KEI’s ACTA timeline

ACTA Timeline

2007

  • September 24 to October 3, 2007, WIPO General Assembly meets and approves the WIPO Development Agenda.
  • October 23, 2007. Joint announcement is made regarding the formal launch of negotiations on ACTA. The USTR announcement is here.

2008

  • 2008 February 15. United States. “Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA): Request for Public Comments,” Federal Register Notice, Volume 73, Number 32.[Page 8910-8911]
  • March 17 2008. Recording Industry Association of America. “RIAA Suggestions for content of ACTA.”
  • March 20, 2008. Comments of Knowledge Ecology International on the Proposal for Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), Submitted to United States Trade Representative.
  • March 21, 2008. IP Justice, "ACTA’s Misguided Effort to Increase Govt Spying and Ratchet-Up IPR Enforcement at Public Expense: IP Justice Comments to U.S.T.R. on the proposed Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)."
  • March 21, 2008. Public Knowledge, "Comments of Public Knowledge Re: Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)." 
  • March 21, 2008. Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), "Electronic Frontier Foundation Submission to Office of the United States Trade Representative on Proposed Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement."
  • March 22, 2008. Essential Action, "Comments on Proposed Anti-Counterfeiting Treaty."
  • March 25, 2008. Robin Gross, "IP Justice White Paper on the Proposed Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)."
  • April 30, 2008. Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic, "Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement."
  • May 20, 2008. Japan US Joint Proposal on border measures.
  • June 2, 2008. "The Proposed Anti-Counterfeiting Trade: Agreement (ACTA): Global Policy Implications,"
    IQSensato's In Focus, Volume 2, Number 8 | Monday, 2 June 2008
  • June 3, 2008. ICC BASCAP, “Memorandum to ACTA Negotiators.”
  • June 3-4, 2008. First round of ACTA negotiations in Geneva, at the U.S. Mission in Geneva. The main focus of the discussion was border measures. According to USTR, participants included Australia, Canada, the European Union (represented by the European Commission and Member States, including the EU Presidency (Slovenia)), Japan, Jordan, Korea, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland, the United Arab Emirates, and the United States. Jordan and UAE would later drop out as official parties to the negotiation.
  • June 9, 2008. Susan Sell, "The Global IP upward Ratchet, Anti-Counterfeiting and Piracy Enforcement Efforts: The State of Play," Institute for Global and International Studies, George Washington University.
  • June 9, 2008. Canada “non-paper” on ACTA Institutional Issues. Proposes creation of the ACTA Oversight Council, and the establishment of an ACTA Secretariat.
  • July 7, 2008. International Chamber of Commerce, “Business and the Global Economy: ICC statement on behalf of world business to the Heads of State and Government attending the Hokkaido Toyako G8 Summit, 7-9 July 2008.”
  • July 7, 2008. EU proposals on border measures.
  • July 16, 2008. Japan – U.S. Joint Proposal on Civil Enforcement
  • July 29-31, 2008. Second round of ACTA negotiations held in Washington, DC. Participating countries are Australia, Canada, the EC, European Union Presidency (France), Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Switzerland, Singapore, and the U.S.
  • August 2, 2008 USTR Fact Sheet on ACTA
  • September 22, 2008 IIPA issues statement on the negotiations for an Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA).
  • September 23, 2008. EU Proposal on Civil Enforcement.
  • Oct 3, 2008 U.S. Senators Patrick Leahy and Arlen Specter, write to USTR expressing concern about the current direction of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement negotiations.
  • October 8-9, 2008. Third round of negotiations held in Tokyo, Japan. Participating countries are Australia, EU, South Korea, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland, the U.S., Japan, and Canada.
  • October 16, 2008. US Japan Joint Proposal on Criminal Provisions
  • December 15-18, 2008. Fourth round of negotiations held in Paris, France. Participating countries are Australia, Canada, the EC, the EU Presidency (France), Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland, and the U.S. The draft text for the Institutional Arrangements chapter, is the lead issue for discussion on day one. Parties continue negotiation on criminal enforcement (first raised in Tokyo in October). Day two includes further discussion on criminal enforcement in the morning and institutional cooperation and enforcement practices in the afternoon.

2009

  • January 20, 2009. President Obama inaugurated. Issues transparency memo.
  • January 31, 2009. KEI submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to USTR for copies of seven documents containing much of the negotiating text of the proposed Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA).
  • February 10, 2009. USTR’s Stan McCoy send an email to Elizabeth Baltzan, David Apol, Rachel Bae and Kira Alvarez, with the subject “Transparency Soup.” In this memo, Stan McCoy anticipated that the Obama Administration might seek to expand the transparency of the ACTA negotiation. McCoy set out a seven point strategy for dealing with the demands for transparency, which ACTA negotiator subsequently follow.
  • February 18, 2009. In response to news about four seizures of generic medicines manufactured in India and shipped through the Netherlands in route to Brazil, Colombia and Peru, sixteen public health, consumer and development NGOs sent separate letters to the heads of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the World Trade Organization (WTO).
  • 18 February 2009, 16 civil society groups sent a letter to Director-General Dr. Chan on the matter of the Dutch seizures of generic medicines in-transit to developing countries. (For more context: NGOs question WHO silence on goods intransit.
  • March 4, 2010. Pascal Lamy, DG of WTO, replies to 18 February 2010 NGO letter on European siezures of goods in transit meedicines.
  • March 5, 2009. Financial Times reports that Dutch authorities seized consignments of Indian-made medicines shipped via Schipol airport for distribution to clinics in Nigeria. EU officials claimed the drugs were counterfeits and -violated patent rules, but UNITAID, the Geneva-based agency which paid for the medicines, demanded their release and said the EU claims were “misleading”. The drugs were addressed to the U.S. embassy, for delivery to the Clinton Foundation.
  • March 10, 2009. USTR rejected our FOIA for the ACTA text on the grounds that this would undermine the national security of the United States. The rejection led to extensive news coverage critical of USTR.
  • March 13, 2009 statement of European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) on in-transit seizers of medicines.

    EFPIA recognizes the right of Member States to stop products that they suspect may be counterfeit from entering the supply chain. On occasions this will require the temporary detention of some products for the purposes of verification and testing. Where the product is not counterfeit and it is ascertained that no intellectual property rights apply at either country of origin or destination, the customs authorities should allow the product to be released, irrespective of the intellectual property status of the product in the EU.

  • March 19, 2009. USTR promosed a review of its policies regarding transparency. The initiative was initially to be lead by Daniel Sepulveda, a poltiical appointee to the agency. Postscript: After Sepulveda left the agency, the transparency review went nowhere, and USTR asked selected Washington, DC insiders to sign non-disclosure agreements to be briefed on ACTA details.
  • April 6, 2009 USTR Fact Sheet on ACTA
  • June 18, 2009. TACD Resolution on enforcement of copyright, trademarks, patents and other intellectual property rights
  • 16 – 17 July 2009, 5th Round of ACTA Negotiations, Rabat, Morocco.
  • July 22, 2009. Responding to an earlier request from USTR, eight public interest, consumer and public health organizations wrote to the United States Trade Representative (USTR), proividing detailed and specific recommendations for measures the USTR should take to reduce secrecy and increase transparency in negotiations that involve global norms for knowledge governance. The eight organizations were: Knowledge Ecology International (KEI) and Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), Essential Action, Public Knowledge, Salud y Fãrmacos, Trans Atlantic Consumer Dialogue (TACD), Universities Allied for Essential Medicines (UAEM) and U.S. PIRG.
  • July 30, 2009, USTR rejected a KEI request for documents relating to a Morocco negotiating session for ACTA. Specifically, USTR denied release of 4 new proposals for text that were circulated in July to “all countries” in the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) negotiations. The request was limited to documents that were prepared in the past 90 days for purpose of discussion at the July 2009 ACTA negotiating meeting held in Morocco. USTR located 4 such documents, but denied the FOIA request “in the interest of national defense.”
  • August 11 to September 30, 2009. USTR provided 42 Washington, DC insiders access to the U.S. proposals for the ACTA Internet Chapter, on the condition they sign a non-disclosure agreement.
  • August 22, 2009. FFII. “Unconstitutional aspects of ACTA (EU)“
  • September 11, 2009, KEI asked for the names of persons to whom the USTR has been given access to the U.S. government position on the Internet provisions for ACTA.
  • September 22, 2009 Eight entertainment and copyright trade associations send letter to President Obama regarding the importance of ACTA.
  • October 9, 2009. USTR provides KEI with the names of 42 persons who received copies of the US proposal for the Internet Chapter of ACTA, under a non-disclosure agreement. The reports of the NDA results in extensive news coverage of the White House use of NDA and selective access to the ACTA text.
  • October 14, KEI FOIA request for documents relating to the USTR its review of transparency policies.
  • November 3, 2009. Letter signed by dozens of NGOs and academic to President Obama, asking that the negotiations regarding ACTA be made more transparent.
  • November 4-6, 2009. ACTA negotiations take place in Seoul, Korea, focusing on the Internet issues.
  • November 9, 2009. KEI and Public Knowledge write to Senators Leahy, Sessions, Baucus, Grassley, Conyers, and Smith, and Representatives Henry Waxman, Barton, Rangel and Camp regarding missing the missing safeguards in ACTA.
  • 19 November 20009. Eddan Katz & Gwen Hinze publish “The Impact of ACTA on the Knowldge Economy” in the Yale Journal of International Law Online. Vol. 35: 24.
  • November 23, 2009. Senators Brown and Sanders ask the White House to make the ACTA text public.
  • December 3, 2009. Ambassador Kirk tells KEI, People would be “walking away from the table” if the ACTA text is made public.”
  • December 7, 2009. Ambassador Kirk writes to Senator Sanders and Brown, and effectively rejects their request to make the ACTA text public.

2010

  • January 6, 2010, Senator Ron Wyden sent a letter to the USTR asking a number of questions about the U.S. negotiating objectives in ACTA.
  • Jan 13, 2010. Google Debate on ACTA
  • February 28, 2010, USTR responded to Senator Wyden with five pages of details of the U.S. positions in the ACTA negotiations. USTR indicated it expected ACTA to cover patents.
  • March 1, 2010. Leak of EU analysis of Civil Enforcement and Internet provisions in ACTA, with country positions.
  • March 10, 2010. European Parliament votes 633 to 13 in favor of a resolution condemning ACTA secrecy and restrictions on consumer and civil rights.
  • March 11, 2010. At a speech at the Import-Export bank, President Obama backed the ACTA negotiations.
  • March 22, 2010, Entertainment Industy letter to Obama on ACTA
  • March 22, 2010. Philippe Rivière, Le Monde diplomatique, ACTA: an unseen treaty in the making.
  • March 23, 2010. La Quadrature du Net releases a leaked version of the consolidated version of the ACTA text dated January 18th, 2010.
  • March 26, 2010. Jack Goldsmith and Lawrence Lessig write an op ed in the Washington Post: Anti-counterfeiting agreement raises constitutional concerns.
  • April 6, 2010. Comments on ACTA Provisions on Injunctions and Damages, KEI Research Note 2010:1.
  • April 10, 2010. The Wellington Declaration.
  • April 12-16, 2010. 8th round of the Anti Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) negotiations take place in Wellington, New Zealand.
  • April 15, 2010. Seven Greens/EFA MEPs asks WIPO and WTO about transparency, enforcement and norm-setting in relation to ACTA and asks for impact assessments of such aspects. They also “request clarification regarding the relationship between ACTA Institution and WIPO in scenarios where the ACTA Secretariat operates under the WTO, the WIPO, or as an independent body.”
  • April 20, 2010. Daniel Cohn-Bendit asked Barroso in a Plenary debate to publish all ACTA texts.
  • April 21, 2010. Public release of April 16, 2010 a “Public Predecisional/Deliberative Draft of the ACTA text,” that does not identify participants’ positions in respect of square bracketed options.
  • April 23, 2010. Memo signed by Library Copyright Alliance and others: “Concerns with April 2010 ACTA Text.”
  • May 4, 2010. The Greens/EFA organised a workshop on ACTA and the public interest. India made its first public statement on ACTA.
  • May 4, 2010. WTO president Pascal Lamy responded to the Greens/EFA MEPs letter.
  • May 6, 2010. WIPO Director General Francis Gurry responded to the Greens/EFA MEPs letter.
  • May 26, 2010. Seven Greens/EFA MEPs wrote a follow up letter to WTO president Pascal Lamy asking for comments on the “potential implications of new global norms that may emerge from ACTA”, whether “ACTA parties approached, consulted or shared further information about the negotiations with the WTO” and “To what extent would a decision in the dispute supersede ACTA provisions that exceed those in the TRIPS Agreement or the GATT or conflict with the decision?”
  • May 31, 2010. MEP Ska Keller asked a priority question to the Commission about provisions in ACTA “that clearly breach commitments under the Doha Declaration”.
  • June 3, 2010. MEP questions were asked focusing on whether ACTA is undermining access to medicines and constrain future policy options.
  • June 8, 2010. China, India and other developing countries ask WTO TRIPS Council to discuss impact of ACTA on global trade.
  • June 23, 2010. The Washington ACTA Communique, reflecting the views of academics, practitioners and public interest organizations, and members of the European Parliament.
  • June 25, 2010. Intellectual Property Owners Association writes to USTR. According to IPO

    As currently drafted, given the expansive use of the broadly-defined term “intellectual property,” ACTA goes far beyond addressing the subject matter of counterfeiting. This broad definition encompasses issues that are most appropriately handled as civil infringement causes of action in most jurisdictions around the world, and especially so in the case of the United States. . . . We believe ACTA potentially changes United States Law by transforming what are commonly occurring non-counterfeit-types of civil action infringements into an activity that is to be punished under federal criminal law. . . . ACTA is unwittingly broadening the scope of the seizure power of Customs and Border Patrol forces to encompass civil action trademark infringement and raising the specter of potential abuse in many countries around the globe. The determination of whether marks are similar and whether there is a likelihood of confusion should not be conducted hastily and in an ex parte manner by a border official, but should instead be based upon the appropriate legal analysis (possibly resulting from extensive pre-trial preparation and discovery where allowed).

  • June 28, 2010, KEI/IQSensato Geneva workshop on ACTA. Among other things, China presented its proposal to the TRIPS council on ACTA.
  • June 28 – July 1 2008. The 9th round of negotiations on the proposed Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) was held in Lucerne, Switzerland from 28 June to 1 July 2010, hosted by Switzerland. According to the joint statement, participants in the negotiations included Australia, Canada, the European Union, represented by the European Commission, the EU Presidency (Spain, then Belgium on July 1) and EU Member States, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland and the United States of America. Three days before the start of the negotiations, the Swiss annouced a meeting for civil society, on the same day as the KEI/IQSensato Geneva workshop on ACTA.
  • July 1, 2010. A new consolidated draft text is prepared and subsequently leaked. The brackets indicate Singapore, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, the U.S. and Mexico try to limit the Civil Enforcement Chapter to copyrights and related rights and trademarks. Japan, Switeraland and the EU want the Civil Enforcement Chapter to cover all intellectual property rights in the TRIPS.
  • July 7, 2010. Greens/EFA issue an urgent appeal for transparency in the negotiations on ACTA.
  • July 15, 2010. Letter from the Article 29 Working Party addressed to Commissioner, Mr. Karel de Gucht, regarding the data protection and privacy implications of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)
  • August 13, 2010. Alberto Cerda of KEI writes to the President of Mexico, regarding ACTA.
  • August 16, 2010. Alberto Cerda of KEI writes about the privacy challenges facing the European Union from ACTA.
  • August 16th-20th, 2010, 10th Round of Negotiations in Washington, DC
  • August 23, 2010. Mexico President writes KEI, asks Minister of Economy to respond to ACTA questions.
  • September 8, 2010. EP Plenary debate following the Commission statement – Ongoing negotiations on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA).
  • September 22, 2010. MEP Ska Keller writes on behalf of the Greens/EFA Bureau to Mr. Yoshihiro Takeda of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, asking that ACTA negotiators meet with the public meeting the week of September 27.
  • September 23, 2010. Mr. Yoshihiro Takeda of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs answers MEP Ska Keller that The Government of Japan regrets it cannot arrange a meeting for civil society to meet with negotiators during the week of September 27. KEI and several others receive a similar communication.
  • September 23-October 1, 2010, 11th Round of negotiations in Tokyo, Japan
  • September 27, 2010. MEPs received an answer to written question E-4292/10
  • October 4, 2010. In response to the joint statement by ACTA parties, MEP Ska Keller tabled a question to the Commission and a priority question to the Council.
  • October 6, 2010. Joint release of October 2, 2010 version of the “near final” consolidated ACTA text.
  • October 8, 2010. Senator Wyden writes the American Law Division of the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress, asking that it undertake and provide to Congress “a written, independent determination of whether the commitments put forward in the agreement diverge from our domestic laws or would impeded legislative efforts that are currently underway. The letter asks the division to “pay particular attention to the provisions relating to injunctions, damages, and intermediary liability.”
  • October 9, 2010. KEI Note: Areas where the Oct 2, 2010 ACTA text is inconsistent with U.S. law
  • October 11, 2010. Greens/EFA MEP Carl Schlyter asked the Article 29 Working Party for a detailed assessment of ACTA.
  • October 19, 2010. Senators Bernard Sanders (I-VT) and Sherrod Brown (D-OH) write David Kappos, the Director of the USPTO, asking for an assessment of conflicts between the October 2010 ACTA text, and U.S. law.
  • October 20, 2010. KEI note: Access to Orphan Works, and ACTA provisions on damages.
  • October 20, 2010. Eight questions on ACTA by MEPs of the Green Group
  • October 25, 2010. KEI letter to European Parliament.
  • October 25, 2010. The European Parliament Committee on International Trade meets to discuss ACTA.
  • October 25, 2010. Briefing Note on ACTA for Members of the European Parliament by HAI, TACD, MSF and Oxfam.
  • October 25, 2010. Françoise Castex, a French Socialist MEP, submits a priority question about ACTA to the European Commission, asking about assertions by the USTR that ACTA would not require changes in U.S. patent laws.
  • October 26, 2010. Michèle Rivasi, a Member of the European Parliament, representing South East France for The Greens, has asked the European Commission: “Given the possible impacts of the inclusion of patents the agreement on access to medicines and on innovation, would the Commission consider accepting the exclusion of patents from the agreement as proposed by a number of ACTA negotiating parties?”

2011

2012

This is a work in progress

Other useful timelines on ACTA include:

  • Michael Geist’s ACTA Timeline
  • IIPA ACTA timeline
  • The EU Greens/EFA’ Act on ACTA gives a number of important dates and links regarding discussion in the European Parliament, including items not included below.