Obama Administration Recommends Senate Ratify Marrakesh Treaty for the Blind; Implementation Language Would Limit Exports
CONTACT: Zack Struver
+1 (202) 332-2670
Obama Administration Recommends Senate Ratify Marrakesh Treaty for the Blind; Implementation Language Would Seriously Limit Exports
WTO TRIPS Council (March 2016) to discuss Intellectual Property and Innovation: Education and Diffusion
The World Trade Organization (WTO) will convene its Council for TRIPS (TRIPS Council) from Tuesday, 1 March 2016 to Wednesday, 2 March 2016. Australia, the European Union, Switzerland and the United States of America have submitted a written request for the item "Intellectual Property and Innovation: Education and Diffusion" to be placed on the proposed agenda.WTO/AIR/IP/6
5 FEBRUARY 2016
SUBJECT: COUNCIL FOR TRIPS
THE NEXT MEETING OF THE COUNCIL FOR TRIPS WILL BE HELD IN THE CENTRE WILLIAM RAPPARD ON 1-2 MARCH 2016. THE MEETING WILL START AT
This is the announcement.
For Immediate Release February 10, 2016
TO THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES:
With a view to receiving the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification, I transmit herewith the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired, or Otherwise Print Disabled, done at Marrakesh on June 27, 2013 (Marrakesh Treaty). I also transmit, for the information of the Senate, a report of the Secretary of State with respect to the Marrakesh Treaty that includes a summary of its provisions.
USPTO White Paper Suggests Statutory Factors To Clarify Extent of Statutory Damages for Copyright Infringement
By Salvatore Angotti*
On February 8, 2016, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) responded to Knowledge Ecology International (KEI) and the Union for Affordable Cancer Treatment’s (UACT) letter requesting that the federal government exercise its authority under the Bayh-Dole Act to break patents on an expensive prostate cancer drug.
In May 2014, the 67th World Health Assembly (WHA) of the World Health Organization (WHO) passed Decision WHA67(15) providing WHO the mandate to explore the feasibility of creating a voluntary pooled fund fund on R&D hosted by the UNICEF/UNDP/World Bank/WHO Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases (TDR). The Decision outlined three principles guiding the consideration of the pooled fund:
Implications of the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) and Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) on Universal Health Coverage
Knowledge Ecology International
26 January 2016
9 AM to 12:30 PM
Lotus Suite 3. 22nd Floor
Bangkok Convention Centre
Today Knowledge Ecology International and the Union for Affordable Cancer Treatment (UACT) petitioned the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Defense, and the National Institutes of Health, asking that they exercise federal "march-in" rights to end the monopoly on an expensive prostate cancer drug, enzalutamide, marketed as Xtandi by Astellas, a Japanese pharmaceutical company.
Xtandi was invented at UCLA on federal grants from the NIH and DoD.
Knowledge Ecology International joins amicus brief on non-copyrightability of model laws and statutes
Washington, DC — On January 11, 2016, Knowledge Ecology International joined Public Knowledge and the American Library Association in an amicus curiae brief that argued that the contents of model laws, once enacted into statute, cannot be protected by copyright. The brief was filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in the case of ASTM International v. Public.Resource.Org.
This was the release from Representative Doggett's office:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 11, 2016
Leslie Tisdale, (202) 225-4865
Over 50 Members of Congress to Obama Administration:
Help End Drug Price Gouging Now
WHO's evaluation of the global strategy and plan of action on public health, innovation and intellectual property
In May 2008, the 61st World Health Assembly (WHA) of the World Health Organization (WHO) adopted the seminal global strategy and plan of action on public health, innovation and intellectual property.
As stated in its aim, the global strategy on public health, innovation and intellectual property serves to
In calendar year 2015, FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) approved 45 novel drugs, approved as new molecular entities (NMEs) under New Drug Applications (NDAs) or as new therapeutic biologics under Biologics License Applications (BLAs). This is a large number of approvals.
Attached here is a KEI submission to the US ITC for the January hearing of the
UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
Investigation No. TPA-105-001
Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement: Likely Impact on the U.S. Economy and on Specific Industry Sectors
Our earlier, related testimony on trade agreements was here: http://keionline.org/node/2370
Under the UK's Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme (PPRS), drug companies will make rebates of about £550 million in 2016, according to this story.
SAVE THE DATE - 16 December 2015 - KEI breakout session on A WTO Agreement on the Supply of Social Goods
On Wednesday, 16 December 2015, at the Fourth Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest (National Law University, Delhi, India), Knowledge Ecology International (KEI) will convene a breakout session (led by Jamie Love, Director, KEI) on a WTO Agreement on the Supply of Social Goods.
MICHELE WOODS: Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights, 31st session, Geneva, December 7 to 11, 2015. Summary by the Chair.
Agenda item 1. Opening of the session. The 31st session of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights SCCR or Committee was opened by Mr. Francis Gurry, Director General who welcomed the participants and opened agenda item 2.
Ms. Michele Woods, WIPO, acted as secretary.
The Chair proposed an intersessional on broadcasting and regional meetings regarding Libraries and Archives. This was supported by Asia, Grulac and Africa (but Africa wanted to include education and research institution) and rejected by Group B. The decision will be made at the next SCCR, SCCR 32 possibly May 9-13 2016.
Day 5 of SCCR 31, December 11, 2015Thank you Mr Chair.
We welcome the proposal tabled by Senegal and the Congo to include the droit de suite, the artist resale right, in this Committee’s agenda for future work.
I would like to refer to the Directive mentioned by the Commission, Directive 2001/84/EC which came into force on 1 January 2006:
SCCR 31 KEI Statement on the GRULAC Proposal for Analysis of Copyright Related to the Digital Environment
SCCR 31 Day 5, December 11, 2015
ADVANCED?MANUFACTURING COALITION FOR
TECHNOLOGY & INNOVATION /
ALLIANCE FOR CLEAN TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION
December 7, 2015
The Honorable Michael Froman
Office of the United States Trade
600 17th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20508
Fax: (202) 395-4549
The Honorable Penny Pritzker
United States Department of Commerce
1401 Constitution Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20230
Fax: (202) 482-2741
The Honorable John Kerry
United States Department of State
2201 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20520
Fax: (202) 647-2283
Re: U.S. IPR and the COP21 Climate Negotiation
Dear Secretary Kerry, Ambassador Froman, and Secretary Pritzker:
As the COP21 UNFCCC meeting in Paris progresses, we ask for your continued
leadership in rejecting the ongoing demands of a small group of foreign governments and NGOs
that UNFCCC member governments weaken the protection of climate change-related patents and
other Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), or that they agree to measures or provisions that would
otherwise undermine existing global IPR standards. Any such outcome would not only
undermine previously agreed global IPR standards as reflected in the WTO Agreement on Trade-
Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) in particular, but would be counterproductive from
a perspective of addressing the effects and underlying causes of global climate change (for which
innovation and continued dissemination and deployment of clean technologies is needed), and
have serious negative consequences for U.S. industry, U.S. exports, and U.S. jobs.
Over the years, several countries and NGOs have sought to insert references to IPR in
UNFCCC decisions and other negotiating outcomes. This has ranged from overt schemes like
compulsory licensing, veiled references to “flexibilities” and “balancing” IPRs, to proposals to
create UN- or foreign government-led bodies to buy up and effectively redistribute American
and other IPRs and their related technologies.
We urge you to avoid all references to IPR, positive or negative, in the agreement or
decision text. This is particularly critical with respect to references that relate to IPR and
finance, which could be viewed as an institutional mechanism to engage in compulsory
There are several reasons why these and other IPR-related proposals are so harmful:
? First, U.S. firms are currently among the world’s leaders in the development and production
of cleaner, more efficient technology, goods, and services. Enhancing this leadership
position will help create and maintain high-paying jobs in America and sustain future U.S.
economic growth, exports, and trade. Failing to do so means losing the battle for
competitiveness and jobs to China, India, and other nations, all of whom are investing in
these key growth markets and have aggressive industrial policies in place that are targeted at
U.S. technology and U.S. innovation. Continued strong global IPR protection is key.
? Second, failure to protect clean technology IPR would also undermine the very climate
change action that the Administration (and the UNFCCC) is aiming to pursue. The evidence
shows, for example, that strong IPR protection encourages private sector investment in new
technologies and innovation, helps companies market and thus monetize their competitive
technological edge, yet at the same time rewards the sharing of knowledge and inventions,
rather than inhibiting or punishing it.1 A wide body of economic and policy literature also
confirms that IPRs help facilitate both the development of new clean technology solutions,
and their adoption and deployment on the ground.2 As such, patents and other forms of IPR
protection are a tried-and-tested tool to achieve global climate change-related objectives, as
well as sustainable development and investment in some of the world’s poorest and most
vulnerable nations. Indeed, in most developing countries it is not the existence of IPR
protection that is the problem, but rather its absence.
Finally, no matter how carefully crafted, failure to keep IPR issues out of a UNFCCC or
other UN climate change or sustainable development agreement or decision will result in
significant legal, institutional and practical confusion precisely because such IPR issues are
already well-regulated at the WTO and elsewhere. Even worse, any kind of compromise
language on or references to IPR in a climate change or other UN agreement or decision,
risks undermining this Administration’s own recent negotiating efforts in the Transpacific
Trade Partnership (TPP) Agreement and elsewhere, and would send mixed signals to our
negotiating partners around the world. It would send a confusing signal and be harmful not
just for the U.S. economy, innovation, exports, and jobs, but for the very climate changerelated
objectives that the UNFCCC COP21 negotiation is purporting to pursue.
1 See, e.g., PriceWaterhouseCoopers, Innovation: Government’s Many Roles in Fostering Innovation (2010).
2 See, e.g., Kristina M. Lybecker and Sebastian Lohse, WIPO Global Challenges Report, Innovation and Diffusion
of Green Technologies: The Role of Intellectual Property and Other Enabling Factors, WIPO: Geneva (2015); U.N.
Conference on Trade and Development, Foreign direct investment, the transfer and diffusion of technology, and
sustainable development (2011), available at http://unctad.org/en/docs/ciiem2d2_en.pdf.
As the COP21 enters its final stages, we urge you to continue standing up for American
jobs, American exports, and American innovative businesses and entrepreneurs and to continue
rejecting any and all references to IPR in a COP21 agreement or decision, including more
indirect references or openings for future discussions about IPR, such as those mentioned above
and previously discussed with your teams.
We recognize the evolving nature of these negotiations and urge you continue to support
an environment where IP rights facilitate technology development and dissemination. We will
continue to communicate with your representatives on the ground in Paris from State, USTR, and
Commerce as a follow up to this letter.
Alliance for Clean Technology Innovation
Biotechnology Industry Association
Business Council for Sustainable Energy
Corn Refiners Association
Information Technology Industry Council
National Association of Manufacturers
National Foreign Trade Council
Northeast Clean Energy Council
U.S. Chamber of Commerce
United States Council for International Business
CC: The Honorable Michelle Lee
United States Patent and Trademark Office
USPTO Madison Building
600 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
Fax: (571) 273-8300
CC: Ms. Caroline Atkinson
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Fax: (202) 456-2461
CC: The Honorable Stefan Selig
United States Department of Commerce
1401 Constitution Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20230
Fax: (202) 482-2741