Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/127803715/2-6-intergratedcircuits
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 16:50:47+00:00

Document:
Members agree to provide protection to the layout-designs (topographies) of integrated circuits (referred to in this Agreement as layout-designs) in accordance with Articles 2 through 7 (other than paragraph 3 of Article 6), Article 12 and paragraph 3 of Article 16 of the Treaty on Intellectual Property in Respect of Integrated Circuits and, in addition, to comply with the following provisions.
Subject to the provisions of paragraph 1 of Article 37, Members shall consider unlawful the following acts if performed without the authorization of the right holder: importing, selling, or otherwise distributing for commercial purposes a protected layout-design, an integrated circuit in which a protected layout-design is incorporated, or an article incorporating such an integrated circuit only in so far as it continues to contain an unlawfully reproduced layout-design.
[Footnote] The term right holder in this Section shall be understood as having the same meaning as the term holder of the right in the IPIC Treaty.
1. Notwithstanding Article 36, no Member shall consider unlawful the performance of any of the acts referred to in that Article in respect of an integrated circuit incorporating an unlawfully reproduced layout-design or any article incorporating such an integrated circuit where the person performing or ordering such acts did not know and had no reasonable ground to know, when acquiring the integrated circuit or article incorporating such an integrated circuit, that it incorporated an unlawfully reproduced layout-design. Members shall provide that, after the time that such person has received sufcient notice that the layoutdesign was unlawfully reproduced, that person may perform any of the acts with respect to the stock on hand or ordered before such time, but shall be liable to pay to the right holder a sum equivalent to a reasonable royalty such as would be payable under a freely negotiated licence in respect of such a layout-design.
1. In Members requiring registration as a condition of protection, the term of protection of layout-designs shall not end before the expiration of a period of 10 years counted from the date of ling an application for registration or from the rst commercial exploitation wherever in the world it occurs. 2. In Members not requiring registration as a condition for protection, layoutdesigns shall be protected for a term of no less than 10 years from the date of the rst commercial exploitation wherever in the world it occurs. 3. Notwithstanding paragraphs 1 and 2, a Member may provide that protection shall lapse 15 years after the creation of the layout-design.
See, e.g., Jay Dratler, Intellectual Property Law: Commercial, Creative, and Industrial Property, Intellectual Property Series, Law Journal Seminars-Papers, Vol. 2, New York 1997, pp. 86 [hereinafter Dratler]. See, e.g., Debora Sper, Attracting high technology investment. INTELs Costa Rican Plant, FIAS/World Bank, Occasional Paper No. 11, Washington D.C. 1998.
TRIPS provides for the protection of the layout designs (or topographies) utilized in integrated circuits. Such protection extends to the integrated circuits that contain such designs or topographies, as well as, under certain conditions, to the industrial products that incorporate the integrated circuits. The Agreement heavily relies in this matter on the standards of protection provided for under the Washington Treaty on Intellectual Property in respect of Integrated Circuits (the Washington Treaty), despite the fact that this Treaty, adopted in 1989, never entered into force. The Agreement obliges Members to protect the layout-designs (topographies) of integrated circuits according to Articles 2 through 7 (except Article 6.3), Article 12 and Article 16.3 of the Washington Treaty, plus a number of additional obligations specied by the Agreement.
The protection of layout designs of integrated circuits as a specic subject matter was initiated in the United States in 1984, with the approval of the Semiconductor Chip Protection Act (SCPA). The decline of United States competitive advantages in chip production and trade during the 1980s prompted the U.S. Congress to adopt a sui generis protection. Industry was particularly concerned with the increasing strength of Japanese competitors and their ability to eventually copy American designs. Though the U.S. Congress considered the possibility of protecting integrated circuits designs under copyright, the SCPA established a sui generis regime that provided for ten years protection; registration was made compulsory within two years of the rst commercial exploitation of a mask work988 . A special provision allowing for reverse engineering was included, following the practices prevailing in the semiconductor industry. The SCPA, in addition, included a strict material reciprocity clause under which layout designs originating in other countries would be protectable in the United States only if those countries granted similar protection to U.S. designs. This reciprocity clause forced Japan to rapidly adopt similar legislation,989 followed by the European Communities990 and other developed countries. WIPO, shortly after the enactment of the SCPA, initiated studies and consultations in order to establish an international treaty on the matter. It convened a Diplomatic Conference which adopted the Washington Treaty based on the sui generis approach rst introduced by U.S. law without excluding, however, the application of other forms of protection.
Act concerning the circuit lay-out of a semiconductor integrated circuit (law No. 43).
Council Directive on the Legal Protection of Topographies of Semiconductor Products, 87/54/EEC.
See Carlos Correa, Intellectual Property in the Field of Integrated Circuits: Implications for Developing Countries, World Competition, vol.14, No.2, Geneva 1990.
PARTIES agree to provide protection to the layout-designs (topographies) of integrated circuits (hereinafter referred to as layout-designs) in accordance with the substantive provisions of the Treaty on Intellectual Property in Respect of Integrated Circuits as opened for signature on May 26, 1989 and, in addition, to comply with the following provisions.
992 Chairmans report to the Group of Negotiation on Goods, document MTN.GNG/NG11/W/76, of 23 July 1990. 993 Draft Final Act Embodying the Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations, Revision, Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Including Trade in Counterfeit Goods, MTN.TNC/W/35/Rev. 1, 3 Dec. 1990.
Subject to the provisions of Article (1) below, PARTIES shall consider unlawful the following acts if performed without the authorization of the holder of the right: importing, selling, or otherwise distributing for commercial purposes a protected layout-design, an integrated circuit in which a protected layout-design is incorporated [, or an article incorporating such an integrated circuit. Rights extend to an article incorporating an integrated circuit only insofar as it continues to contain an unlawfully reproduced layout-design.] Notwithstanding Article  above, no PARTY shall be obliged to consider unlawful the performance of any of the acts referred to in that paragraph in respect of an integrated circuit incorporating an unlawfully reproduced layout-design [or any article incorporating such an integrated circuit] where the person performing or ordering such acts did not know and had no reasonable ground to know, when acquiring the integrated circuit [or article incorporating such an integrated circuit], that it incorporated an unlawfully reproduced layout-design. [ PARTIES shall provide that, after the time that such person has received sufcient notice that the layout-design was unlawfully reproduced, he may perform any of the acts with respect to the stock on hand or ordered before such time, but shall be liable to pay to the holder of the right a sum equivalent to a reasonable royalty in a freely negotiated licence in respect of the layout-design.] The conditions set out in subparagraphs (a)(l) and (o) of Article  above shall apply mutatis mutandis in the event of any non-voluntary licensing of a layoutdesign or of its use by or for the government without the authorization of the right holder. [The nal draft provision was essentially identical to Article 38, TRIPS Agreement].
At the time of the Brussels Draft, delegations were still divided over the question whether to extend the coverage of the provision to articles incorporating integrated circuits which in turn incorporate unlawfully reproduced layout-designs. Under the nal version of TRIPS, this extension was then agreed upon. Under TRIPS, the possibility of a bona de acquisition exists therefore not only with respect to integrated circuits, but even as to products containing integrated circuits. The reference in the Brussels Draft to Article 31(a)(l) and (o) is slightly different from the current version in Article 37, TRIPS Agreement; the reason for this is that at the time of the Brussels Draft, the draft provision on compulsory licenses showed a slightly different structure than today.994 As under the current version of TRIPS, the provision on dependent patents (i.e. paragraph (m) of the Brussels Draft provision on compulsory licenses) was excluded from non-voluntary licensing of layout-designs. The other exclusion referred to in the Brussels Draft above concerned the grant of compulsory licenses in case of nonworking or insufcient working (i.e. paragraph (n) of the draft provision on compulsory licenses). This exclusion was not reproduced in the TRIPS text of Article 37.2, because the nal version of Article 31 of TRIPS contains no reference to non-working.
For details, see Chapter 25.
An integrated circuit is, according to the Washington Treaty, a product, in its nal form or an intermediate form, in which the elements, at least one of which is an active element, and some or all of the interconnections are integrally formed in and/or on a piece of material and which is intended to perform an electronic function (Article 2(i)). This denition includes both products in their nal and in intermediate forms. It covers gate arrays and other integrated circuits (e.g., programmable logic devices-PLDs), which cannot be considered nished products. In order to be protectable, integrated circuits should contain at least one active element. This means that discrete microelectronics components are not covered. A layout-design (topography) is dened by the Treaty as the threedimensional disposition, however expressed, of the elements, at least one of which is an active element, and of some or all of the interconnections of an integrated circuit, or such a three-dimensional disposition prepared for an integrated circuit intended for manufacture (Article 2(ii)). Article 2(ii) of the Washington Treaty makes clear that protection refers to a three-dimensional layout-design. It covers both a design/topography incorporated in an integrated circuit as well as a layout-design/topography to be incorporated in an integrated circuit, that is, even before the actual manufacture took place. This means that the Washington Treaty does not require the xation of the design/topography as a condition for protection (a requirement that existed, for instance, under the U.S. and Japanese laws at the time the Treaty was adopted). The Treaty does not specify the type of material into which the layoutdesign/topography may be incorporated. Any country may, however, limit protection to semiconductor integrated circuits (Article 3.1.c), i.e. to integrated circuits built into silicon and other semiconductor materials. In fact, many laws (United States, Japan, European Union, Denmark, etc.) specically refer to semiconductor products.
Protection is conferred to original layout-designs/topographies, understanding original in the sense that they are the result of their creators own intellectual effort (Article 3.2(a) of the Washington Treaty). The Treaty combines the concepts of originality and of intellectual effort employed in the U.S. and in EC regulations, respectively. These concepts are qualied, as expressly provided for, for instance, in the U.S. and UK laws on the matter, by the condition that the layout/topography should not be commonplace among creators of layout-designs (topographies) and manufacturers of integrated circuits at the time of their creation. Further, a layout-design that consists of a combination of elements and interconnections that are commonplace shall be protected only if the combination, taken as a whole, fulls the condition of originality.
This kind of requirement is not present in the Paris and Berne Conventions.
production of integrated circuits. A mere commercial establishment (e.g., for the distribution of integrated circuits designed and manufactured elsewhere) does not entail the right to claim national treatment. A Party can elect, according to Article 5(2) of the Washington Treaty, not to apply national treatment as far as any obligations to appoint an agent or to designate an address for service, or as far as the special rules applicable to foreigners in court proceedings are concerned.
Subject to the provisions of paragraph 1 of Article 37, Members shall consider unlawful the following acts if performed without the authorization of the right holder:[footnote 9] importing, selling, or otherwise distributing for commercial purposes a protected layout-design, an integrated circuit in which a protected layout-design is incorporated, or an article incorporating such an integrated circuit only in so far as it continues to contain an unlawfully reproduced layoutdesign.
[Footnote 9]: The term right holder in this Section shall be understood as having the same meaning as the term holder of the right in the IPIC Treaty.
layout-design/topography or an integrated circuit in which a protected layoutdesign/topography is incorporated. Article 36, TRIPS, adds to the exclusive rights provided for under the Treaty, the right to import, sell or otherwise distribute an article incorporating such an integrated circuit. This obligation, however, only applies in so far as the article continues to contain an unlawfully reproduced layout-design.
Finally, the acts covered by Article 37.1 also relate to any articles incorporating unlawfully reproduced layout-designs, whereas Article 6(4) of the Washington Treaty is limited to acts in respect of integrated circuits and layout-designs. This difference is the logical consequence of the different scope of protection with respect to articles incorporating unlawfully made layout-designs.
Article 6(2) of the Washington Treaty allows for exceptions in relation to certain acts of reproduction of a layout design/topography of an integrated circuit performed by a third party. This article addresses, in particular, the issue of reverse engineering, that is, the evaluation of an existing integrated circuit in order to independently develop a competitive product, which may be similar or identical to the original one. Reverse engineering is common practice in the semiconductor industry. Article 6.2(a) provides that no Contracting Party shall consider unlawful acts made, without the authorization of the title-holder, for private purposes or for the sole purpose of evaluation, analysis, research or teaching. Article 6.2(b) further claries the extent of the reverse engineering exception. It states that as long as there is an independent effort involved (which is necessary to comply with the originality requirement) the rights of the title-holder of the reverse engineered design can not be exercised against the creator of the second design, even if identical. This means that the rights, as provided for by the Treaty and TRIPS confer exclusivity neither on the functionalities of the layout-design/topography nor on a specic expression thereof. They only protect, in essence, against slavish copying. Finally, Article 6.2(c) establishes that the reverse engineering exception applies even in cases where the second-layout design/topography is identical to a protected design, provided that the former was independently created.
not with chips as such. Chips producers do not normally grant voluntary licenses to commercial agents, but to other chips producers, or eventually, manufacturers of industrial goods that incorporate chips.
1. In Members requiring registration as a condition of protection, the term of protection of layout-designs shall not end before the expiration of a period of 10 years counted from the date of ling an application for registration or from the rst commercial exploitation wherever in the world it occurs. 2. In Members not requiring registration as a condition for protection, layoutdesigns shall be protected for a term of no less than 10 years from the date of the rst commercial exploitation wherever in the world it occurs.
See, e.g., Gervais, p. 179.
For any other technology, patents may be made subject to compulsory licenses based on the grounds determined by national legislation. See Article 31 of the Agreement and the referenced Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health (WT/MIN(01)/DEC/W/2, 14 November 2001).
See, e.g., Gervais, p. 179. See WIPO, p. 6.
See also the Doha Ministerial Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health, para. 5(d) (WT/MIN(01)/DEC/W/2 of 14 November 2001).
3. Notwithstanding paragraphs 1 and 2, a Member may provide that protection shall lapse 15 years after the creation of the layout-design. The Washington Treaty provides for a minimum term of protection of eight years. It is silent about the date from which the term was to be counted. That term was extended by TRIPS to a minimum of ten years.1007 In addition, Article 38 species the dates from which such term is to be counted. In any case, Members may limit the duration of protection to 15 years after the creation of the layout-design.
The Washington Treaty sets out in Article 7.1 some conditions on which protection may be made conditional. It leaves freedom to grant protection from the creation of the design, or subject to commercial exploitation or registration. Article 7.1 of the Treaty refers to ordinarily commercially exploited layout designs. It excludes cases in which a layout-design may be commercialized under condential terms, without being apparent to the consumer public or to competitors. Members may adopt any of the above-mentioned conditions for protection. They could even opt to require, for instance, commercialization plus registration within certain period of the latter, like in United States and Japan. However, Article 7.2(b) of the Treaty contains a limitation for those cases in which commercial exploitation and registration are cumulative requirements. Registration cannot be required before two years counted from the date of rst commercialization anywhere in the world. Finally, the applicant may be required to disclose the electronic function that the integrated circuit is intended to perform, but is not obliged to submit information relating to the manner of manufacture of the integrated circuit, provided that the information supplied is sufcient for the identication of the layout-design (Article 7.2(a)).
There have been no cases decided on this subject matter.
There are no other WTO agreements directly relevant to this subject matter.
As discussed throughout in the text, TRIPS draws substantially on the Treaty on Intellectual Property in Respect of Integrated Circuits of 1989, the Washington Treaty.
1007 In practice, ten years was the standard term set out by the SCPA and adopted by the regulations enacted in other developed countries at the time of the negotiation of the Washington Treaty.
The USA and Japan adopted, as mentioned, sui generis legislation on integrated circuits. Other developed and developing countries (e.g., Australia, Sweden, Austria, Poland, South Korea, Taiwan Province of China, Trinidad and Tobago and Mexico) also followed this approach. Many developing countries have not yet implemented any form of protection on this matter.
6.3.1 Regional The EC adopted, in December 1986, Council Directive 87/54/EEC on the Legal Protection of Topographies of Semiconductor Products, which establishes a sui generis regime on the matter, without prejudice to the application of other forms of protection. The protection of integrated circuits is also provided for under NAFTA. Article 1710(1) to (8) of NAFTA parallels Articles 35 through 38 of TRIPS. The NAFTA provisions are virtually identical to those in the Agreement,1008 with a signicant exception: Article 1710(5) of NAFTA1009 prohibits the granting of compulsory licenses on layout-designs of integrated circuits. Articles 86 to 112 of Decision 486 of the Andean Group countries (2000) provide for a sui generis protection for integrated circuits.
There have been no proposals for review on this matter.
1008 See, e.g., Richard Neff and Fran Smallson, NAFTA. Protecting and Enforcing Intellectual Property Rights in North America, Shepards,/McGraw Hill, Colorado Springs 1994, p. 96. 1009 Article 1710(5): No Party may permit the compulsory licensing of layout-designs of integrated circuits.
based on the pre-existing stock of knowledge. Studies on the role of IPRs in promoting innovation in this industry have shown that gaining lead time and exploiting learning curve advantages, rather than IPRs, are the primary methods for appropriating the returns of investments in research and development.1010 The very little litigation that has taken place in connection with the protection of integrated circuits1011 seems to indicate that unlawful copying of layoutdesigns/topographies is not at all signicant.1012 It should be recalled, nally, that TRIPS leaves freedom to determine the form of protection of integrated circuits, either under a sui generis regime or other existing modalities of intellectual property rights. In general, there will be few advantages in protecting integrated circuits via copyright or patent law. The exibility apparently given on the form of protection is de facto limited by the need to comply with the Washington Treaty plus the TRIPS Agreement standards. The best option for a country implementing the Agreement probably is to establish a sui generis regime to deal with the specic features of integrated circuits as protectable subject matter.
See Daniel Siegel and Ronald Laurie, Beyond microcode: Alloy v. Ultratek. The rst attempt to extend copyright protection to computer hardware, The Computer Lawyer, vol. 6, No. 4, April 1989, p.14, who described the SCPA as a solution in search of a problem. In the USA only one case Brooktree Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices Inc (977 F2d. 1555, Fed. Circ. 1992) is reported as litigated under the SCPA (see Mark Lemley; Peter Menell; Robert Merges and Pamela Samuelson, Software and Internet Law, Aspen Law & Business, New York 2000, p. 410).
Solar MUS Project Completion Report - Raj Kumar G.C.

References: sui generis
sui generis
sui generis
sui generis
sui generis
sui generis
sui generis
sui generis
 v. 
 v.