Abstract: We understand that negotiators of ACTA are in the final stage of the negotiation process before concluding the agreement. The European Committee for Interoperable Systems ("ECIS"), which has been defending the interests of its information technology sector members in policy debates affecting intellectual property, competition and interoperability for over twenty years, is concerned about three issues raised by the most recently accessible draft Agreement dated as of 25 August 2010:
Abstract: Dear Representative Kirk: We write to share with you our organization’s priorities as you begin again this year to engage in discussions related to an international Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) supports efforts to harmonize intellectual property laws and coordinate enforcement efforts with other countries to ensure that IP owners can effectively and efficiently enforce their rights.
Abstract: Dear Ambassador Kirk:
Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) appreciates the circulation of the Consolidated Text of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), and respectfully offers its comments for your consideration.
Abstract: Although the term “anti-counterfeiting” suggests an agreement limited to preventing trade in counterfeit products, ACTA’s draft provisions, to date, would set new minimum enforcement standards for a range of intellectual property rights. In several areas, these standards could impede legitimate competition, shortchange legal process and shift costs of enforcing private commercial rights to the public.
Abstract: ACTA’s text no longer requires countries to provide special, preemptive border measures for patents. This is a clear and important improvement, and some negotiators and trade officials now maintain that this resolves any access concerns. Nevertheless, the Border Measures section may still prejudice the interests of competition and access.
Abstract This article attempts to summarize some of the recently reported cases on intellectual property law to enable the readers to understand how the courts have applied the principles of intellectual property law to actual IP disputes. The cases are chosen from the cases reported in the November and December 2007 issues of the Patents and Trade Marks Cases (PTC), a leading case law reporter on intellectual property laws. There was no patent case to report during this period.