The TTIP and its Investment Protection: Will the EU Still be Able to Regulate Intellectual Property?

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christophe Geiger
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Investment Protection ◽  
The Eu

The Protection of Intellectual Property in International Human Rights Law

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Henning Grosse Ruse-Khan
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Cultural Rights ◽  
Core Subject ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
The Eu

This chapter examines the human rights system and the way it deals with human creations and innovations that are the traditional core subject matter of intellectual property (IP) rights. It begins by reviewing the scope for protection under Article 27 (2) Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and Article 15 (1) (c) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). The chapter moves on to the protection of property in human rights law, especially on the regional, European level. It examines how IP can be protected as property under the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) and under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (EU Charter). Finally, the chapter looks at some of the overlaps with international IP rules and the conflict norms in the human rights system to address such overlaps.

National security: health care, pandemic (COVID-19) and the global trade in counterfeit pharmaceuticals (part 2)

2021 ◽  
pp. 52-62
Author(s):  
H. O. Androshchuk
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
National Security ◽  
Poverty Line ◽  
Third Wave ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
Management Measures ◽  
Timely Response ◽  
Counterfeit Pharmaceuticals ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Eu

Ukraine’s healthcare system faces unprecedented national security challenges in the third wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. A particularly acute issue is countering counterfeit pharmaceuticals, preventing drug shortages, joining efforts of the authorities and national manufacturers of drugs and medical supplies. According to the UN, more than 60 % of the population lives below the poverty line in Ukraine. Timely response to these challenges and taking preventive measures will save lives, minimize the volume and consequences of the pandemic. The paper provides an economic and legal analysis, trends, risks and threats to national security of the state and health protection during a pandemic, in order to protect intellectual property rights, adequate coordination of actions at the national and international levels. The impact of counterfeiting on the criminal landscape in the EU, and also business and economy, is shown based on the analysis of studies by the OECD, the EU Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and Europol. The foundations of anti-counterfeiting management, measures to implement a standard anti-counterfeiting strategy are proposed.

Damages and Recovery of Profits in Intellectual Property Litigation before Italian Courts

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marco Ricolfi
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Protection System ◽  
General Level ◽  
Italian Legislation ◽  
The Eu

Abstract The purpose of the article is twofold. At a more general level, it aims to illustrate how the changes in intellectual property litigation adopted in Italy since 2005, particularly in connection with the setting of damages suffered by rights holders and the recovery of profits obtained by infringers, have been remarkably successful in increasing the overall efficacy of the protection system. At the same time, it focuses on one particular feature of the system, the newly introduced recovery of profits from innocent infringers, arguing that the adoption of this second limb of recovery is questionable from a policy viewpoint and introduces a number of difficulties in the enforcement process, several of which transpire to be intractable. Some other aspects of the actions, both with regard to damages and recovery of profits, adopted in the recent Italian legislation are examined against the background of the EU enforcement directive and of TRIPS, with a view to highlighting both the strong points and the incongruities of the rules.

Signed, Sealed, but not Delivered: The EU and the Ratification of the Marrakesh Treaty

2015 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 629-632
Author(s):  
Ana Ramalho
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Technical Progress ◽  
Health And Safety ◽  
Risk Regulation ◽  
Inside View ◽  
Laws And Policies ◽  
Ip Law ◽  
Crossing Point ◽  
Marrakesh Treaty ◽  
The Eu

This section is devoted to giving readers an inside view of the crossing point between intellectual property (IP) law and risk regulation. In addition to updating readers on the latest developments in IP law and policies in technological fields (including chemicals, pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, agriculture and foodstuffs), the section aims at verifying whether such laws and policies really stimulate scientific and technical progress and are capable of minimising the risks posed by on-going industrial developments to individuals’ health and safety, inter alia.

scholarly journals INTERNATIONAL LAW ASPECTS OF GERMAN COPYRIGHT LAW (GCL)

2017 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 93-98
Author(s):  
Юрий Юмашев ◽  
Yuriy Yumashev ◽  
Елена Постникова ◽  
Elena Postnikova
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
International Law ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
World Intellectual Property Organization ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
The Eu

The article deals with international law aspects of the GCL. To this aim firstly the international conventions on copyright law are analyzed, in particular: the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works in the wording of the Paris Act of 1971, the Convention on the Establishment of the World Intellectual Property Organization of 1967, the Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organizations of 1961 and Aspects of intellectual property rights (TRIPS) 1994. There is also an analysis of the EU copyright law in terms of its correlation with the law of the EU member-states and an assessment of its evolution. It is emphasized that the core fact of origin of authorship is determined on the basis of the national legislation of the Member-States. Special attention is paid to the scope of the “principle of exhausted rights”. The article also touches upon the aspect of private international law. Particular attention is paid to the legal regulation of the Internet, including Internet providers, and its impact on the formation of the GCL. The problem of combating Internet piracy is also raised, as copyright infringement often occurs in relation to works published online. In addition, the article revealed what changes were made to the GCL to comply with EU law (including secondary law acts and the practice of the EU Court). The result of the study is, among other things, the conclusion that special legal mechanisms should be developed to regulate new forms of selling works that have emerged as a result of technological progress and in the near future the Internet will undoubtedly form ways for the further development of the GCL. However, this process can negatively affect the leading role of the author as a creative person.

The European framework for intellectual property rights for biological medicines

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 172-183
Author(s):  
Josette Sciberras ◽  
Raymond Zammit ◽  
Patricia Vella Bonanno
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Market Access ◽  
Access To Medicines ◽  
Marketing Authorization ◽  
Joint Procurement ◽  
Europe 2020 ◽  
Increasing Trend ◽  
Biological Market ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Eu

Introduction: The Pharmaceutical Strategy for Europe (2020) proposes actions related to intellectual property (IP) rights as a means of ensuring patients’ access to medicines. This review aims to describe and discuss the European IP framework and its impact on accessibility of biological medicines and makes some recommendations. Methods: A non-systematic literature review on IP for biological medicines was conducted. Data on authorizations and patent and exclusivity expiry dates of biological medicines obtained from the European Medicines Agency’s (EMA) website and literature was analysed quantitatively and qualitatively. Results: The analysis showed that as at end July 2021, 1,238 medicines were authorized in Europe, of which 332 (26.8%) were biological medicines. There were only 55 biosimilars for 17 unique biologicals. There is an increasing trend in biological authorizations but signifi cant delays in submission of applications for marketing authorization of biosimilars, with no signifi cant diff erences in the time for assessment for marketing authorization between originator biologicals and biosimilars. For some of the more recent biosimilars, applications for authorization were submitted prior to patent and exclusivity expiry. COVID vaccines confi rmed the impact of knowledge transfer on accessibility, especially when linked to joint procurement. Discussion: IP protects originator products and impacts the development of biosimilars. Strategies to improve competition in the EU biological market are discussed. Pricing policies alone do not increase biosimilar uptake since patients are switched to second generation products. Evergreening strategies might be abusing the IP framework, and together with trade secrets and disproportionate prices compared to R & D and manufacturing costs lead to an imbalance between market access and innovation. Conclusion: The European Pharmaceutical Strategy should focus on IP initiatives that support earlier authorization of biosimilars of new biologicals. Recommendations include knowledge sharing, simplifi cation of the regulatory framework and transparency of prices and R & D costs.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document