The Trump Administration’s Intellectual Property and Competition Objectives for NAFTA Renegotiation: What Was Wrong with the TPP? | PATENTDOCS.ORG –
Sounds like general platitudes at this point, no? “The USTR set forth a number of intellectual property-related goals to be achieved in renegotiation of NAFTA, many of which do not appear to be directed at changing Canadian or Mexican laws. Specifically, the Trump Administration seeks to ensure that NAFTA’s terms ‘reflect a standard of protection similar to that found in U.S. law’ and provide strong measures for enforcing such rights; fully and quickly implement the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), especially the enforcement obligations under TRIPS; and prevent or eliminate distinctions between protection of domestic and foreign intellectual property rights. The objectives also relate to the negotiation of issues that were not addressed in NAFTA’s original text, including those directed to new technologies involved in digital trade and works distributed through the Internet and other global communications media. Finally, the goals include some that do not address concerns that have actually arisen between the United States and Canadian and Mexican trading partners, such as preventing government involvement in cybertheft and piracy, preventing the improper use of protection of geographical indications, and establishing basic rules for procedural fairness in competition law enforcement.
Not without considerable irony, the USTR’s objectives are most notable for how closely they follow the goals that the Obama Administration achieved in negotiating the TPP… Notably, the TPP agreement set forth the intellectual property requirements for membership with great specificity, in order to ensure standards similar to those required under U.S. law.”
STRONGER Patents Act of 2017 Disadvantages Domestic Manufacturers | AUTOINDUSTRYLAWBLOG –
“Generally, a manufacturer must file for patent protection in each country where the manufacturer wants to enforce its patent rights. Under the present system, there is some flexibility to argue for induced infringement if some components of the infringing product originate from the United States and are merely assembled overseas. However, under the STRONGER Patents Act, patent owners would be able to enforce their patents against companies that design an infringing product in the United States even if the product itself is never exported from, imported into, or sold in the United States.
This shift in infringement is important because, in recent years, automakers have taken steps to reduce the numbers of different vehicle platforms and consolidate the numbers of parts in order to reduce vehicle development costs.”
PTAB May Be Preferred Forum to Assert Patent Priority-Claim Defects | PTABBLOG.LAW –
“The Worlds case addressed the previous version of the USPTO’s rules and held that a priority claim must appear in the place required by the rules. At issue in Worlds was the ‘045 Patent’s priority claim to an earlier provisional application. The ‘045 patent application did not contain a priority claim to the provisional in either place required by the rules, i.e., the ADS or the first sentence of the specification. The file wrapper of the ‘045 Patent, however, contained several documents explicitly claiming priority to the provisional application, including: (1) an application transmittal letter; (2) inventors’ declarations; and (3) a request for a corrected filing receipt. The court held that none of those documents were an ADS as defined by 37 C.F.R. § 1.76. The court thus held that the ‘045 Patent did not claim priority to the provisional because no priority claim was made in either of the two places permitted by the USPTO’s rules.”
Study highlights prevalence of counterfeit and fraudulent goods online Blog Internet Law Twists & Turns | LEXOLOGY –
Thompson Coburn LLP – “A recent report by MarkMonitor, a brand protection provider, noted, for example, that counterfeit offerings on the Internet are expanding, creating “an increased risk of consumers unintentionally buying fake products.” These risks can be especially serious in the case of medicine, supplements, vitamins, and other personal care products, all of which are increasingly purchased over the Internet.”
Secondary Ticket Marketplace, Guide To US Ticket Resale Regulations | LEXOLOGY –
PDF “There has been greater and varied attention paid in recent years to ticket resales at the state level than the federal level. Currently, 30 US states and several counties and municipalities have enacted laws speci cally addressing the resale of tickets. This Secondary Ticket Marketplace, Guide To US Ticket Resale Regulations (this Guide) summarizes the various US State and local legal requirements with respect to the resale of tickets.”