LSN: International Intellectual Property Protection (Topic)最新文献

{"title":"Under the Radar: Reflections on ‘Forced’ Technology Transfer and the Erosion of Developmental Sovereignty","authors":"Frederick M. Abbott","doi":"10.1093/grurint/ikz023","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/grurint/ikz023","url":null,"abstract":"This commentary is directed toward addressing concession by developing country foreign direct investment (FDI) hosts of a potentially important tool for accelerating technological development – a tool that may become more important as the prospects for developmental assistance are otherwise diminishing. Governments at all levels of development have a substantial interest in promoting inward technology transfer in a way that benefits locally-based enterprises. Governments, through legislation and/or regulatory measures, can improve the terms of trade for local businesses by setting ground rules that improve the capacity, i.e. bargaining power, of local enterprises in negotiating the terms of FDI. \u0000 \u0000Whether technology transfer requirements are ‘optimal’, or a second or third best, this does not argue for taking them out of the toolkit for developing countries. It is difficult to foresee the circumstances that will be relevant for each country and whether particular tools should be employed in particular situations.","PeriodicalId":362846,"journal":{"name":"LSN: International Intellectual Property Protection (Topic)","volume":"78 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124817950","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Complementarity in Public and Private Intellectual Property Enforcement; Implications for International Standards","authors":"Michael A. Klein","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3304023","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3304023","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 I examine the relationship between public enforcement of intellectual property (IP) rights and firm strategies to influence entry of non-deceptive counterfeit products: illegal copies of authentic goods purchased consciously by consumers. I assume that private enforcement investment determines the probability that a counterfeit entrant will be detected, while public investment determines the efficacy of the legal institutions responsible for enforcing IP law. Private and public enforcement serve distinct complementary roles, which combine to determine total IP protection in the economy. I show that differences in the investment incentives of the two entities that control enforcement lead to inefficiently low public investment in equilibrium. In this context, international efforts to impose stricter legal penalties against counterfeiters can be counterproductive: further reducing public enforcement and increasing counterfeit prevalence. In contrast, minimum quality standards can be implemented to better align incentives, encourage higher public enforcement, and reduce inefficiency.","PeriodicalId":362846,"journal":{"name":"LSN: International Intellectual Property Protection (Topic)","volume":"67 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131377217","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The International System of Intellectual Property from the Perspective of the Economics of Legal Federalism","authors":"Diane Asobo, Wolfgang Kerber","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3172851","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3172851","url":null,"abstract":"The international system of IPRs (patents, copyrights) is a complex and partly fragmented two-level system of national IP law regimes and international treaties, characterized by a combination of minimum harmonisation and the retaining of some national sovereignty (e.g., TRIPS agreement with \"flexibilities\"). Taking up the proposal of Dinwoodie & Dreyfuss (2012) to conceptualize the international IP system as a 'neo-federalist' system, we use the economic theory of legal federalism with its framework of economic criteria for the advantages and disadvantages of more harmonisation or diversity for the analysis of the international patent system. Important results from an economic perspective are that there might also be good economic reasons why patent laws should not be fully harmonised (esp. due to different policy objectives and the advantages of experimentation), but that a greater harmonisation would also allow for reducing costs through applying mechanisms for better collaboration between patent offices (e.g. through work-sharing). Overall, an economic analysis from the perspective of legal federalism can lead to a better understanding of the complex trade off-problems between the benefits and costs of harmonisation or diversity in regard to intellectual property.","PeriodicalId":362846,"journal":{"name":"LSN: International Intellectual Property Protection (Topic)","volume":"60 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134021977","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"TPP, RCEP, and the Crossvergence of Asian Intellectual Property Standards","authors":"Peter K. Yu","doi":"10.4337/9781788115568.00024","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788115568.00024","url":null,"abstract":"The debate on convergence and divergence has garnered considerable attention from policymakers and commentators involved in regulatory developments in Asia. The developments surrounding the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) have added fuel to this debate. Given the different leadership in these two megaregional agreements and the exclusion of many RCEP parties from the TPP negotiations, it will be interesting to see how the agreements will affect the future efforts to set regional intellectual property standards. It will also be curious to see whether the draft and finalized standards could reveal policy preferences of the participating countries. \u0000 \u0000In January 2017, U.S. President Donald Trump signed a memorandum directing the United States to withdraw from the TPP, putting the megaregional pact on life support. A year later, however, the eleven remaining TPP partners signed the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). While this transition instrument suspended some provisions in the TPP intellectual property chapter, many original provisions remain. \u0000 \u0000This chapter begins by examining the regulatory convergence narrative, focusing on efforts to harmonize Asian intellectual property standards through the WTO TRIPS Agreement and TRIPS-plus bilateral, regional and plurilateral agreements. The chapter then turns to the regulatory divergence narrative, discussing the region's inherent nation-based differences, the development considerations involved in developing Asian intellectual property laws and policies, and the growing rivalry between the TPP/CPTPP and the RCEP. This chapter concludes by suggesting that neither the convergence narrative nor the divergence narrative presents a complete and convincing story for a region as large, complex, diverse and internally inconsistent as Asia. Instead, the chapter contends that the region is likely to see \"regulatory crossvergence\"—a simultaneous convergence and divergence of regulatory standards. Such crossvergence not only has resulted in the region's development of compromising standards but has also been highly indicative of the ongoing and future standard-setting efforts in Asia.","PeriodicalId":362846,"journal":{"name":"LSN: International Intellectual Property Protection (Topic)","volume":"36 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128393474","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Tobacco Packaging Measures Affecting Intellectual Property Protection Under International Investment Law: The Claims Against Uruguay and Australia","authors":"A. Mitchell","doi":"10.4337/9781784718794.00016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4337/9781784718794.00016","url":null,"abstract":"Recent challenges to tobacco packaging measures brought under international investment law shed light on a variety of intellectual property issues. This chapter focuses on the intellectual property aspects of two related disputes: the claim brought by Philip Morris Asia Ltd (Philip Morris Asia) against Australia under the 1993 Agreement between the Government of Hong Kong and the Government of Australia for the Promotion and Protection of Investments (Hong Kong–Australia Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT)) and the claim brought by FTR Holding SA (Switzerland) (FTR), Philip Morris Products SA (Switzerland) (PMP) and Abal Hermanos SA (Abal) against Uruguay under the 1988 Agreement between the Swiss Confederation and the Oriental Republic of Uruguay concerning the Reciprocal Promotion and Protection of Investments (Switzerland–Uruguay BIT). Both of these disputes involve government adoption of regulatory measures that directly affect the branding, labelling and packaging of tobacco products. They also relate to aspects of the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), negotiated under the auspices of the World Health Organization (WHO), to which Australia, Uruguay and Hong Kong are parties (with Switzerland as merely a signatory). Part 2 of this chapter provides a brief overview of the tobacco packaging measures implemented by Uruguay and Australia. While these legislative schemes share the objective of improving public health through tobacco control, they vary in the way they pursue that objective.","PeriodicalId":362846,"journal":{"name":"LSN: International Intellectual Property Protection (Topic)","volume":"26 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125637491","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Amicus Curiae Submission Eli Lilly and Company v. The Government of Canada","authors":"Burcu Kilic, Brook K. Baker","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2791659","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2791659","url":null,"abstract":"This amicus brief was submitted to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) arbitral tribunal in Eli Lilly v. Canada (ICSID Case No. UNCT/14/2) by Amici. Amici are scholars whose research and teaching focus is intellectual property law (Dr. Burcu Kilic, Professor Brook Baker, HU Yuanqiong, Professor Cynthia Ho, Dr Luke McDonagh, Pratyush Upreti and Yaniv Heled, J.S.D.). The brief was accepted by the Tribunal with respect to Dr. Burcu Kilic (Washington DC, United States), Professor Brook K. Baker (Boston, United States), Professor Cynthia Ho (Chicago, United States), and Mr. Yaniv Heled J.S.D. (Atlanta, United States), denied with respect to the other academics for lack of standing.In September 2013, the Claimant Eli Lilly and Company (Lilly) launched a CDN $ 500 million claim against the Government of Canada under the North American Free Trade Agreement’s (NAFTA) investment chapter. The Claimant is challenging Canada’s invalidation of secondary patents related to the previously-known and patented active ingredients atomoxotine (Strattera) and olanzapine (Zyprexa), drugs used to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Lilly is challenging the decision of Canadian courts to invalidate two patents for failing to comply with Canada’s requirement of usefulness after failing to prevail in Canadian courts. The challenge is under the “investment” chapter of NAFTA, rather than the IP chapter. Lilly argues that this “improper” and “discreditable” invalidation of its patents constitutes a NAFTA-prohibited “indirect expropriation” and a breach of NAFTA’s guarantee of a “minimum standard of treatment” for foreign investors. This case against Canada is a case of first impression and the first case pursuing investor-state dispute resolution (ISDS) with respect to intellectual property rights affecting pharmaceuticals, the case has heightened significance. The outcome of this case will be instructive about whether other foreign investors pursue future attacks on substantive policies embedded in national patent systems through the arbitral proceedings challenging differences in patentability standards that frustrate their “expectations”.Of particular concern is that this challenge may make countries hesitant to use legitimate flexibilities under the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS). In addition, the invalidated patents are secondary patents that Eli Lilly seeks to use to extend its patent term after initial patents expired, but without substantial evidence that these new inventions are in fact useful. Although Canada bars such patents under the “promise of a patent” for usefulness that is unique, other countries similarly bar such patents, under different patentability doctrines.The Brief addresses, amongst other issues: • NAFTA Chapter 17 patentability standards • Patentability standards in Canada and their judicial interpretation• Secondary patents and patent evergreening • Ev","PeriodicalId":362846,"journal":{"name":"LSN: International Intellectual Property Protection (Topic)","volume":"129 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-02-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115890605","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"To What Extent Do Intellectual Property Rights Drive the Nature of Private International Law in the Era of Globalism?","authors":"P. Morris","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3386077","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3386077","url":null,"abstract":"The purpose of this article is to dissect the nature of intellectual property rights in the context of private international law. In other words, the primary focus is how private international law, i.e., conflict of laws, from the perspective of jurisdiction, applicable law, and enforcement rules have been developed and applied to intellectual property rights.","PeriodicalId":362846,"journal":{"name":"LSN: International Intellectual Property Protection (Topic)","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127020337","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"How China's Enforcement of Its Anti-Monopoly Law Poses Risks to Multinational Companies","authors":"D. Chow","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2599518","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2599518","url":null,"abstract":"China’s recent enforcement of its Anti-Monopoly Law (AML) has caused alarm and concern among Multinational Companies (MNCs). Many MNCs believe that the primary purpose of China’s AML is not to create open, fair, and market-based competition but is to serve the Industrial Policy goals of China’s ruling Communist Party. These goals result in the enforcement of the AML in favor of Chinese companies, especially China’s massive State-owned Enterprises, at the expense of MNCs doing business in China. In addition, China’s AML enforcement authorities seem to be using the AML to force MNCs to transfer their valuable technologies (intellectual property rights) at below market rates to Chinese firms and to force price reductions of their products sold in China. AML enforcement authorities also appear to be using the AML to protect famous Chinese brands from being acquired by foreign firms. China’s use of the AML appears to be consistent with China’s overall goal of strengthening its position as a global economic power.","PeriodicalId":362846,"journal":{"name":"LSN: International Intellectual Property Protection (Topic)","volume":"371 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-04-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122345459","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Hybrid Open Access Citation Advantage: How Many More Cites is a $3,000 Fee Buying You?","authors":"Frank Mueller‐Langer, Richard Watt","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2391692","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2391692","url":null,"abstract":"We study the hybrid open access (HOA) citation effect. Under HOA Pilot agreements, HOA is assigned for all articles of eligible authors. We use unique data on 208 (1,121) HOA (closed access) economics articles. We control for the quality of journals, articles and institutions and citations to RePec pre-prints. Performing Poisson quasi-maximum likelihood regressions, HOA turns out to be a significant predictor of citations with marginal effects ranging between 22% and 26%. However, once we additionally control for institution quality and citations to RePEc pre-prints, the marginal HOA citation advantage turns out to insignificant and drops to 0.4%.","PeriodicalId":362846,"journal":{"name":"LSN: International Intellectual Property Protection (Topic)","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128892088","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The ‘Knowledge Economy’-Finance Nexus: How Do IPRs Matter in SSA and MENA Countries?","authors":"S. Asongu","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2493392","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2493392","url":null,"abstract":"This paper assesses the relevance of intellectual property rights (IPRs) in the knowledge economy (KE)-finance nexus using the four variables identified under the World Bank’s knowledge economy index (KEI) and seven financial intermediary dynamics of depth, efficiency, activity and size. Three main findings are established: (1) education increases financial dynamics of depth and size; (2) economic incentives by means of credit facilities (trade openness) mitigate financial dynamics of efficiency and activity (financial dynamics of depth and size) and; (3) ICT and FDI both improve financial depth and decrease financial size (with FDI having an additional edge of improving financial activity). As a policy implication, the enforcement of IPRs is not a general and sufficient condition for positive KE-finance nexuses. Hence, blanket upholding of IPRs to achieve such positive linkages may not be successful unless policy is contingent on the prevailing ‘KE specific component’ trends and dynamics of financial development.","PeriodicalId":362846,"journal":{"name":"LSN: International Intellectual Property Protection (Topic)","volume":"189 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-01-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"120944140","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}