Knowledge Ecology International

On Wednesday, 27 October 2010, Brazil delivered the following intervention during the annual review of the Paragraph 6 system at the WTO TRIPS Council. The Brazilian intervention followed Canada’s detailed explanation of her use of the Paragraph 6 system in the Apotex/Rwanda case. The Brazilian intervention voiced concern over the future prospects of access to competitively priced second and third line ARVs raising questions as to whether the Paragraph 6 system would be economically viable for generic producers.

Continue Reading →

The following is extracted from China’s intervention made at the WTO TRIPS Council meeting held from 26-27 October 2010; this reflects China’s position on ACTA.

On ACTA

Continue Reading →

On Wednesday, 27 October 2010, Canada delivered the three interventions to the WTO TRIPS Council related to the review of the Paragraph 6 system. The first intervention below details the Canadian experience using the Paragraph 6 system in the case of Apotex and Rwanda.

CANADA Intervention: (1) Experience using the System (Apotex-Rwanda Case)

As we recall, the 2003 WTO Decision on TRIPS and Public Health was an intensely negotiated decision that garnered unanimous support from all WTO Members.

Continue Reading →

The following statement was delivered by Brazil at this week’s TRIPS Council.

TRIPS Enforcement Trends/ACTA – TRIPS Council – Intervention by Brazil

According to press releases circulated in the first week of this month, the negotiating process of ACTA is virtually concluded.

A few points only would still remain open and those points would not prevent a final agreement from being reached soon, according to statements released by authorities from the countries participating in the ACTA negotiations.

Continue Reading →

On Wednesday, 27 October 2010, the WTO TRIPS Council held its annual review of the Paragraph 6 System. IP-Watch has a link to the detailed program of the annual review. This annual review of the Paragraph 6 system lasted till around 8 PM Geneva time. More details of this closed door meeting will be provided in due course. Continue Reading →

Use of Article 1.1 of the TRIPS in the US/China WTO dispute over the enforcement of intellectual property rights

USTR claims that Article 1.2.1 of ACTA provides the flexibility to overlook inconsistencies between US law and ACTA. Below is the text from both Article 1.2.1 of ACTA, and Article 1.1 of TRIPS:

ACTA ARTICLE 1.2: NATURE AND SCOPE OF OBLIGATIONS
Continue Reading →

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?” The full text of her question follows:

Continue Reading →

As David Hammerstein of TACD has also blogged about here, Françoise Castex, a French Socialist MEP, has submitted this priority question about ACTA to the European Commission, asking the Commission to respond to the assertions by the USTR that ACTA wo Continue Reading →

(A PDF version of this is available here.)

Knowledge Ecology International

October 25, 2010

Letter to the European Parliament regarding ACTA

Continue Reading →

The October 2010 version of the ACTA text is inconsistent with several areas of U.S. law, and proposals for new laws in the areas of the reform of patent damages and access to orphaned copyrighted works. In particular, the obligations in the ACTA text do not incorporate many of the areas of limitations and exceptions to remedies found in U.S. law, and in the statutes of some other countries.

Continue Reading →