Search

Artificial intelligence is having an increasing impact in many areas. At the same time, artificial intelligence systems can be targeted by socalled "adversarial attacks". Appropriate measures are needed to counter adversarial attacks on artificial intelligence, including with the help of law. The paper aims to analyze whether adversarial attacks on artificial intelligence systems constitute infringement of intellectual property rights to such systems or elements thereof. The paper focuses on copyright law, patent law, and sui generis database protection and examines how intellectual property rights can be infringed in the course of conducting adversarial attacks. It is concluded that the copying of artificial intelligence system or its parts and components (if they are copyrighted) in the course of an adversarial attack may qualify as reproduction and constitute copyright infringement if certain conditions are met. In this context, it is important to take into account that the act of reproduction committed for adversarial attack generally cannot be considered as accidental, but on the contrary, may be considered as intentional. When considering possible patent infringements in the context of adversarial attacks, in particular, the doctrine of equivalents and the principle of "exhaustion of rights" must be taken into account. The sui generis database right, which is an additional protection possibility for databases in the European Union, may also be infringed within the adversarial attacks under certain conditions. The need to include provisions on the unlawful character of adversarial attacks in the relevant legislation is determined. The provisions prohibiting adversarial attacks on artificial intelligence in the license agreements can also increase the level of legal protection of artificial intelligence systems.

The value of an exclusive right can be measured by its enforceability. The enforcement of a patent right in Europe is a highly complex endeavor. The European patent system is characterised by three irreconcilable factors: territoriality, fragmentation and harmonisation. There has been a consistent striving for harmonisation within the European patent system in response to the territorial and thereby fragmented protection of patent rights. This dissertation studies the legal harmonisation of the acts against which a patent provides protection (the infringing acts) and the applicable limitations. The study is conducted at three levels. First, through the legal order of the European Union (EU), including the EU’s exclusive competence over the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. Second, through national case law from the courts of Sweden, Germany, England and Wales as well as judicial dialogues between domestic courts. Third, through the newly established Unified Patent Court (UPC) system. The UPC, which was established in June 2023, adds to the EU’s attempts to resolve the fragmentation of the European patent system. However, the system underlying the UPC is dependent on law outside the EU legal order, such as the European Patent Convention and the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court, an international agreement inter se the participating Member States of the EU. Arguably, the UPC system is designed to prevent the EU and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) from having too much influence on the enforcement of patents. The Member States removed the provisions regulating the infringing acts and the applicable limitations from a proposal for the EU Regulation on the protection of the unitary patent. Thus, they aimed at preventing the CJEU from having interpretative jurisdiction over the effects and limitations of the EU unitary patent right. The dissertation evaluates the mechanisms that have contri

This chapter analyses the role that 'ordre public' and morality exceptions can play in the granting of patents on inventions in the field of human germline editing and the consequences of this policy option. In order to provide the context for such an analysis, the chapter will, first, provide an overview of the current patent landscape for relevant genome editing technologies, drawing attention to recent patent disputes and, second, examine 'ordre public' and morality exceptions under patent law in international, national and regional law, and the implications for innovation and access to novel treatments. The chapter argues that patent exceptions should not be used as a blunt policy instrument, nor interpreted in a way that is contrary to the patent system's overall objectives. The 'ordre public' and morality based exceptions in the context of human germline editing should not be interpreted and applied in a way which results in outcomes counterproductive to the goal of balancing innovation with the protection of societal higher normative values. Instead, the application of the exception should be based on a sound understanding of both the underlying science as well as the broader ethical, social, and legal implications, thus enabling case-by-case decisions that provide the basis for patent claim amendments and nuanced purpose-bound protection. Further analysis and debate as to the role that such flexibilities can play in the context of genome editing technologies is therefore both necessary and desirable, and can be facilitated in the ways set out in this chapter.

Comparative law is designed for alignment of constitutional law with other countries advocating public welfare and safety. The United States has an Intellectual Property provision under U.S. Fair Clause using their constitution as pre-emptive doctrine. The aim of this paper is to evaluate the applicability of UK Intellectual Property Law based on their complexed policies on Artificial Intelligence. Hence, it leads to problem statements questioning: (1) the eligibility of matters of facts did not meet UK IP Law; (2) the standard for evidence towards invention using Artificial Intelligence does not conform with UK IP Law; (3) Liability in AI patent infringement is not subsistent in UK IP Law; and (4) AI’s compliance is not subject for responsibility under creativity and non-obviousness criteria. The Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement promotes public welfare and safety under constitutional laws. India, as a member, is obliged to comply with the standard of evidence in patentability under World Trade Organization (WTO). The WTO is a committee responsible for advocating business law. Invention for marketability of patent product has its own complexed policy to comply for acceptance of an Intellectual Property creation. Constitutional law is designed to be made comparable with other countries, promoting the monetary success of their nation exhibiting economic progress in industrial and technological advancements. Hence, authorless works marking artificial intelligence towards public health and safety must be done in lack of any dedication to human connections, resulting in immersion of their “new” product as a work of art, making non-obviousness skills to people as part of common logic and interests, hence, a product of convenience. This intergovernmental task force is vital to implement constitutional laws comparable to other countries. Hence, the advocacy of business ethics is a highly acknowledged means of making the lives of people

This work demonstrates that the grip of patent laws has to do with the development of market relations. It contrasts the core of patent law, namely, the concept of “invention”, with that epistemological form often cast as the defining “other” of invention, namely, the concept of “traditional knowledge” (TK). It finds that patent law protects a specific form of “invention”, namely, a discrete unit of commodifiable knowledge with certain characteristics that developed in reciprocity with the development of capitalist markets for intellectual things. The corollary is that those more ensconced in capitalist markets will more likely share patent law’s epistemology. Taking this insight, the work develops a theoretical framework to explain patent grip. At this framework’s core is the thinking of Soviet legal scholar, Evgeny Pashukanis, that law is contingent in the sense that it expresses underlying social relations. The development of a market for a given intellectual thing is connected with the development of a commodifying attitude to that thing in which people more readily perceive it, or additions and modifications to it, as a propertisable “invention” rather than some other form of knowledge. Thus, it is hypothesised that more commodity-oriented people are more likely to use and obey patent law, i.e., to have higher patent grip. This work tests this hypothesis using a case study of the extent to which, in southwestern China’s Guizhou province, TK-knowers, namely, traditional medical knowledge (TMK) practitioners, use and obey patent laws in respect of TMK. The case study involves a social survey of 53 mostly ethnic minority TMK practitioners, capturing, inter alia, measures of individual commodity-orientation (also called marketisation) and patent grip. Case study analysis finds: (i) statistically significant correlations between a TMK practitioner’s commodity-orientation and their patent grip; and (ii) a TMK practitioner’s commodity-orientation affects their treatme

This article analyzes India’s Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL) as a potential intervention in the administration of patent law. The TKDL is a database including a vast body of traditional medical knowledge from India, aiming to prevent the patenting and misappropriation of that knowledge. This article contextualizes the TKDL in relation to documentation theory as well as to existing research on the uses of databases to protect traditional knowledge. It explores the TKDL’s potential consequences for India’s traditional medical knowledge and the wider implications that traditional knowledge databases can have for the safeguarding of traditional knowledge in general. The article concludes that on the one hand the TKDL bridges the gap between the main branches of Indian traditional medicine and the formal knowledge system of International Patent Classifications. Furthermore, it has also inspired revisions of the International Patent Classification system, which makes it better adapted to incorporate traditional medical knowledge. On the other hand, critical research on traditional knowledge documentation argues that traditional knowledge databases, like the TKDL, can decontextualize the knowledge they catalogue and dispossess its original owners. The TKDL, however, also fits into a national, Indian agenda of documenting and modernizing traditional medicine that predates the formation of the TKDL by several decades and challenges the dichotomy between traditional and scientific knowledge systems that originally motivated the formation of the TKDL., Funding: European Research Council (ERC) under the European UnionEuropean Research Council (ERC) [741095-PASSIMERC-2016-AdG], Passim: Patents as Scientific Information 1895-2020

The development of the new green industries based on standards creates legal issues of the collision between patent law and standardisation processes. Whereas some solutions have already been implemented in the industries like telecommunications, it is of an interest to research on whether these solutions might be used when managing intellectual property rights in the green technologies or there will be a shift in the policies. The thesis is aimed at describing and analysing the legal issue of the possible collision between patent law and standardisation systems in the process of the dissemination of green technologies and eco-innovations. This is done by answering the certain research questions on the role of the EU legal framework on standardisation in the technology transfer, the positive and negative consequences of the interaction between patents and standards, on the position of patent law on standardisation and possible solutions to this legal issue. To fulfill the purpose a legal dogmatic method with systematic analysis of existing case law, legislation and literature from intellectual property (IP) scholars is used, it is also complemented with the wide analysis of Commission’s proposals, the opinion of the practitioners, the legal documents of the leading industry players.

Key findings in our submission include: 1. The protection of computer generated works (CGW) should be removed. By removing the provisions on CGWs, the protection of human creations and the protection for human authors remains intact. This is because the CGWs are, by definition, authorless (ie without a human author) and hence are no human creations. 2. The existing text and data mining (TDM) exception should be extended to cover commercial research and data bases. The government should also seek to reform TDM licensing practices as relying on licensing to facilitate TDM may prove problematic in practice. This is due to the need for individual licenses, licensing negotiations, high transactions costs, as well as the vast amount of data involved. 3. Patent protection of AI is necessary to promote innovation on AI rather than innovation by AI. However, no legal change should be made on inventorship for both inventions.

Investigating Australia's framework for access to essential medicines, this chapter explores the intersection between patent law, public health, and pandemics. This chapter looks at the judicial discussion of patent term extensions and the evergreening of pharmaceutical drugs. It considers the precedent of the Aktiebolaget Hasslev Alphapharm, with Kirby J’s notable dissent; the Arrowv.Merck case in the Federal Court of Australia; the conflict between Alphapharm and Lundbeck in the High Court of Australia; and the dispute between AstraZeneca and Apotex in the High Court of Australia. It also mentions in passing the High Court of Australia’s various decisions on the patentability of pharmaceutical drugs, methods of human treatment; and gene patents. This chapter examines the response of law reform bodies to the topic of patent law, pharmaceutical drugs, and access to medicines – including the work of the Australian Law Reform Commission in its gene patents inquiry; the concerns of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission about access to medicines; the 2013 Pharmaceutical Patents Review; and the Productivity Commission’s investigation of patent exceptions such as crown use and compulsory licensing, as well as its review of intellectual property arrangements. It also highlights the parallel developments in the United States – with the Biden Administration promising to take action in respect of drug monopolies. This chapter explores the impact of international trade law upon patent law and access to medicines in Australia. In particular, it charts the debate over the TRIPS Agreement 1994, the WTO General Council Decision 2003, the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement 2004, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011, the Trans-Pacific Partnership 2015, the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership 2018, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership 2021, and the TRIPS Waiver debate 2020-2022 during the coronav

This paper explores intellectual property and access to essential medicines in the context of the coronavirus COVID-19 public health crisis. It considers policy solutions to counteract vaccine nationalism and profiteering by pharmaceutical companies and vaccine developers. This paper considers the campaign for the development of a People's Vaccine led by the People’s Vaccine Alliance, UNAIDS, Oxfam and Public Citizen. The WHO has established the ACT Accelerator in order to boost research, development, and deployment of COVID-19 technologies. However, the operation of COVAX thus far has been falling short of its original ambitions. The Medicines Patent Pool has expanded its jurisdiction to include the sharing of intellectual property related to COVID-19. Meanwhile, Costa Rica has proposed a COVID-19 Technology Access Pool – an idea for a new institutional structure which has been taken up by the WHO. In the context of the coronavirus public health crisis, there has also been discussion of the use of compulsory licensing and crown use to counteract profiteering and anti-competitive behavior. There has been a push by Universities Allied for Essential Medicines (UAEM) and others for the public licensing of COVID-19 technologies developed with government funding. The Open COVID Pledge has been taken by a number of intellectual property owners. In response to the assertion of proprietary rights in respect of COVID-19 technologies, the open movement has championed the development of Open Science models of science. India and South Africa have put forward a waiver proposal in the TRIPS Council to enable countries to take action in respect of COVID-19 without fear of retribution under trade laws. While the United States has been willing to support a TRIPS Waiver for vaccines, there remain a number of opponents to a TRIPS Waiver – including the European Union, Germany, Japan, and Switzerland. This paper makes the case that international intellectual property law should accommo

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Senate Select Committee on COVID-19 has broad terms of reference to investigate ‘the Australian Government's response to the COVID-19 pandemic; and any related matters.’ This submission to the Senate Select Committee on COVID-19 focuses upon intellectual property, access to essential medicines, and the coronavirus. It considers the Australian Government’s response to legal issues in respect of the COVID-19 pandemic relating to intellectual property, public health, and international trade. This submission considers the challenges and obstacles presented by vaccine nationalism and commercial profiteering during the COVID-19 crisis. It explores the call by civil society, developing countries, and international institutions for a ’People’s Vaccine’. In a wide-ranging survey, the submission examines a number of mechanisms designed to improve access to essential medicines. This report explores the operation of institutions, such as ACT-Accelerator, the Medicines Patent Pool, and C-TAP, which are designed to facilitate the sharing of vaccines, treatments, diagnostics, and health-equipment. Drawing upon past precedents in the biomedical sphere, this study considers the role of patent flexibilities – such as compulsory licensing, crown use, and government acquisition. It also examines the scope for public sector licensing – particularly where there has been public sector funding of COVID-19 related technologies. This submission also investigates the Open COVID Pledge, the role of open licensing, and the development of open innovation models. This report finally looks at Australia’s equivocal position in the debate over the TRIPS Waiver. This submission contends that an endorsement of the TRIPS Waiver by the Australian Government will help boost domestic biomanufacturing of vaccines, treatments, diagnostics, and health-equipment, as well as assist our near neighbours in the Asia-Pacific. Moreover, Australia will show international leadership thr

Patent law has been prevalent in climate change discussions, as a factor linking technology, Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) and the climate crisis. The inventive step, its set threshold and the environmental benefits for the assessment of its current state, are one of the paths where patent law can act as a potential promoter of green technologies. This paper aims to asses how patent law can promote the development and diffusion of ”green” and ”climate-friendly” technology. More specifically, its viability with regards to enforcement, its short and long-term potential and effectiveness in achieving the aforementioned climate goals, compared to other patent law mechanisms (e.g., fast-tracking initiatives, compulsory licensing, utility patents, and open patent systems). The conclusion of this thesis rests on the notion that the best possible action plan to be adopted is the formation of a portfolio of strategies. Hence there is a need to consider various IPR mechanisms that assist in furthering the development and diffusion of green patent technologies. Furthermore, although the lowering of the inventive step threshold would require a very active and rigorous revision process from lawmakers, it should not be a factor that rejects the notion in its entirety. Additionally, systems identifying the concept of a “green technology will be of immense importance if the revision is to take place, in order for the patent criterion to not accelerate its already high level of uncertainty. Lastly, it is clear that in order to realise the full potential of patent law, it is necessary to move away from the "one-size-fits-all" approach with regards to IPR mechanisms and rather, adjust patent law to the current environment.

Artificiell intelligens utvecklas snabbt och blir alltmer självständig. Detta framgår av de patentansökningar som nyligen lämnats in för uppfinningar som gjorts av DABUS som är en AI. Enligt rättspraxis angående DABUS uppfinningar kan endast en fysisk person vara uppfinnare i patentlagstiftningens mening. Detta beror på att uppfinnaren måste ha rättskapacitet för att kunna inneha de rättigheterna förknippade med att anges som uppfinnare. Detta innebär i praktiken att AI-genererade uppfinningar inte är patenterbara även om uppfinningen i sig uppfyller kraven för patent. Ämnets relevans ökar i takt med AIs utveckling. Syftet med uppsatsen är att undersöka möjligheterna att skydda AI skapade uppfinningar inom den europeiska patenträtten. I uppsatsen används den rättsdogmatiska metoden för att analysera relevant lagstiftning och jämföra den med patenträttens mål. Detta görs för att kunna diskutera de lege ferenda och ge svar på möjliga lösningar för att skydda AI skapade uppfinningar. För att analysera framtida lösningar är det relevant att förstå motiveringarna bakom patentsystemet för att säkerställa att framtida lösningar överensstämmer med patenträttens mål. Motiveringarna för patentsystemet analyseras med hjälp av filosofiska och ekonomiska teorier. Detta tillämpas sedan på ämnet av AI skapade uppfinningar. Frågan om huruvida en annan tolkning av begreppet juridisk personlighet kan antas för att möjliggöra att AI utses till uppfinnare inom patenträtten diskuteras efter en analys av den nuvarande rättspraxis. Andra lösningar diskuteras mot bakgrund av patenträttens motiveringar. Uppsatsen drar slutsatsen att patenträttens mål är att stödja utveckling i samhället genom att främja uppfinningar och delandet av dessa uppfinningar. Att undanta AI skapande uppfinningar från patentskydd skulle avvika från patenträttens syfte eftersom det skulle riskera minskad investering och innovation i AI-utveckling. Detta skulle motverka att AI-uppfinningar delas med samhället eftersom, Artificial intelligence is rapidly advancing and becoming more autonomous. This is highlighted by the recent patent applications filed for inventions made by the AI, DABUS. The case law regarding DABUS’ inventions holds that only a natural person can be an inventor within the meaning of patent law. This is because, to hold rights associated with being identified as the inventor, the inventor needs to have legal capacity. This effectively means that AI generated inventions are not patentable even if the invention otherwise would meet the requirements for a patent. The importance of this topic is only growing as AI advances. The purpose of this thesis is to investigate the possibilities of protecting AI generated inventions within European patent law. This thesis uses the legal dogmatic method to analyze relevant law and compare it with legal objectives of patent law. This allows discussion of de lege ferenda regarding possible solutions to protect AI generated inventions. To analyze future solutions, it is relevant to understand the justifications behind the patent system to ensure that any future solutions align with the objectives and justifications of patent law. The objectives and justifications of the patent system are analyzed using philosophical and economic theories. They are then applied in the context of AI generated inventions. The question of whether a different interpretation can be adopted of legal personality to allow AI to be designated the inventor within patent law is discussed after an analysis of the current case law on the topic. Other solutions are discussed considering the objectives and justifications of the patent law system. This thesis concludes that the justification for patent law is to facilitate advancement and progress in society by promoting and sharing innovation and knowledge. Therefore, excluding AI generated inventions from patent protection would deviate from this purpose as it would risk decreasing investment and innovation in A

In 2018, an AI system named by its creator DABUS (Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience) was credited by its creator to have independently invented a neural flame and a fractal container. According to its creator, DABUS is a ‘sentient artificial general intelligence can replicate all aspects of human cognition, including perception, creativity, consciousness, and sentience’ and these creative machines are capable of having ‘subjective feelings about their cognitive products.’ (Thaler, 2021). This chapter analyses the ongoing attempts to patent the output of this AI system at the EPO, the decision of the receiving section and legal board of appeal (JBA), discussing a selection of relevant points of law raised by this case. Several decisions concerning the DABUS case have also been issued at national level, a few will be very briefly analyzed to provide context to the ensuing discussion on de lege ferenda proposals for legislative interventions regarding orphan inventions.

In the circumstances of development and functioning of the innovative model of economy, and necessity of creation and introducing of new technics and advanced technologies in manufacture the patent law is of a great importance in the intellectual property law system. The issue of patent law has repeatedly been the subject of researches in the national civil law science, but the question of its objects still remains unresolved. Therefore, the task of this article is to determine the range of the objects protected by patent law, as well as to describe their features. The article draws attention to the existence of different approaches to understanding the concept of «patent» in national legislation and international acts. The invention is analyzed as the most important object of patent-law protection. The inexpediency of defining the invention and its objects by pointing to all fields of technology is emphasized. Regarding to the utility model, the latest legislative changes in the definition of its objects are analyzed, as well as, some considerations are expressed regarding the prospects of introducing the criterion of inventive step for it. As for the industrial design, taking into account the latest changes in the legislation in this area, it is stated that it is inexpedient to refer it to the objects of patent law. It is argued that a plant variety and a breed of animals as the results of selection cannot be attributed to the scope of patent law. It is emphasized that patent law should not be equated with industrial property law – the latter is a broader concept, which, in addition to the objects of patent law, also includes other categories of objects (industrial designs, trademarks, geographical indications, etc.). It is concluded that the objects of patent law are inventions and utility models. In this regard, it is proposed in the process of recoding the rules on industrial designs to be allocated in a separate chapter of the Civil Code of Ukraine.

This submission provides a critical analysis of the proposed Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) – focusing in particular upon intellectual property and innovation policy. Recommendation 1 RCEP has a broad membership – even with the departure of India from the negotiations. Nonetheless, there remain outstanding tensions between participating nations – most notably, Australia and China. The re-emergence of United States into trade diplomacy will also complicate the geopolitics of the Asia-Pacific. Recommendation 2 The closed, secretive negotiations behind RCEP highlight the need for a reform of the treaty-making process in Australia, as well as the need for a greater supervisory role of the Australian Parliament. Recommendation 3 In terms of intellectual property principles and objectives, RCEP promotes foreign investment and trade, and intellectual property protection and enforcement. The agreement needs a stronger emphasis on public policy objectives – such as access to knowledge; the protection of public health; technology transfer; and sustainable development. Recommendation 4 RCEP establishes TRIPS-norms in respect of economic rights under copyright law. Recommendation 5 The agreement does not though enhance copyright flexibilities and defences – particularly in terms of boosting access to knowledge, education, innovation, and sustainable development. Recommendation 6 RCEP provides for a wide range of remedies for intellectual property enforcement – which include civil remedies, criminal offences and procedures, border measures, technological protection measures, and electronic rights management information. Such measures could be characterised as TRIPS+ obligations. Recommendation 7 The electronic commerce chapter of RCEP is outmoded and anachronistic. Its laissez-faire model for dealing with digital trade and electronic commerce is at odds with domestic p

The Uluru Statement from the Heart The Uluru Statement for the Heart recognizes the importance of culture and heritage to Australia’s First Nations: "We seek constitutional reforms to empower our people and take a rightful place in our own country. When we have power over our destiny our children will flourish. They will walk in two worlds and their culture will be a gift to their country." The proposals in respect to an Indigenous voice, truth-telling, and a treaty would perhaps be helpful in the development of Indigenous rights and Indigenous intellectual property. This submission discusses the ways in which the recognition of an Indigenous voice would assist policy-making and practice respect of Indigenous rights and Indigenous intellectual property. In his book, Finding the Heart of the Nation, Thomas Mayor has explained that the establishment of an Indigenous Voice will improve policy-making in Australia: "The establishment of a First Nations Voice enshrined in the Constitution is the priority reform – indeed it is now an urgent reform – because, unlike other racial or ethnic groups, law and policies are being made by governments specifically about us, without us, and too often to our detriment. A Voice is the first reform because it will start to address this political disempowerment, setting us on the path for the future reforms of Treaty and Truth." There should be an Indigenous Voice to Parliament – not merely an Indigenous voice to Government. Once the model for an Indigenous voice has been settled, there should be a referendum. Enabling legislation for the Indigenous Voice should be passed after a referendum has been held in the next term of Parliament. The membership model for the National Voice must provide for a diverse and inclusive representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The establishment of an Indigenous Voice should be followed by a Treaty and a truth-telling process.

This chapter considers the relationship between intellectual property, and advanced biofuels against the background of larger public policy concerns about food security, energy transition, sustainable development, and climate change. It provides a case study of the partnership between Synthetic Genomics and ExxonMobil in developing algae-based biofuels. This chapter explores matters of patent law, policy, and practice in the context of advanced biofuels. It also examines other secondary forms of intellectual property – such as trade mark law, consumer protection, advertising standards, and the protection of trade secrets and confidential information. This chapter concludes by considering the intersection between intellectual property and innovation policy in the context of advanced biofuels.

This chapter focuses upon technology development in respect of carbon capture and storage – exploring intellectual property, government funding, and innovation prizes. There has been debate as to whether carbon capture and storage technologies should be classified as clean technologies for the purposes of patent law and mechanisms such as green fast tracks. The technology has raised issues in respect of patent validity, patent infringement, patent licensing, and bankruptcy. There has also been discussion about the role of patent exceptions – such as technology transfer, public sector licensing, patent pools, compulsory licensing, and competition oversight. As well as intellectual property, there has also been government funding of research into carbon capture and storage technologies. In Australia, the Carbon Capture and Storage Flagships program has supported a small number of demonstration projects. There have also been some collaborative projects between the United States and China in respect of carbon capture and storage technologies. There has been discussion as to whether it is appropriate for the UNFCCC Climate Technology Centre and Network to support carbon capture and storage technologies. However, there has been questions as to whether such funding has been wise – given the rather slow progress in respect of the carbon capture and storage projects. In addition to intellectual property, there has also been an extensive use of innovation prizes to encourage research and development in respect of carbon capture and storage. In 2007, the Virgin Earth Challenge established a prize to develop carbon capture technologies. In 2015, Mission Innovation included a Prize focused on carbon capture and storage. In 2017, there was debate in the United States Congress over the introduction of the Carbon Capture Prize Act 2017 (US) H.R. 4906, and the Carbon Capture Prize Act 2019 (US) H.R. 3282. In 2019, the Carbon XPRIZE was announced to encourage the de

This chapter explores the potential use of 3D printing technology for housing construction. While additive manufacturing technologies have been increasingly utilised across a range of industry, the use of 3D printing in construction is still in its infancy. Despite this early stage in development, the technological opportunities and impending disruption to the status quo are clear. The chapter begins with an examination of the types of 3D printing technologies deployed in the construction industry. It then proceeds to consider the interplay of intellectual property issues such as copyright, design law, patent law, trademark law and trade secrets around 3D printing in construction. The chapter then presents an analysis of the regulatory landscape around potential 3D printed housing projects. It focuses on the impact of the technology on legal frameworks touching on the construction process in Australia. A conclusion is presented at the end of this chapter pointing to further research areas in both intellectual property and building regulatory issues presented by the deployment of 3D printing in housing construction.

Considering recent litigation in the Australian courts, and an inquiry by the Productivity Commission, this paper calls for patent law reform in respect of the right to repair in Australia. It provides an evaluation of the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court in Calidad Pty Ltd v Seiko Epson Corporation [2019] FCAFC 115 – as well as the High Court of Australia consideration of the matter in Calidad Pty Ltd v Seiko Epson Corporation [2020] HCA 41. It highlights the divergence between the layers of the Australian legal system on the topic of patent law – between the judicial approach of the Federal Court of Australia and the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia, and the endorsement of the patent exhaustion doctrine by the majority of the High Court of Australia. In light of this litigation, this paper reviews the policy approach taken by the Productivity Commission in respect of patent law, the right to repair, consumer rights, and competition policy. After the considering the findings of the Productivity Commission, it is recommended that there is a need to provide for greater recognition of the right to repair under patent law. It also calls for the use of compulsory licensing, crown use, competition oversight, and consumer law protection to reinforce the right to repair under patent law. In the spirit of modernising Australia’s regime, this paper makes a number of recommendations for patent law reform – particularly in light of 3D printing, additive manufacturing, and digital fabrication. It calls upon the legal system to embody some of the ideals, which have been embedded in the Maker’s Bill of Rights, and the iFixit Repair Manifesto. The larger argument of the paper is that there needs to be a common approach to the right to repair across the various domains of intellectual property – rather than the current fragmentary treatment of the topic.

I syfte att ge innehavaren av en patenträttighet möjlighet att snabbt få stopp på ett pågående patentintrång innehåller patentlagen (1967:837) regler om interimistiska vitesförbud mot intrångsgörare. Ett sådant förbud gäller till dess att slutlig dom meddelats eller domstolen beslutat något annat. Detta förfarande är väl använt inom patenträtten, och blir i praktiken ofta ett slutligt avgörande av den juridiska tvisten. Vid prövningen av ett yrkande om interimistiskt vitesförbud har Patent- och marknadsdomstolarna (som är exklusiva forum för patenttvister) uppgiften att snabbt fatta beslut på ett begränsat underlag. Detta beror på att parterna ännu inte haft tid eller möjlighet att frambringa full bevisning. Det kan alltså föreligga osäkerheter i hur saker och ting verkligen förhåller sig. Dessa osäkerheter är inte begränsade till bevisfrågor, utan kan även aktualiseras i rättsliga frågor. Prövningen som ska göras på detta tidiga stadie av rättegången har i praxis benämnts som ”översiktlig och preliminär”, men kan även kallas ”summarisk”. För att vinna bifall med ett interimistiskt förbudsyrkande kräver patentlagen att käranden kan visa sannolika skäl för att intrång förekommer. I praxis och doktrin har detta krav tolkats som innehållandes både sak- och rättsfrågor. Av detta följer att även prövningen av rättsfrågor ska vara ”översiktlig och preliminär”. Hur går en sådan prövning till? Denna uppsats frågar sig hur domaren som beslutar om ett interimistiskt förbud i patentmål handlägger och prövar komplicerade rättsfrågor. Den bakomliggande tanken är att det i vissa fall uppkommer rättsfrågor som är av så komplicerad art att domaren av tidsmässiga skäl inte fullt ut kan utreda dem på det interimistiska stadiet. Ett exempel på detta är då domstolen anser sig behöva inhämta ett förhandsavgörande från EU-domstolen för att få ett svar i en rättsfråga, vilket skulle ta alltför lång tid. I dessa mål måste domaren alltså, med någon metod, hantera osäkerheten i rättsfrågan., In order to provide a patent holder a possibility to quickly stop an ongoing patent infringement, the Swedish Patent act (1967:837) includes provisions on preliminary injunctions. A preliminary injunction is in effect until a final judgement has been given, or the court has decided otherwise. This procedure is well used in patent law, and in practice often becomes the final solution to a legal dispute. In examining a claim for preliminary injunction, the court is confronted with the task of making a quick decision based on limited material, as the parties have not yet had the time or the opportunity to gather and present all the evidence that would be available at a full trial. Therefore, there might be questions with uncertain answers. These uncertainties are not limited to questions of evidence but may also be raised in issues of law. In these cases, according to case law, the Swedish Patent and Market Courts (who are exclusive forums for patent cases) shall use what could best be translated to as a “summary examination”, to find a preliminary answer to these questions at this early stage of the trial. To obtain a preliminary injunction, the Swedish Patent act requires the plaintiff to show probable cause for infringement. In case law and legal literature this requirement has been interpreted as containing both issues of facts and issues of law. If true, it means that issues of law should be solved using a “summary examination”. How is such an examination carried out? This essay asks the question of how a judge, who is ruling on a preliminary injunction claim in a patent case, examines and decides on complicated issues of law. The underlying idea is that, in some cases, there are issues of law that are of such complex nature that, due to the need for an urgent ruling, the judge cannot fully examine the questions at the interim stage of a trial. An example of this would be if the court considers it necessary to obtain a preliminary ruling from the European Court of

This book provides an overview of the common concepts and building blocks of patent management. It addresses executives in the areas of innovation, R & D, patent and intellectual property management as well as academics and students. The authors give valuable information on the characteristics of patent and intellectual property management, based on the collaboration with companies and organizations from Europe, China, Japan, Argentina, Brazil, India, Canada and the US.

This paper provides a profile of Limor Fried of Adafruit Industries – as an advocate of open source hardware, and a policy campaigner for intellectual property law reform. This work considers the copyright challenges for open source hardware – particularly with the US Supreme Court decision on copyright subsistence in Star Athletica LLC. v Varsity Brands Inc., and ongoing conflicts over intermediary liability and technological protection measures. It reviews the trademark disputes of Adafruit Industries – looking at the matter of Fried v Linco Inc. It explores the intervention of the Open Source Hardware Association in the design patent dispute in Luxembourg v Home Expressions Inc. It analyses how Adafruit Industries has engaged in defensive patenting, and pushed for patent law reform in dialogues with President Barack Obama. The conclusion considers how open source hardware advocates such as Limor Fried and Adafruit can play an important role in intellectual property law reform in the future. It also explores current and future challenges for Adafruit and open source hardware – including the current coronavirus COVID-19 public health crisis.

This thesis aims to describe and analyze three different solutions on how to make vaccines for COVID-19 available from a patent law perspective under the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). Under the TRIPS, patent law provides exclusive rights for vaccine inventors to prevent or stop others from commercially exploiting the patented invention for 20 years. During that time, the invention cannot be commercially made, used, distributed, imported, or sold by others without the patent owner's consent. Also, patents give inventors the rights to their discoveries and the means to be remunerated from them, and an incentive to encourage innovation. However, when a patent is licensed, an agreement is made between the patent owner and the person or company that wants to use and benefit from the patent. So a license is a permit to use something. There are various licenses, and it depends on what the parties have agreed. During the pandemic some pharmaceutical companies have made their patent available without any requirement of remuneration, but this has been shown not to be enough as the entire world requires the vaccines at the same time. The second option that might be used to access the vaccines is called compulsory licensing. However, at the time of writing, no Member States (MS) has used this, and it might be because it is difficult to implement through national legislation. Another reason is that some MSs cannot afford to transport and provide vaccines to their citizens, nor do they have the capacity to manufacture vaccines for themselves. Thus, they need to rely on other methods such as compulsory license or the waiver option. The third possibility to access the vaccines could be the recently proposed temporary waiver. The waiver option means that under the TRIPS and Doha Declaration, MSs can claim essential medicines without remuneration. However, the waiver is unsolved and MSs continued discussions on the role of intellectual pr

The plausibility threshold started, and is still, developing through the case law of the EPO. It is used as a tool against speculative patents, as the claimed technical effect of the invention must be made plausible. The plausibility threshold is foremost being used at the EPO in relation to the requirement of an inventive step under Article 56 EPC and the requirement of sufficiency of disclosure under Article 83 EPC, even though it is not mentioned within any of those provisions or anywhere else in the EPC. In order for the patent system to fulfil its fundamental purpose, namely to properly work as incentives for innovation, it is crucial that the system provides legal certainty for applicants, patent owners and third parties. However, an uneven application of the plausibility threshold could potentially be inconsistent with this fundamental purpose. Therefore the purpose with this essay was to examine and discuss the application of the principle of legal certainty to the plausibility threshold in relation to pharmaceutical patents in European patent law. For fulfilling the purpose of this essay, plausibility was examined in the pre-grant procedure through the case law of the EPO, as well as post-grant procedure through Swedish and UK case law. In this regard it was concluded that it has been applied unevenly within and between those jurisdictions. Plausibility was moreover examined in relation to Markush type claims as they are broad by their very nature and, thus, risk creating legal uncertainty. On the other hand they are considered as the most precise way of defining chemical compounds, and are important for innovation within the pharmaceutical sector. In this regard it was concluded that the plausibility threshold originate specific issues. Finally it was discussed if there should be a provision on plausibility within the EPC to tackle these uncertainties, with the conclusion that it could be a good solution. Although, only if such a provision could be formula

New legislative reform of Croatian patent system.

Science originates knowledge and downstream innovation. “Big” science is likely to, along the line, give rise to “big” innovation. Large research infrastructures are characterized by containing a large number of partners involved in complex networks of internal and external collaborations. This chapter explores how large research infrastructures (broadly defined) manage internally and externally the innovation they produce. It is the result of a comparative analysis of Statutes and policies documents publicly available of the current twenty-one large research infrastructures granted the legal status of European Research Infrastructure Consortium (ERIC). It uses ERICs as an example, to explore how large research infrastructures manage internally and externally the innovation they produce. In particular, it analyses knowledge transfer and technology transfer policies covering issues such as patent ownership, registration, licensing and enforcement, and data related issues.

On 12 July 2021 the World Health Organization (WHO) Expert Advisory Committee on Developing Global Standards for Governance and Oversight of Human Genome Editing published a set of reports entitled Human Genome Editing: A Framework for Governance and Recommendations. These reports provide valuable advice and recommendations on appropriate institutional, national and global governance mechanisms for human genome editing. The Expert Advisory Committee’s A Framework for Governance highlights explicitly the role that patents and licences can play as a form of governance of human genome editing. The Recommendations state that the Committee ‘believes that governance measures based on patents or [other forms of] intellectual property, when used together with other tools, may help strengthen the governance and oversight of human genome editing’ [and that] ‘It will be important to avoid using patents in ways that potentially prevent others from delivering similar capabilities at a cheaper cost’. This paper responds to the recommendations of the Expert Advisory Committee and elaborates further on the role that patents and licensing can play in the governance of human genome editing. It concludes with our own recommendations on how the role of patents and licensing can be considered further in the light of the WHO Expert Advisory Committee’s reports.

Most human innovations begin from an abstraction, a judicial exception that by itself is not patent-eligible. Abstract ideas are considered basic tools of scientific and technological work, which courts prefer not to award with a monopoly because exclusive ownership of these essential elements would only serve to hinder economic and innovative progress. The problem concerning patent eligibility under §101 is that we do not have any measurement or indicator to differentiate when a claim consists of only an abstract idea and when a claim does not. Currently, courts rely on precedent that is ambiguous rather than relying on more concrete measures based on the specific type of underlying software. Lacking this measurement, coupled with inherent software complexity, has resulted in inconsistent jurisprudence that is often inscrutable. These inconsistencies in the jurisprudence of cases involving computer programs stem from lacking a proper framework based on the functional nature of computer programs. There are several different proposals with inconsistent explanations as to how to apply the judicially created framework in determining patent eligibility. Still, none of them suggest a practical test specifically for software fields based on the functional nature of computer software to solve the patent eligibility problem. Additionally, proper disclosures are needed to combat high invalidity rates due to the lack of quality of patent applications.This study addressed the confusion regarding the existing judicial framework (Alice’s framework) in determining patent eligibility (§101) of software inventions. It proposed a new framework for determining patent eligibility in which the meaning of an abstract idea is defined in a practical way, as routine building blocks, based on the functional characteristics of software programs. These routine building blocks are not patent-eligible because the only embodiment is its fundamental components that are common in all inven

This Chapter considers whether the 3D printing revolution will disrupt the traditional approaches to intellectual property and technology transfer in higher education. It explores the theoretical and practical implications of the Maker Movement for education, learning, and access to knowledge. This Chapter reviews the patent landscapes in respect of 3D printing, and notes the increasing rise of patent thickets in the technology field. It highlights questions over patent ownership and collaboration in respect of 3D printing, additive manufacturing, and advanced manufacturing. The Chapter explores various comparative approaches to direct and indirect patent infringement – with regard to 3D printing. It also considers the range of available defences to claims of patent infringement in respect of 3D printing – exploring the defence of experimental use; the private use defence; and the possibility of a defence recognizing the right of repair. This Chapter concludes by stressing that the 3D printing revolution can help promote the public interest of universities through models of open access, open data, and open innovation. Moreover, there is an opportunity to modernize patent law, practice, and policy in light of the emergence of disruptive new technologies such as 3D printing.

The point of conflict between competition law and patent law is mainly on the objectives of these two policies. Whereas competition law encourages market pluralism, patent law promotes exclusive exploitation of patented-technology by patent holders. Despite this asymmetrical purposes both policies compliment each in promoting innovation, dissemination of technology, and developmentof a vibrant economy. The interface between these two should be treated cautiously since a preferential treatment of one over the other can have adverse consequences in the development of the economy. Admittedly competition law is very crucial in regulating anti-competitive conduct by cartels and monopolies that will affect the interests of the society. On the flip side, the enforcement of anti trust policies should not be overly applied to the extent of eroding the spirit of innovation and investment in beneficial technology. In the face of this aggressive global market, promotion of innovation and competition law are crucial in maintaining a competitive edge. Wherefore a balance must be struck!

This book considers the impact of the Trans-Pacific Partnership [TPP] on intellectual property and trade. The book focuses upon the debate over copyright law, intermediary liability, and technological protection measures. The text examines the negotiations over trade mark law, cybersquatting, geographical indications and the plain packaging of tobacco products. It explores the debate over patent law and access to essential medicines, data protection and biologics, and the protection of trade secrets. In addition, the book investigates the treatment of Indigenous intellectual property, access to genetic resources, and plant breeders’ rights. TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE Globalization and its Discontents: Joseph Stiglitz and the Trans-Pacific Partnership INTRODUCTION The Resurrection of the Trans-Pacific Partnership PART ONE COPYRIGHT LAW AND RELATED RIGHTS Chapter 1 Rock against the Trans-Pacific Partnership: Copyright Law, the Creative Industries, and Internet Freedom Chapter 2 Fair Use and Fair Trade: The Trans-Pacific Partnership and Copyright Exceptions in the Pacific Rim Chapter 3 Back to the Future: The Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Trans-Pacific Partnership PART TWO ELECTRONIC COMMERCE AND DIGITAL TRADE Chapter 4 The Trans-Pacific Partnership and Big Data: Consumer Rights, Privacy, Electronic Commerce and Digital Trade PART THREE TRADEMARK LAW AND RELATED RIGHTS Chapter 5 No Logo: Nike, Labor Rights, Trade Mark Law, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership Chapter 6 The Big Chill Investor-State Dispute Settlement, Tobacco Control, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership Chapter 7 The Prosecco Wars: Intellectual Property and Geographical Indications in the Pacific Rim PART FOUR PATENT LAW AND RELATED RIGHTS Chapter 8 Farmers' Rights in the Pacific Rim: Plant Breeders' Rights, Agricultural Patents, and the Trans-Pac

The Unitary Patent is a patent proposed by the EU that will make it possible for inventors to protect their inventions in all Member States by submitting a single patent application. This is intended to simplify the patent application procedure and mitigate the associated costs. The new patent is to be enforced under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Unified Patent Court. The Court is envisioned to provide swift decisions of high quality in disputes concerning the Unitary Patent. Together with the Court, an Arbitration and Mediation Centre is to be established, which is intended to complement the Court by offering a cost and time effective alternative to litigation. By introducing the Centre, the EU is for the first time sanctioning arbitration as a tool for solving IP disputes. Thus, the Centre will compete with established private arbitration and mediation institutes. The purpose of this thesis is to analyse what legal challenges the Arbitration and Mediation Centre is facing and make suggestions to how they should handle these challenges. International commercial disputes are frequently resolved by means of arbitration and mediation. Patent disputes are also regularly arbitrated and mediated in non-governmental forums and concluded in private arrangement. This thesis analyses whether the procedural rules and institutional set up of the Centre is appealing to the needs of the parties. The results of this thesis show that arbitration and mediation are chosen over court litigation due to among other things flexibility, autonomy and confidentiality. These advantages are especially appreciated in patent disputes. The Arbitration and Mediation Centre seems to be limiting the choice of law, thus restricting the flexibility and autonomy of the parties. In a similar way, the Centre seems to be bound by transparency rules, which may conflict with the confidentiality. The results of this thesis suggest that there is more work to be done by the EU to appeal to the needs of t, Det enhetliga patentet är ett patent som föreslagits av EU som kommer att göra det möjligt för uppfinnare att skydda sina uppfinningar i samtliga medlemsstater genom att lämna in en enda patentansökan. Detta är avsett att förenkla patentansökan och minska de tillhörande kostnaderna. Det nya patentet kommer att kunna verkställas av den enhetliga patentdomstolen, som har exklusiv behörighet. Domstolen planeras att tillhandahålla snabba beslut av hög kvalitet i tvister som rör det enhetliga patentet. Vid sidan av domstolen kommer ett skiljedoms- och medlingsinstitut, the Arbitration and Mediation Centre, att inrättas som är avsett att komplettera domstolen genom att erbjuda ett kostnads- och tidseffektivt alternativ till rättegång. Genom att EU inför institutet sanktionerar EU för första gången skiljedom som ett verktyg för att lösa immaterialrättsliga tvister. Institutet kommer därför att konkurrera med redan etablerade, privata skiljedoms- och medlingsinstitut. Syftet med denna uppsats är att analysera vilka rättsliga utmaningar som institutet står inför och komma med förslag på hur det ska lösa dessa utmaningar. Internationella kommersiella tvister avgörs regelbundet med hjälp av skiljeförfarande och medling. Även patenttvister avgörs genom skiljeförfarande och medling i icke-statliga forum med privata avtal som resultat. Denna uppsats analyserar huruvida institutets processuella regler och institutionella former tilltalar parterna. Resultaten av denna uppsats visar att skiljeförfarande och medling väljs framför rättegång på grund av bland annat flexibilitet, autonomi och konfidentialitet. Dessa fördelar värdesätts särskilt i patenttvister. Det nya skiljedoms- och medlingsinstitutet verkar begränsa lagvalen och inskränker därmed parternas flexibilitet och autonomi. På liknande sätt verkar institutet vara bundet av regler om transparens, vilka riskerar att hamn i konflikt med konfidentialiteten. Resultatet av denna uppsats tyder på att det krävs mer arbete av EU för

Läkemedelsmarknaden är uppbyggd runt företag, så kallade originalföretag, som utvecklar nya läkemedel och patenterar dessa. Patent är viktigt eftersom det ger originalföretagen en tidsbegränsad monopolistisk marknadsställning. De har därigenom möjlighet att genom stora marknadsvinster få tillbaka investeringarna som gjorts för att ta fram nya läkemedel. Patent ger också incitament till fortsatt forskning och utveckling. Generikaföretag är konkurrenter till originalföretag då de tillverkar och säljer generiska versioner av ett originalläkemedel. Generisk konkurrens är viktigt för att priserna på läkemedel ska pressas ner. När ett generikaföretag förbereder sig för marknadsinträde, uppstår ofta patenttvister då originalföretaget stämmer generikaföretaget för patentintrång. Istället för att låta tvisten avgöras i domstol, förliks ofta parterna. Patentförlikningar är avtal för att lösa en faktisk eller potentiell tvist. Förlikningsavtal kan ibland utgöra en begränsning av generisk konkurrens och ibland också innefatta en värdeöverföring från originalföretaget till generikaföretaget. I både EU och USA anser konkurrensmyndigheterna att sådana avtal utgör förbjudna konkurrensbegränsande avtal enligt artikel 101 FEUF respektive Sherman Act 15 U.S.C. § 1. Syftet med denna uppsats är att beskriva, analysera och jämföra under vilka förutsättningar patentförlikningar mellan originalföretag och generikaföretag kan vara konkurrensbegränsande enligt EU-rätt respektive amerikansk rätt. Slutsatsen är att förlikningsavtal innefattande en stor värdeöverföring från originalföretaget till generikaföretaget under vissa förutsättningar kan utgöra förbjudna konkurrensbegränsande avtal. Detta gäller för både EU och USA., The pharmaceutical market is based on companies, called originators, who develop new drugs and patent them. Patents are important since they allow the originators a time-limited monopolistic market position. The originators then have the opportunity to enjoy significant market profits to cover the costs for the development of a new drug. Patents are also an incentive for continued research and development. Generics are competitors to the originators as they manufacture and sell generic versions of an originator drug. Generic competition is essential to reduce the price level of drugs. When a generic company is preparing for market entry, patent disputes often arise when the originator sues the generic company for patent infringement. Instead of determining the case in court, the parties often settle. Patent settlements are agreements to settle actual or potential disputes. Settlement agreements can sometimes limit generic competition and sometimes also include a value transfer from the originator to the generic company. The competition authorities in both the EU and the US, consider such agreements as prohibited restrictions of competition under Article 101 TFEU and Sherman Act 15 U.S.C. § 1. The purpose of this thesis is to describe, analyze and compare the conditions under which patent settlements between originators and generic companies can be anti-competitive under EU law and US law, respectively. The conclusion is that settlement agreements including a large value transfer from the originator to the generic company under certain conditions can constitute prohibited anti-competitive agreements. This is valid for both the EU and the US.

Los extraordinarios desarrollos alcanzados en el campo de la inteligencia artificial determinan la necesidad de revisar aspectos asentados en el Derecho de patentes, entre ellos, la posibilidad de que se pueda reconocer la calidad de inventor a un sistema de inteligencia artificial. En el presente trabajo se examinan los retos que plantea esta cuestión a la luz de la normativa española de patentes y del Convenio sobre concesión de Patentes Europeas. En concreto, se hace un análisis de la figura del inventor en la normativa vigente para, a partir de este, valorar la necesidad o no de modificar la normativa actual para adaptarse a las expectativas suscitadas por la capacidad inventiva de los sistemas de inteligencia artificial., The rocketed developments in artificial intelligence field make necessary to review some topics on Patent Law, specially the concept of inventorship in order to asses if an artificial intelligence system can be considered as inventor. This paper examines this problem in the Spanish and European Law. Taking into account the analysis of the legal concept of inventor, we examine whether it is necessary to change the regulation to adapt it to the new challenges of the inventive capacity of the artificial intelligence systems.

The law enforcement and legislative practice of most states followed the path of protecting computer programs by copyright law. It happened because the model of copyright protection of the computer programs is cheaper and faster procedure than patent protection. Patent protection, on the other hand, requires a fairly expensive and lengthy examination of a computer program for global innovation, during which the object itself may become obsolete and unpopular with potential users. Therefore, the copyright method of protecting computer programs has received preferential recognition.But a computer program does not have its own material form and it has a dynamic nature (it can be changed quickly enough by adding or rewriting the code), besides this - any computer program is first of all some information that does not allow us to speak about this object exclusively as an object of copyright the rights. In addition, when we say that a computer program is protected by copyright, we do not put an equal sign between a computer program and, for example, a literary work. We believe that a computer program is like a literary work. And from this it follows that the model of protection offered by copyright is not quite suitable for a computer program. For example, the idea itself embodied and implemented in a computer program is not the object to copyright protection, and an external form of computer program can be rewritten by another programming language or changed by an unscrupulous user, etc. To solve such problems, the copyright model of protection of the computer programs is opposed to the model of protection of these ones by the rules of patent law. For patent law, the main criterion for the division of objects into protected and unprotected is their technical or non-technical nature. But the goal of any computer program is to control the equipment and get a certain result from it. Therefore, if we take into account this thesis, a computer program can be viewed as a techni

The scale is the most famous emblem of the law, including intellectual property (IP). Because IP rights impose social costs on the public by limiting access to protected work, the law can be justified only to the extent that, on balance, it encourages enough creation and dissemination of new works to offset those costs. The scale is thus a potent rhetorical trope of fairness and objectivity, but also an instrument the law thinks with - one that is constantly invoked to justify or to question the extent of available IP protection. The balancing act that underlies the legitimacy of IP is, however, literally impossible to perform. Because we are unable to measure the benefits that IP has for inventors or the costs it has for the public, the scale has nothing to weigh. It conveys a clear sense that IP law can be balanced, but in fact propagates only a visible simulacrum of balance - one that is as empty as it is powerful.

In a 2006 short story, ‘Printcrime’, Cory Doctorow imagined a dystopian future of contraband 3D printers. In the work, police try to shut down a bootleg operation, which engaged in the 3D printing of intellectual property. In his 2009 novel Makers, Cory Doctorow explored the rise of the maker community, and its do-it-yourself ethic. In an interview about the novel, the author reflected: "There has never been a better time to be a maker because finding the people who know how to fix the thing that's broken has never been easier. Finding someone else who has done 80% of what you want to do, and sharing the things you have done with other people, has never been easier. A maker is someone who is of and in the 21st century." Rather prophetically, he discussed the prospect of intellectual property conflicts around 3D printing (particularly around copyright infringement and trademark infringement), and future controversies over 3D printing guns. In his 2015 short story, ‘The Man Who Sold the Moon’, Cory Doctorow imagined 3D printing in space. This body of creative work has been an important inspiration for the Maker Movement – but it has also shown a critical engagement with the law, ethics, and public policy associated with 3D printing and additive manufacturing. Inspired by such science fiction, there have since been a number of optimistic, utopian manifestos published on the topic of 3D printing and the rise of the Maker Movement. There has been high hopes that the emerging, disruptive technology will be part of a new industrial revolution. The founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum, Klaus Schwab, situates 3D printing within the framework of a fourth industrial revolution. He predicted: ‘As current size, cost and speed constraints are progressively overcome, 3D printing will become more pervasive to include integrated electronic components such as circuit boards and even human cells and organs.’ Schwab anticipated that there would be a ‘new g

During the last two decades many pharmaceutical originator companies have struggled with refilling its pipelines with novel pharmaceutical products. At the same time many of these companies have lost patent protection for its most profitable drugs and more are expected to do so in the very near future. When pharmaceutical patents expire it is generally expected that generic manufacturers enter the market with significantly cheaper versions of the pre-patented drugs. Accordingly, generic entry poses strong competitive price pressure on originator companies and the latter may therefore be inclined to hinder these competitors from entering the market. The preparations for generic launch often starts a few years before patent expiry and it is therefore common that patent disputes arise. Patent disputes are not only highly complex, time consuming and costly, the disputes are often also characterized by a high degree of uncertainty to whether or not the patents are infringed and/or valid. Thus, incentives for settling the disputes out of court are often high for both originator and generic undertakings. Legitimate patent settlement agreements are generally not considered to pose any competitive concern. However, the Commission has observed that these settlement agreements has been used to conceal anti-competitive terms by which the originator companies sets out to buy off its generic competitors for delaying its plans to enter the market. These anti-competitive arrangements are more generally known as pay-for-delay settlements. The Commission has issued two decisions against pay-for-delay settlements of which the GC has confirmed the Commission’s assessments. After fulfilling a three-step criteria developed by the Commission, these agreements were considered to have as its object the restriction of competition within the meaning of article 101 (1) TFEU. When an agreement is categorized as a restriction by object it is considered to be by its very nature restrictive of com

This paper considers the relationship between intellectual property and trade in the context of 3D printing. Modern 3D printing has not only disrupted the discipline of intellectual property, but it has also provided profound challenges for the regulation of trade and globalization. Part II provides a case study of the patent dispute between ClearCorrect and Align Technology. The ruling of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit will have larger ramifications regarding the jurisdiction of the International Trade Commission in respect of the digital economy. Part II further considers subsequent patent disputes between the parties before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Part III considers how the trade dispute between the United States and China will affect 3D printing and examines whether 3D printing will reverse the United States’ pattern of manufacturing offshore. Part III further notes the collateral impact of tariffs upon 3D printing and considers the adoption of 3D printing in China and the issues that may arise in terms of intellectual property ownership, intellectual property infringement, and intellectual property licensing. Part IV considers larger contextual issues raised by international organizations with respect to intellectual property, trade, and 3D printing.

Patent law serves as an innovative research stimulant, provides exclusive legal protection for inventors and encourages the use of science and technology in order to support the transformation of the national growth into International competitive  one. It is relevant to the cosmopolitan Islamic concept.  However, data shows there is only one patent right (until 2018) of Islamic universities in Indonesia. This social legal studies used the statute and historical approach explores the obstacles in the development of patent-based research results at Islamic Universities in Central Kalimantan. Internal constraints are: knowledge and understanding of patents are limited; pragmatism in research purposes; projections of research output are not systematic and unclear; and budgeting is not right. An external obstacles are no socialization of patent-based research rules; policies in the field of research have not been specifically oriented towards output patents; there has been no measurement of technological readiness level (TKT); limited research cost budget, and patent registration fees are considered expensive and have difficulty finding third parties as partners in running patents.&nbsp

The issue of securing access to patented pharmaceutical products has been in the forefront of global legal debate for many years. This debate intensified further following the enactment of the TRIPS agreement and the global enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights such as patents through the World Trade Organization. To combat the problem, compulsory licensing has been forwarded as one solution, though hitherto mainly discussed from the human rights and right to health perspectives. Less attention has been focused on excessive prices of medicines as an anticompetitive practice in and out of themselves, and how competition law and legal-economics theories and models can inform this deadlocked issue. Such a treatment of excessive prices under competition law would constitute a sound legal basis for anti-competetive enforcement such as compuslory licensing but also make other tools available to competition authorities such as fines. This could be done making use of the flexibilities entailed in this regard in the TRIPS agreement context, mainly through article 31(k) and article 40. Shifting focus to the European Competition Law, the notion of “unfair” or excessive prices has been enshrined in article 102 TFEU regarding exploitative pricing abuses by a dominant firm, although the application and enforcement of this has been rather limited in practice. Recent case law and an evoloution of thought regarding competition law and legal-economics theories point however to a possible policy shift in this regard. The paper hence analyses the unlocked potential entailed in competition law in treating excessive pharmaceutical prices as an anticompetitive practice where applicable and discusses the legal-economic theories underpinning this discourse.

In the information age, where fewer goods and more innovations are produced, intellectual property law has become the most crucial governing system. Yet, rather than evolving to fit its purpose, it has seemingly devolved—standard form contracts, governing countless creations, have formed an alternative de facto intellectual property regime. The law governing the information society is often prescribed not by legislators or courts, but rather by private entities, using technology and contracts to regulate much of the creative discourse. The same phenomena persist in other emerging areas of information law, such as data protection and cybersecurity laws. This dissertation offers a new analytical perspective on private ordering in intellectual property (IP) focusing on the rise of the IP boilerplate, the standard form contracts that regulate innovations and creations. It distinguishes between contracts drafted by the initial owners of the IP (such as EULAs) and contracts drafted by nonowners (such as platforms’ terms of use), and highlights the ascendancy of the latter in the user-generated content era. In this era, the drafter of the contract owns nothing, yet seeks to regulate the layman adherent’s creations, and sometimes even to redefine the contours of the public domain. Private ordering is expanding its governing role in IP, creating new problems, undermining the rights that legislators bestow on creators and users. While scholars often discuss the problems caused by IP boilerplate, solutions are left wanting. Inter-doctrinal solutions have been unjustly overlooked. IP scholars reject general contract doctrines as ill-equipped. Contracts scholars discard IP considerations, perpetuating consumerist perspectives. This dichotomy, deepened by the preemption doctrine, has led to the underutilization of the prominent doctrine governing standard form contracts, Unconscionability. Yet, in the aftermath of ProCD, preemption has failed to solve problems created by contract