USTR recently asked KEI if there were areas in the IP Chapter where we approved of the positions taken by USTR, and the answer is, yes. Given how critical we have been about the text, I will mention a few here.
USTR now “supports a more flexible approach under which partners could retain reasonable patent pre-grant opposition procedures.” This is welcome, and useful.
In a December 2, 2013 letter, Senator Orrin Hatch wrote to USTR’s Michael Froman, suggesting TPP exclude any countries that do not meet “high levels of ambition.” According to Hatch, these high ambitions include agreeing to 12 years of exclusive rights for IPR in biologic drug test data, and the elimination of barriers to cross border data flows (a privacy issue). A copy of the Hatch letter is attached below.
The timing of the Hatch letter is designed to pressure countries meeting in Singapore on December 7-10 in the TPP negotiation, on these two contentious issues.
Earlier this year, IP-Watch submitted two FOIA requests to USTR about the TPP negotiation. I am attaching two letters from USTR to IP-Watch about the FOIAs, and a file with 127 pages of emails between USTR and various industry lobbyists. (USTR provided KEI with copies of the files provdied to IP-Watch as part a separate KEI FOIA to USTR regarding communications involving the TPP).
A lot has clearly been withheld by USTR. According to USTR’s June 19, 2013 letter to IP-Watch
KEI has asked 21 persons following the TPP IPR negotiations, what they thought of four of the USTR negotiators, including:
In 2012 the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published a study titled “Intellectual Property and the U.S. Economy: Industries in Focus” which estimated the number of jobs if various “IP intensive” industries. The study was immediately panned by critics for its broad definitions — grocery stores were the top “ip intensive industry” in the United States, but it became a source of go-to-statistics for every PhRMA and publisher lobby group pushing new privileges and subsidies. (Commentary here: /node/1432)
On Saturday, August 3, 2013, USTR head Ambassador Michael B. G. Froman wrote to the Chairman of the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), to “disapprove the USITC’s determination to issue an exclusion order and cease and desist order” for Apple Inc. “smart phones and tablet computers that infringe a U.S. patent owned by Samsung Electronics,” in the ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-794. Continue Reading
On 7-8 August 2013, the Department of Trade and Industry (the DTI), Republic of South Africa and the World Trade Organization (WTO), in close collaboration with the World Health Organization (WHO) and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) will hold a National Workshop on Intellectual Property and Public Health in Pretoria. Leading experts from these intergovernmental organizations, Roger Kampf (WTO), Dr. Continue Reading
22 July 2013
This was the statement delivered by Australia (Ian Goss, General Manager, IP Australia) on Monday, 22 July 2013.
Australian Statement
Thank you chair
Firstly, I will begin with a negative, last week was perhaps the most frustrating of our meetings this year, in contrast to significant progress on Gr’s [genetic resources] with disclosure proponents agreeing on an administrative approach to disclosure rather than substantive examination, this was a significant shift in position from a number key countries.
A PDF version of our comments is available here.
People have until midnight May 10, 2013 to file comments, here:
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=USTR-2013-0019-0001
This is the table of contents.
Comments on the Administration’s Intention to Enter Into Negotiations for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) Agreement
Response to Docket No. USTR-2013-0019
Introduction
Transparency
Continue Reading
Below is the PhRMA press release on the Special 301 Report.
Key points in the PhRMA release:
* PhRMA “dismayed that USTR did not grant an out-of-cycle review for India.” PhRMA claims that India decisions involving German owned Bayer and Swiss owned Novartis “disproportionately impacted U.S. biopharmaceutical companies.” (Perhaps PhRMA could have said, companies that have ownership claims on the US government).