (LL.D.) degree Faculty of Law University of Ottawa © Sa Yu, Ottawa, Canada, 2013 Table of Contents Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... vii Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................... viii Chapter One: Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1 1.1 TRIPS in an Innovation and Development Context ....................................................... 1 1.2 A Two-Pronged Approach to Innovation and Development ....................................... 10 1.2.1 Innovation Capability Approach to Development ................................................ 11 1.2.2 Ensuring Equal Innovation Opportunity and the Freedom to Innovate ................ 13 1.2.3 Integrating TRIPS into a Fair and Balanced Global Innovation System .............. 14 1.3 Research Methodology ................................................................................................. 16 1.4 Thesis Structure ............................................................................................................ 17 Chapter
    [Show full text]