DOCSLIB.ORG

Part I: the Co-Existence of Patents and Plant Breeders’ Rights in the Promotion of Biotechnological Developments

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Part I: the Co-Existence of Patents and Plant Breeders’ Rights in the Promotion of Biotechnological Developments PART I: THE CO-EXISTENCE OF PATENTS AND PLANT BREEDERS’ RIGHTS IN THE PROMOTION OF BIOTECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS PART II: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS IN PLANT BIOTECHNOLOGY COMPILATION OF THE 2002 & 2003 JOINT SYMPOSIA DOCUMENTS OF THE WOLRD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATION (WIPO) AND THE INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR THE PROTECTION OF NEW VARIETIES OF PLANTS (UPOV) UPOV PUBLICATION No. 792 (E) ISBN 92-905-1484-9 UPOV 2005 PREFACE The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) jointly convened two symposia on the topic of biotechnology, in 2002 and 2003. The first symposium was entitled, “The Co-existence of Patents and Plant Breeders’ Rights in the Promotion of Biotechnological Developments”, and the second, “Intellectual Property Rights in Plant Biotechnology”. The focus of these symposia addressed the challenges facing inventors and plant breeders in light of developments in biotechnology on the one hand, and examined the role of intellectual property in the field of plant biotechnology on the other. Biotechnology is a rapidly growing sector in the world economy, for both developed and developing countries and concerns society as a whole. Plant biotechnology, in particular, seeks to respond to the challenges posed by pests and diseases, limited resources such as land, water, and fertilizer, and to improve productivity and quality. This requires effective use and management of intellectual property rights such as patents and plant breeders’ rights and an understanding of how complex legal frameworks interact at the international, regional and national levels. For these reasons, experts and participants from governments, international organizations, academia, legal fields, and companies active in biotechnology and plant breeding were brought together to discuss the various aspects of the issues concerning plant biotechnology. In response to the interest and demand, this publication reproduces the documents of the two symposia. It is hoped that the information contained herein will be useful in furthering the knowledge and discussion in the area of plant biotechnology. Kamil Idris Director General, WIPO Secretary-General, UPOV BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION ON SPEAKERS CONTENTS* PART I: WIPO-UPOV SYMPOSIUM ON THE CO-EXISTENCE OF PATENTS AND PLANT BREEDERS’ RIGHTS IN THE PROMOTION OF BIOTECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS October 25, 2002 Biographical Information on Speakers ___________________________________________________1 Opening Address Mr. Karl Olov Öster____________________________________________________________20 President, Council of UPOV, on behalf of Dr. Kamil Idris, Director General, WIPO Secretary-General, UPOV Session I: Legal and Technological Developments Leading to this Symposium UPOV’s Perspective _________________________________________________________________22 Mr. Rolf Jördens Vice Secretary-General, UPOV WIPO’s Perspective Mr. Francis Gurry Assistant Director, WIPO (oral presentation) Session II: Accessibility of Protected Inventions and Plant Varieties for Further Innovations Moderator: Mr. Qiao Dexi, Director General, Department for International Cooperation, State Intellectual Property Office of China Plant Variety Rights-The Breeder’s Exemption____________________________________________31 Mr. Tim Roberts Chartered Patent Agent, United Kingdom Patent Protection for Plant Material ____________________________________________________43 Mrs. Victoria Henson-Apollonio The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), Netherlands Discussions___________________________________________________________________47 * Disclaimer: The views expressed in the papers and discussions of the WIPO-UPOV Symposia 2002 and 2003 are those of the speakers and/or participants and not necessarily those of UPOV or WIPO. WIPO-UPOV SYMPOSIUM 2002 Session III: Intellectual Property Strategy and Licensing Experience with the Co-Existence of Patents and Plant Variety Protection Systems Moderator: Mr. Bernard Le Buanec Secretary General, International Seed Federation (ISF), Switzerland Intellectual Property for Breeders ______________________________________________________49 Mr. François Desprez President, French Society of Plant Breeders (SICASOV), France Conditions for the Development of Agricultural Biotechnology in Brazil: National and International Context, Biosafety and Legal Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights _____________54 Mr. Luiz Antonio Barreto de Castro Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (EMBRAPA), Brazil Discussions___________________________________________________________________66 Session IV: Measures Necessary for the Balanced Co-Existence of Patents and Plant Breeders Rights Moderator: Mr. Walter Smolders Head of Biotechnology Patenting, Syngenta Crop Protection AG, Switzerland Are there TRIPS-Compliant Measures for a Balanced Co-Existence of Patents and Plant Breeders’ Rights? Some Lessons From the United States of America’s Experience to Date _______________68 Professor Charles McManis Washington University, United States of America Measures Necessary for the Balanced Co-Existence of Patents and Plant Breeders’ Rights- A Predominantly European View ______________________________________________________82 Professor Joseph Straus Executive Director, Max Planck Institute, Germany Panel Discussion Chair: Mr. Peter Lange, KWS Saat AG, Germany Introduction__________________________________________________________________89 Discussions___________________________________________________________________91 Closing Remarks Mr. Karl Olov Öster, President, Council of UPOV Closing Remarks ____________________________________________________________ 103 List of Participants List of Participants___________________________________________________________ 104 BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION ON SPEAKERS PART II: WIPO-UPOV SYMPOSIUM ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS IN PLANT BIOTECHNOLOGY October 24, 2003 Biographical Information on Speakers ________________________________________________ 119 Opening Address H.E. Mr. Alejandro Jara ______________________________________________________ 134 Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Chile Geneva, Switzerland Session I: Plant Biotechnology Developments in the International Framework Plant Biotechnology Developments in the International Framework________________________ 136 Mr. Francis Gurry Assistant Director General, WIPO Plant Biotechnology Developments in the International Framework________________________ 140 Mr. Rolf Jördens Vice Secretary-General, UPOV Plant Biotechnology Developments in the International Framework________________________ 150 Mr. Adrian Otten Director, Intellectual Property Division, World Trade Organization (WTO) Session II: Plant Biotechnology and its Dissemination Dissemination of Biotechnology into Agriculture _______________________________________ 169 Mr. Stephen Smith Germplasm Security Coordinator, Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc., United States of America Creating, Protecting and Using Crop Biotechnologies Worldwide in an Era of Intellectual Property _________________________________________________________ 179 Professor Philip Pardey Science and Technology Policy, Department of Applied Economics University of Minnesota, United States of America Dissemination of Plant Biotechnology: An African Perspective____________________________ 213 Mr. Alexander Ochem Research Assistant, Molecular Biology, International Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnolgy (ICGEB), Italy Discussions_________________________________________________________________ 218 WIPO-UPOV SYMPOSIUM 2002 Session III: Intellectual Property in Plant Biotechnology: National/Regional Experiences The Interface Between Patents and Plant Variety Rights in Europe_________________________ 223 Mr. Rainer Moufang Legal Member of the Boards of Appeal, European Patent Office (EPO), Germany Biotechnology Patent Overiew ______________________________________________________ 229 Mr. Jeff Kushan Attorney, Sidley, Austin, Brown & Wood, United States of America Plant Biotechnology Intellectual Property Rights and the Bt Cotton Case in China ___________ 241 Mrs. Qin Fang Wang Associate Professor, Biotechnology Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences Mrs. Yinliang Li Associate Professor, School of Civil and Commercial Law, China University of Political Science and Law Experiences in Plant Variety Protection Under the UPOV Convention ______________________ 247 Mr. Evans Sikinyi Manager, Plant Variety Rights Office, Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Service (KEPHIS), Kenya Implementation of Plant Variety Protection ___________________________________________ 255 Mr. Arnold van Wijk Head, Plant Variety Research, Centre for Genetic Resources, Netherlands Session IV: Management of Intellectual Property Rights The Management of Intellectual Property Rights in Plant Biotechnology ____________________ 263 Mr. Bernard Le Buanec Secretary General, International Seed Federation (ISF), Switzerland Practical IPR Impact on the US Seed Industry __________________________________________ 269 Mr. John Gerard President, ACCESS Plant Technology, Inc., United States of America Intellectual Property Management in the Development of a Medium-Sized Argentinian Seed Company ________________________________________________________ 277 Mr. Oscar Agustín Domingo Director of Relmó, Argentina IRRI: The Experience of an International Public Research Institute _________________________ 291 Ms. Thanda Wai Intellectual
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Assemblies of the Member States of WIPO
    A/60/3 ORIGINAL: ENGLISH DATE: MAY 29, 2020 Assemblies of the Member States of WIPO Sixtieth Series of Meetings Geneva, May 7 and 8, 2020 GENERAL REPORT adopted by the Assemblies 1. This General Report records the deliberations and decisions of the following three Assemblies of the Member States of WIPO (Assemblies of WIPO): (1) WIPO General Assembly, fifty-second (28th extraordinary) session (2) Paris Union Assembly, fifty-fifth (31st extraordinary) session (3) Berne Union Assembly, forty-ninth (25th extraordinary) session, meeting on May 7 and 8, 2020, conducted in the form of a written procedure. 2. The list of the States members of the Assemblies concerned and the observers admitted to their sessions as of March 6, 2020, is set forth in document A/60/INF/1. 3. The meeting was presided over by the Chair of the WIPO General Assembly, Ambassador Omar Zniber (Mr.) (Morocco). CONDUCT OF THE MEETING IN THE FORM OF A WRITTEN PROCEDURE 4. The Sixtieth series of meetings of the Assemblies of WIPO was convened by the Director General of WIPO, Mr. Francis Gurry. 5. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, and related public health restrictions, including Host State prohibitions on public gatherings of more than five people, an in-person meeting of the Assemblies of WIPO was not possible. In this context, as noted by the Director General of WIPO, the challenges faced by the international community at this time were unprecedented. Consequently, the Director General of WIPO necessarily proposed an equally unprecedented A/60/3 page 2 written procedure that would allow the Assemblies of WIPO to take relevant decisions at their May meeting for the successful discharge of their treaty obligations as part of the process of the election of the Director General (see Note A/60/C.
    [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]
  • 7 CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1.Conceptual Framework 2.1.1
    CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1.Conceptual Framework 2.1.1. Conceptual Framework of Copyright 2.1.1.1. Definition of Copyright Based On Indonesian Law In the Indonesian aspect, copyright is divided into two words, “hak” and “cipta.” Based on Indonesian Dictionary (KBBI), the word “hak” (translation: “right”) means own, belonging; authority, sovereignty; the authority to do something (as obligated by law, rules, and many other regulations); the right administration to do or demand something,1 while the word “cipta” (translation: create; invent) itself means the mind’s ability to create something new; creative thoughts.2 The definition of copyright based on the Indonesian Dictionary is someone’s right upon his/her work protected by law. As one of the intellectual property right, Indonesian Law Article 1 Number 1 Law Number 28 of 2014 about Copyright has also defined copyright as below: “Copyright means an exclusive right of the author vested automatically on the basis of declaratory principle after Works are embodied in a tangible form without reducing by virtue of restrictions in accordance with the provisions of laws and regulations.” Indonesian Law acknowledged someone as an Author if they meet the general provision according to Article 1 Number 2 as quoted below: “Author means a person or several persons who individually or jointly produce works that are unique and personal.” Based on this legal statement provided by the law, we can conclude that as long as the law acknowledged the person as someone who produces the unique and personal work, they are considered as an author 1 Translated from Anonymous, “Arti kata hak”, https://kbbi.web.id/hak, accessed in 5th August 2019.
    [Show full text]
  • UN.Today.Pdf
    DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INFORMATION The United Nations Today asdf United Nations New York, 2008 Note: Every effort is made to keep basic information current up to the date of publication, including responsible officials, contact information, treaty ratifications, etc. All other data is current as of July 2007, unless stated otherwise. Published by the United Nations Department of Public Information Printed by the Publishing Section/DGACM United Nations Headquarters New York, NY 10017 www.un.org ISBN 978-92-1-101160-9 United Nations Publication Sales No. E.08.I.6 Copyright © 2008 United Nations iii Preamble to the Charter of the United Nations We the peoples of the United Nations determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom, and for these ends to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples, have resolved to combine our efforts to accomplish these aims.
    [Show full text]
  • The Arbitrability of International Intellectual Property Disputes
    The Arbitrability of International Intellectual Property Disputes By William Granthamt Arbitration is the leading form of international commercial dispute resolu- tion. However, public policy may be invoked to make certain subject matter inarbitrable. This article deals with one of these putatively inarbitrable areas: intellectual property. It examines from the point of view of general policy the question of whether, and if so, to what extent, there are limits on the subject matter of intellectual property disputes that may be regulated by arbitration. In addition, it surveys the current state of the law on the arbitrability of interna- tional intellectual property disputes in a selection of countries. I. INTRODUCTION ......................................... 175 II. ARBITRABILITY AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ...... 179 A. Public Policy Considerations ............................ 179 1. The Development of Objective Arbitrability .......... 179 2. The Public Policy Elements of Intellectual Property ... 180 a. The Intellectual Property Problem ............... 180 i. Intellectual Property Arbitration as an Agent of Public Policy ............................ 185 ii. Intellectual Property Arbitration as an Exercise of a Contractual Waiver of Legal Rights ..... 186 3. Arbitrability in Practice-ICC Case No. 6097 ........ 188 B. Stages of Application of Public Policy ................... 189 1. The Policy of the Jurisdiction Whose Law Governs the Arbitration Agreement .............................. 190 2. The Policy of the Place of Arbitration ............... 192 3. The Policy of the Place of Enforcement of the Arbitral A w ard ............................................ 193 C. Intellectual Property Arbitration in Practice ............... 195 t J.D. Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California at Berkeley, 1996; B.A. University of Liverpool, 1979; M.Phil. University of Oxford, 1981. This article arises from research carried out while working as a consultant at the Arbitration Center of the World Intellectual Property Organiza- tion (WIPO) in Geneva in 1995.
    [Show full text]
  • COUNCIL Thirty-First Ordinary Session Geneva, October 29, 1997
    C/31/16 ORIGINAL: English DATE: October 29, 1997 INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR THE PROTECTION OF NEW VARIETIES OF PLANTS GENEVA COUNCIL Thirty-First Ordinary Session Geneva, October 29, 1997 RECORD OF THE DECISIONS ADOPTED IN THE SESSION adopted by the Council Introduction 1. The Council of the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) held its thirty-first ordinary session in Geneva on October 29, 1997, under the chairmanship of Mr. Bill Whitmore (New Zealand). 2. The Council took the decisions recorded below, under each relevant agenda item. 3. The draft report on the session will be submitted to the next session of the Council for adoption. Adoption of the Report on the Thirtieth Ordinary Session 4. The Council adopted the report as given in document C/30/17 Prov. C/31/16 page 2 Appointment of the New Secretary-General 5. The Council: (a) unanimously decided to appoint Dr. Kamil Idris as Secretary-General of UPOV, effective December 1, 1997, (b) noted with appreciation that the new Secretary-General did not wish to receive an indemnity from UPOV, and (c) decided that the program and budget for the 1998-99 biennium should be so amended that the resulting saving be used for financing activities of interest particularly to developing countries. 6. The Council paid tribute to the contribution of Dr. Arpad Bogsch to the installation, working and development of the Union over the last twenty-four years. 7. The acceptance speech of Dr. Kamil Idris is attached as Annex I to this document. The speech of Dr.
    [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]
  • Valuing Intellectual Capital, Multinationals and Taxhavens Springer Verlag 2013
    Collected References, available on-line as <i.Stanford.edu/VIC/allVICcitations.pdf> 27-Oct-13 References for: Gio Wiederhold: Valuing Intellectual Capital, Multinationals and Taxhavens Springer Verlag 2013 VIC Citations This list includes all the references cited, as well as others that I have persused. For general information, I chose a recent publication for citation, trusting that it will be easier to locate and cite earlier work. As is common in tax matters, opinions abound. Refereed material is italicized. Entries cited and listed in the Reference section of Valuing Intelectual Capital have [bold identifiers]; entries considered, but not cited are marked ‡. Entries marked † were used for [W:06] . Transcription into the spreadsheet for VIC are marked [xls/worksheet]. Shaded text is to be omitted in publication, but helpful for search or as an aide de memoire. I am dding {chapter.section} references AAAAAAA [Aaron:13B] Henry J. Aaron: Tax Reform? Between a Rock and a Hard Place; Huffington Post, Brookings, 15 Jan. 2013. The 1986 reforms shifted $1T (adjusted) from individuals to Corportations over 10 years. Mobility of capital and the proliferation of multinatinal companies prevents such a solution now. Must raise personal income tax.{VIC Ch10.7.4} [Aaron:13G] Henry J. Aaron: You Get What You Pay For: Lessons From the IRS Scandal; Brookings, 31 May 2013. Only 1% of returns is audited. $450B is uncollected. Each dollar spent auditing yields $8. {VIC Ch8,7.3} [AbahoonieA:10]‡ Edward Abahoonie and Liah Alfonso: Deferred taxes on foreign earnings: A road map; Price Waterhouse Coopers (PwC), Dec.2010, updated 2012 www.pwc/us/tax.
    [Show full text]
  • Trevor Baylis, Inventor: the Clockwork Radio
    GENEVA – JUNE 2006 – No.3 2 WORLD IP DAY ROUND-UP 12 COPYRIGHT IN COURT THE SPIRIT OF INVENTION 14 The Intellectual Property-Conscious Nation: Mapping the Path from Developing to Developed By Kamil Idris and Hisamitsu Arai This contribution to the international debate on global development challenges, writ- ten by WIPO Director General Kamil Idris and former Commissioner of the Japanese Patent Office Hisamitsu Arai, was published by WIPO in May. Taking as their starting point the UN Millennium Development Goals, the authors set out their vision of how the judicious use of the intellectual property (IP) system can best contribute to the achievement of those goals. Their concern is to address “one of the weakest links” in the economic development strategies of many developing About the authors countries, namely a failure to integrate policies designed to promote IP and innova- Kamil Idris, Director General of WIPO, tion into other key development policies, such as those governing health, education, was a professor of law and a diplomat in the Sudanese foreign service before trade, environment and science and technology. joining the Organization. He studied law, political science and international Aimed at policy-makers as well as a broad, non-expert audience, the book bases its affairs in Egypt, Sudan, the USA and appeal on the wealth of examples used to illustrate its message rather than on de- Switzerland. tailed economic analysis. IP success stories – and failures – drawn from developed Hisamitsu Arai is Secretary-General of and developing countries the world over offer the reader inspiration and instruction. the Intellectual Property Headquarters at the Cabinet Secretariat of the Japanese The strong personal and professional commitment of both authors to the promotion government.
    [Show full text]
  • WO/GA/XXI/13 ORIGINAL: English WIPO DATE: October 1, 1997
    WO/GA/XXI/13 ORIGINAL: English WIPO DATE: October 1, 1997 WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATION GENEVA WIPO GENERAL ASSEMBLY Twenty-First Session (13th Ordinary) Geneva, September 22 to October 1, 1997 REPORT adopted by the General Assembly 1. The General Assembly was concerned with the following items of the Consolidated Agenda (document AB/XXXI/1 Prov.2): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 15, 16, 17, 21, 23, 24, 27, 28, 29 and 30. 2. The report on the said items, with the exception of items 4, 7, 8, 9, 15, 16, 17, 23, 24 and 27 is contained in the General Report (document AB/XXXI/12). 3. Ms. Sheila Batchelor, Chair of the General Assembly, presided over the meetings of the General Assembly. n:\postoff\menezes\govbody\wga21e13.doc WO/GA/XXI/13 page 2 ITEM 4 OF THE CONSOLIDATED AGENDA: APPOINTMENT OF THE NEW DIRECTOR GENERAL 4. The Chair of the General Assembly, Ms. Sheila Batchelor (Canada), noted that paragraph 5 of document WO/GA/XXI/1 was divided into two parts. With the consent of the Assembly, she announced that the General Assembly would deal initially only with the first part of paragraph 5 inviting the General Assembly to act upon the nomination of the WIPO Coordination Committee. With respect to the second part of the paragraph, the Chair noted that the WIPO Convention provided, in Article 9(3), that the Director General shall be appointed for a fixed term, which shall be not less than six years. The General Assembly would return to the term and conditions of the appointment after consultations among the Group Coordinators.
    [Show full text]
  • Global Agenda Councils Workshop on Intellectual Property
    Global Agenda Councils Workshop on Intellectual Property Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 11 – 12 June 2013 Preliminary Programme Tuesday 11 June 09.00 – 10.00 Private Session Aligning Expectations Members of the Global Agenda Council on the Intellectual Property System will meet to align expectations and working procedures 10.30 – 10.45 Briefing Session Setting the Agenda This session provides an overview of the objectives of the two day workshop. Day 1: What is the Nature of the Future of the IP System? Day 2: How will we build the Future IP System? Opening Remarks by Jorge Avila, President, Brazilian National Intellectual Property Office (INPI), Brazil; Global Agenda Council on the Intellectual Property System David Kappos, Partner, Cravath, Swaine & Moore, USA; Global Agenda Council on the Intellectual Property System 10.45 - 12.15 Interactive Session Session 1: The Globalised Open Innovation Paradigm How do complex dynamic industries organize and engage into R&D or creation networks, and how do they manage interactions with the many different complementary assets? Discussion Leaders: David Kappos, Partner, Cravath, Swaine & Moore, USA; Global Agenda Council on the Intellectual Property System José Luis Londono Fernandez, Director, Industrial Property Office of Colombia Naldo Medeiros Dantas, Executive Secretary, ANPEI Moderated by: Sara Boettiger, President, GATD Foundation, USA; Global Agenda Council on the Intellectual Property System Rapporteur: Thaddeus Burns, Senior Counsel, IP and Technology Policy, EMEA and Latin America, General
    [Show full text]
  • April 3, 2020 Director General Francis Gurry World Intellectual Property
    April 3, 2020 Director General Francis Gurry World Intellectual Property Organization 34, chemin des Colombettes CH-1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland Dear Dr Gurry, We write to you as organisations and individuals representing researchers, educators, students, and the institutions that support them, to encourage WIPO to take a clear stand in favour of ensuring that intellectual property regimes are a support, and not a hindrance, to efforts to tackle both the Coronavirus outbreak and its consequences. The COVID-19 pandemic has shone a bright light on how important intellectual property limitations and exceptions can be to development and human flourishing. Researchers discovered the spread of the virus through a text and data mining project analyzing copyrighted news articles1, enabled by Canada’s flexible fair dealing right for research purposes. The earliest potential treatments have been developed through existing medicines, enabled by experimental use exceptions to patent rights. Now, schools, universities, libraries, archives, museums and research institutes across the world, forced to close their buildings, are transferring materials online and providing remote access, but only where copyright laws permit. However, these and other critical activities to overcome the crisis are not being performed everywhere - including where subscriptions have been paid in advance - because they are not lawful everywhere. We have seen helpful steps from a number of countries, and from some right holders themselves, to facilitate access to academic articles and other works, educational and cultural materials, research data, chemical libraries, and needed medicines and medical devices that are subject to intellectual property rights. These steps are to be lauded. But much more is needed.
    [Show full text]