Source: http://iptango.blogspot.com/2012/05/
Timestamp: 2018-07-22 20:40:15+00:00

Document:
May 2012 - IPTango
Rodrigo Ramirez Herrera @ramahr May 31, 2012
Directores de Oficinas de Propiedad Industrial de 19 países de América Latina y el Caribe se reúnen en Bayahibe, La Romana (República Dominicana) para analizar cuestiones de interés común para las agencias estatales de esa región.
El encuentro es auspiciado por la Organización Mundial de la Propiedad Intelectual (OMPI) y la Oficina Nacional de la Propiedad Industrial (Onapi) de República Dominicana y inició este martes 29 de mayo hasta el próximo viernes 1 de junio.
La agenda de la reunión está orientada a la gestión de las oficinas de PI y su rol respecto a los objetivos nacionales de desarrollo, busca que los directores de oficinas de PI de la región, junto con especialistas regionales, analicen temas de actualidad en materia de propiedad industrial y los principales desafíos que enfrentan.
Así mismo se darán orientaciones generales sobre las áreas futuras de cooperación en materia de PI en la región, a los fines de facilitar el diseño de los planes de acción y colaboración de la OMPI tanto a nivel de país como a nivel regional.La reunión cuenta con la asistencia del director de la oficina regional de la OMPI para América Latina y el Caribe, Carlos Mazal, el administrador principal de programas de la OMPI para la región, Oswaldo Gironés, y como anfitrión Juan José Báez, director general de la Onapi.
Rodrigo Ramirez Herrera @ramahr May 29, 2012
Expertos chilenos y extranjeros debatieron en las III Jornadas Aduaneras de Propiedad Intelectual,donde el sector público y privado analizaron el trabajo que se desarrolla en el combate contra la piratería y la falsificación.Las Jornadas son organizadas desde el año 2007 por el Servicio Nacional de Aduanas.
En esta tercera versión de este seminario, se debatió en dos mesas de expertos acerca de la "Aplicación de Medidas de Frontera", se generó un interesante intercambio de ideas entre representantes de diversas organizaciones y estudios de abogados.
Fuentes: http://www.aduana.cl/ http://noticias.terra.cl/
Rodrigo Ramirez Herrera @ramahr May 24, 2012
Patricia Covarrubia May 24, 2012
The Cajuína was adopted by the city of Teresina as a cultural symbol and it is considerated as a cultural Patrimony in the State of Piauí According to the news published by INPI, the popular acceptance of the product became more famous with the success of a song by Caetano Veloso titled "cajuína”. Now to become a GI, it will give the product better visibility and thus, marketability.
Patricia Covarrubia May 23, 2012
An economic model of production:
Reading the Legislation I went straight to Chapter IV titled ‘Of Inventions, Innovations and Improvements' to see the changes: will this be a model as the Government announces?
The big issue: does the new legislation promote innovation?
There is indeed the fact that the Law is regarding Employment Law and it is advertise to protect the employee rather than the employer. But at the end of the day manufacturers need resources and as we all know monopoly rights i.e. patents, are a huge assess to some companies. In the majority of democratic jurisdiction in which I am familiar with patent law, usually an invention made by an employee belongs to his employer in circumstances such as: when the invention is made in the course of normal duties and/or if the invention is made in the course of employee’s duties and he has a special obligation. In the Venezuelan case we are seeing a situation that the invention belongs to the employee and giving a right to the employer to exploit it as longs as the employee is working for him/her.
Both situation of entitlement i.e. publics and private sector, do not incentive the scientific and academic sector. It appears that the law is trying to generate certain control of scientific research and development, with consequent loss of self-sufficiency in all scientific and academic sectors. This should not be a shock for the Venezuelan Industry. August last year (here) we witnessed a protest from the same sectors: academics and scientific who submitted to the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court an application for revocation (on grounds of unconstitutionality) of the reform of the Law on Science, Technology and Innovation, arguing that the instrument "dramatically slows the development of science and technology in the country." Also, in December 2009 (here) we also noted that the Government has ordered to scrutinise all pharmaceutical patents that were granted under Andean Community (CAN) Decision 311, 313, and 344. The reason was based on the fact that Venezuela withdrew from the Andean block in 2006 and the legislation in place during that period allowed the registration of pharmaceutical products and process, while the previous Venezuelan legislation, the Industrial Property Act of 1956 prohibits this type of patents. At the time there was uncertainty (still is) regarding the examination procedure that the government was going to use.
Patricia Covarrubia May 21, 2012
I am embarking myself in a new research involving the protection of handicraft in Colombia. I am aware of the Decision 486 regarding the protection of Geographical Indication and also the registration of Collective marks but I am looking for any other type of legislation that could help me with a particular point: the protection of cultural heritage and thus, indigenous peoples’ rights. It is my understanding that Colombia has ratified the ILO Convention No 169 BUT, has this changed or helped in any way the protection of indigenous heritage? I have also read that Colombia does have national legislation recognizing and protecting ethnic and cultural diversity – can anyone address me to this national legislation and/or any other that can be of help? Remember the point I am trying to research is the protection of handicraft (through IP) and indigenous peoples.
Please contact me at patricia.covarrubia@buckingham.ac.uk or just post it in comments (the usual way)
Rodrigo Ramirez Herrera @ramahr May 18, 2012
Rodrigo Ramirez Herrera @ramahr May 17, 2012
La jueza federal Rita María Ailán en primera instancia había estimado que las pruebas aportadas por el Consejo no demostraban ni acreditaban la eventual confusión o inducción al error de los consumidores, sino que el aditamento “Argentina”, contrariamente a lo esbozado por los demandantes españoles, es un efectivo y contundente término diferenciador que no deja lugar a duda que “La Rioja Argentina” es un producto proveniente de la República Argentina.
Asimismo, determinó que “el aditamento diferenciador a su vez es el nombre del Estado de donde efectivamente proviene el producto, distándolo significativamente de su homónimo español”. Además, la sentencia confirmada consideró en su fallo que se tomaron todos los recaudos necesarios que establece el artículo 23 del ADPIC (Aspectos de los Derechos de Propiedad Intelectual relacionados con el Comercio), que establece que en el caso de indicaciones geográficas homónimas para los vinos, la protección se concederá a cada indicación y que cada miembro establecerá las condiciones prácticas en que se diferenciarán entre sí las indicaciones homónimas de que se trate, teniendo en cuenta la necesidad de asegurarse de que los productores interesados reciban un trato equitativo y que los consumidores no sean inducidos a error.
Estos argumentos, planteados por el INV en la defensa, fueron tenidos en cuenta por el Tribunal de Alzada que finalmente confirmó la sentencia de la jueza Ailán.
Por su parte, en España el Gobierno de La Rioja pedirá a la Comisión Europea que defienda los modelos de calidad de las denominaciones de origen europeas para evitar situaciones de "competencia desleal", como la utilización de la denominación oficial "La Rioja" para los vinos de esa región argentina según informó el presidente regional, Pedro Sanz, al trasladar una serie de medidas de "urgencia" que ha adoptado su Gobierno después de conocer que la Justicia de Argentina ha ratificado que los productores de la región de La Rioja de aquel país podrán utilizar el nombre como denominación de origen.
Este uso de La Rioja en Argentina fue recurrido por el Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Calificada (DOC) Rioja, al entender que se producirá una confusión en el consumidor aprovechándose del prestigio de la denominación española. Sanz ha recalcado que, además, va a trasladar a la Comisión Europea la situación que se está produciendo en Argentina, porque cree que el fallo de esta resolución judicial es una cuestión que "ni compete exclusivamente al Gobierno de La Rioja, ni al Consejo Regulador de la DOC Rioja ni, incluso, al Gobierno de España". En su opinión, esta resolución "ataca, en su conjunto, a la competitividad con Europa, desde el punto de vista de los modelos de calidad de denominaciones de origen europeos, que protege y ampara la Unión Europea".
Patricia Covarrubia May 16, 2012
By September we expect to have the final news regarding the mascot. The contender appears to be a version of a three-banded armadillo. Will this be the image that will represent the World Cup 2014? Watch this space...
Rodrigo Ramirez Herrera @ramahr May 16, 2012
Los imputados fueron procesados por la descarga ilegal de 29 obras jurídicas y 12 libros de computación, mientras se evalúa una tercera causa por archivos de música, conforme la tipificación del artículo 72 inciso (a) de la Ley 11.723, que protege la propiedad intelectual (LPI). Esta norma establece penas de un mes a seis años de prisión para quien "edite, venda o reproduzca por cualquier medio o instrumento una obra inédita o publicada sin autorización de su autor".
En cuanto a la competencia, la fiscalía sostuvo que aunque los contenidos protegidos pudiesen estar estar alojados en servidores ubicados fuera del territorio argentino, tanto el sitio web como sus dueños tienen domicilio en Argentina. Así, en una primera instancia, el Juzgado en lo Criminal 4 de la Capital Federal (Buenos Aires) aplicando la ley argentina (LPI) consideró a los responsables de Taringa! partícipes necesarios de dicho delito, les trabó embargo por 200 mil pesos y los obligó a eliminar los post de los usuarios del sitio web en los que se ofreciera la descarga de las obras denunciadas en esta causa, "bajo apercibimiento de proceder a su inmediata detención".
En sus descargos los imputados sostuvieron, entre otras cosas, que "es imposible que determinen el contenido de las cargas y establezcan si violan los derechos de autor cuando diariamente, en promedio, se realizan veinte mil 'post'".
Como defensa agregaron que no tienen acceso al Registro Nacional de la Propiedad Intelectual para cotejar si se están violando derechos de aquellos que están incluidos bajo esa protección. Sostuvieron, además, que el 23 de marzo de 2009 habían eliminado del sitio el material que sirvió para hacer la denuncia, "pero que otro usuario lo volvió a subir el 19 de junio del mismo año".
Sin embargo, la Cámara ratificó los procesamientos al considerar que los propietarios del sitio "conocían la ilicitud de la maniobra y la permitían" y sostuvo que “los imputados a través de su sitio permitían que se publiciten obras que finalmente eran reproducidas sin consentimiento de sus titulares. Si bien ello ocurría a través de la remisión a otro espacio de Internet, lo cierto es que justamente tal posibilidad la brindaba su servicio”.
El fallo advierte “[que] si bien los autores del hecho finalmente serían aquéllos que subieron la obra al website y los que ‘la bajan’, lo cierto es que el encuentro de ambos obedece a la utilización de la página [...], siendo sus responsables al menos partícipes necesarios de la maniobra y además claros conocedores de su ilicitud, por lo que el convenio que exhiben para pretender exonerarse de responsabilidad no podrá ser tenido en cuenta”dijeron los camaristas Julio Marcelo Lucini y Mario Filozof.
Así las cosas, resolvieron que los imputados "han reconocido tanto en la audiencia como en sus escritos y además surge de la causa, que son los administradores de la página" y por lo tanto deben "responder en tal sentido".
Patricia Covarrubia May 15, 2012
As posted early today, credit to Felix Rozanski from CEDIFICA (Study Centre for the development of the chemical and pharmaceutical Industry, Argentina) who made the iptango aware of the approved guidelines for the examination of patentability of certain chemical-pharmaceutical inventions.
The full Official Bulletin can be accessed here (in Spanish) and for those of you who are scanning through the document there were certain issues that caught my attention:
Under number 1 subtitled “considering the molecular structure” and it continues (i)Polymorphs, and explaining what it is. Once the definition is explained as ‘an inherent property from the solid state that is present in drugs which are use in the pharmaceutical industry’ it concludes that polymorphs are not inventions because they are not man-made but on the contrary they are a natural property of the substance. It then adds that the substance may be in different forms: solid or crystalline depending on different arrangements of molecules in their internal structure-- depending on environment conditions and independent of human action. Due to the above said, it is declared that (1) when a polychromes result from mere identification and/or characterization of a new crystalline form know in the prior art, even if they have pharmacokinetic differences or stability in relation to the solid forms ( amorphous and/or crystalline) which are known substance, such application are not admissible. (2)The process of obtaining polymorphs constitutes a customary testing in the preparation of drugs; they are not patentable because it is obvious to try to get the more suitable polymorph pharmaceutically, using methods that are conventional.
A discovery is not patentable; however we understand that it is possible to patent a natural substance. For example, isolating a substance found in nature gives it sufficient technical character to avoid being a mere discovery – i.e. to patent the process of obtaining the substance. This fact is regulated by the Biotechnology Directive in Europe (EU).
Same subtitle and numbered as (iii) Enantiomers. It starts by defining it and then explaining that when a molecular structure reveals a racemic compound (which has both enantiomers in a ratio 1:1), the novelty is lost since the known molecular formula (written or not in a three-dimensional way) is revealed/disclose to the skilled man in the art. Therefore, it is not patentable even if the patent application does describe different properties. Yet, process to obtain a single enantiomers can be patentable is they are new, have an inventive step and are clearly described and the result is well characterized –through spectroscopy data.
Under number 3 subtitle ‘whereas chemically related elements’ (iv) salts, esters and other derivatives of known substances: new salts of known active ingredients, known alcohol esters and other derivatives of known substances (such as amides and composite) are considered the same substance already known to the state of the art and are not patentable.
Same subtitled and numbered (vi) we found active metabolites: “ in some cases, pharmaceutical compounds generate, upon administration to the patient, an active metabolite, which is the product of the process of metabolism in response to the compound. Metabolites are by-product of active ingredients used. It cannot be considered to be ‘created’ or ‘fabricated’. Metabolites are not separately patentable from the active ingredient.”
Numbered 4 and subtitled ‘whereas pharmaco-techniques features’ and under (ix) formulations and compositions, it covers the issue of patent applications for composition or formulation using principles which are active substances and carriers of suitable pharmaceutical matters such as: diluents, binders, separators, lubricants, colorants and flavourings. In this regards it follows to explain that these are not patentable due to public policy – they may affect bioavailability.
Same subtitle and numbered (xi) we encounter dosage/dose. It refers to the fact that som e patent applications claiming inventions consisting on dosages are equivalent to methods of medical treatment, since the product is neither a process nor a product – thus, non-patentable.
This is the practice in the EU, New Zealand, the Philippines, Chine, Japan, Israel and Canada for example. However, methods of medical treatment of humans are patentable in the US and Australia for example.
Finally, same subtitle and under (xii) second medical use (new medical use) we read the following: “application for the use a product, including a second medical indication (or any other medical use) of compounds known, are not admissible. Frequently, applications are restricted to describe essays of pharmacological activity in order to confirm the detection of another possible use. The patent applications for second medical indication (or any other use) are equivalent to a method of treatment and do not have industrial applicability. This rule applies even where the application is made under the ‘Swiss formula’ that is ‘use of substance x for the in the manufacture of a medicament for the treatment of condition Y" or variant thereof.”
This final one, I am speechless!! Moreover, I wonder whether a known compound for a new purpose (non-medical) can still be patentable --as it is for example in the US and in the EU. I ask this because the reason given for non-patentability of second medical use is based on the fact that it is equivalent to a method of treatment – but, no based on anticipation for instance.
Rodrigo Ramirez Herrera @ramahr May 15, 2012
The non-governmental organization Cediquifa (Studies Centre for development chemical - pharmaceutical industry of Argentina) sent for us the following information:
The Argentine Institute of Industrial Property (INPI) in a joint Resolution with the Ministries of Industry and Public Health (Res. Nºs 118/12, 546/12 and 107/12, Official Bulletin 8 May, 2012) issued new guidelines to restrict severely pharmaceutical patents by establishing that many pharmaceutical compounds (salts, polimphors, enantiomers and others) will not be patentable.
According Cedifiquifa, new restrictions are discriminatory and inconsistent with TRIPs.
Rodrigo Ramirez Herrera @ramahr May 11, 2012
Sobre la última condición impuesta Alvarez sostuvo que “mi intención será tratar de demostrar a los niños y jóvenes que puedan escuchar la importancia de la libertad de información en internet y cómo ocupar la legislación vigente en favor del usuario y no de las compañías”. Y sobre la resolución en general expresó que “la Ley de Propiedad Intelectual chilena trata de otorgarles beneficios tanto a las grandes compañías como a los ciudadanos, y se quiere mostrar como que fuera sólo restrictiva. Mi intención es tratar de mostrar las posibilidades para hacer cosas dentro del marco legal”.
El ex operador del sitio web manifestó también que, pese a aceptar la resolución del tribunal, no considera que esto tenga un efecto disuasivo: “En caso de que yo hubiera cometido un delito, se me condena a mí, pero no impide que se siga con esta práctica a nivel social”.
HBO por su parte, a través de su abogado chileno Rodrigo León (Estudio Silva & Cía.), sostuvo que “es el primer caso en América Latina en que a alguien se le prohíbe acceder a un sitio web”, agregando que “aceptamos las condiciones porque constituyen una señal clara de la posición nuestra. Esto no quita que si él no cumple con las condiciones de la suspensión condicional, podamos ir de nuevo al Ministerio Público”.
El epílogo, en tanto, es que Cuevana, el sitio web centro del litigio sigue hasta hoy operando normalmente.
Patricia Covarrubia May 10, 2012
The Canastra cheese (basket cheese) value:
Mr Claudio Dupim, INPI’s coordinator of Development and Registration of GI, declares that the importance of the certification being granted goes beyond the registration as such, it is an instrument of regional development. Indeed, I do believe that GI recognition given to a product goes farther that the protection of that particular product per se i.e. producers could claim a premium; protect their goods from fakes and so forth BUT the point in question is that it also gives value to the whole region.
Patricia Covarrubia May 04, 2012
Gilberto Macias (@gmaciasb) May 04, 2012
Rodrigo Ramirez Herrera @ramahr May 03, 2012
Patricia Covarrubia May 03, 2012
Early on this week the blog posted the "Special 301 Report" published annually by the United States Trade Representative (USTR). The Report re-evaluates the state of intellectual property rights (IPR)—to include protection and enforcement, in trading partners around the world.
From Latin America (LA), the list indicates that Argentina, Chile and Venezuela were placed in the "priority watch list" BUT does it mean that the other LA countries were given the o.k.?
I did have a look at the complete list and unfortunately the majority of the LA countries appear in the Watch List. I found Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Mexico, Peru and even a note regarding the situation of Paraguay, which is in the Monitoring List. Yet, the USTR is pleased to see the progress made by the country and it refers to a case decided in 2011 which obtained the first conviction under its new criminal laws. However, the USTR still has serious concerns regarding piracy and counterfeiting and advice the country to “intensify its customs actions and improve its cooperation with neighbouring countries Brazil and Argentina on cross-border enforcement of IPR.”
Under different headings I was looking for the LA countries and I found the following:
Trade marks and pharmaceutical products: There is concern with the “proliferation of the manufacture, sale, and distribution of counterfeit pharmaceuticals in trading partners such as Brazil...Peru...” It noted that there is an increase in the “practice of shipping of counterfeit products separately from labels and packaging in order to evade enforcement efforts.” It gives the example of Russia but later on it refers to Paraguay informing that they do “facilitate these illegal activities by exporting label and packaging components to counterfeit and pirated product assemblers.” It also adds that other countries such as Mexico and China are used as transit of such labels.
Piracy over the Internet and Digital Piracy It is said that the US will work in this area as to strengthen legal regimes and enhance enforcement with countries such as: Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and Venezuela [notice that I referring only to Latin America countries but other countries are also listed]. In this section the USTR reports that even though piracy over the Internet is replacing physical piracy, there is still production of, and trade in, CDs and DVDs and this remains as major problems in many regions such as Paraguay.
Governmental Business software: The use of only authorized business software was also in the agenda. Paraguay and Peru appear in this heading as countries that need to adopt an “effective and transparent procedures to ensure legitimate governmental use of software.”

References: artículo 23
 resolución 
 resolución 
 artículo 72
 resolución 
 resolución