Source: http://iptango.blogspot.co.il/2011/02/
Timestamp: 2018-02-24 22:13:03+00:00

Document:
IPTango: February 2011
A Regional Court in Rio de Janeiro declined to extend the validity of two patents relating to drugs Aprovel (used to lower the blood pressure -- hypertension), and Geodon (used to treat schizophrenia and the manic symptoms of bipolar disorder).
The decision took place last Tuesday February 22 and represents another victory for the Insitituto Nacional da Propriedade Industriale (INPI) regarding the counting of the validity of patents. In the case of Geodon, the expiration date was March 2, 2007, but the manufacturer defended the extension until March 2, 2012. In the case of Aprovel, the original date was March 20, 2010, but the paten right holder wanted to extend it until August 15, 2012.
Jorge Avila, INPI’s president, says that INPI supports the importance of patents for society, but the Institute also helps to limit abuses of these rights
The proceedings in question relate to a mechanism established by Brazilian legislation - the pipeline. The current Industrial Property Law, published in 1996, included the pipeline to protect inventions of pharmaceutical and chemical patents which could not be protected before –Brazil did not grant patent to this types of products. Through this new mechanism, a patent holder would have a year to apply to the INPI counting from the publication of the Intellectual Property Act in 1996. The protection term of 20 years however, was to be counted from the ‘first filing’ abroad. Moreover, the validity period should not surpass 20 years after its first filing.
The Regional Court follows the same principle as other cases posted in this blog, such as: Sifrol, Persantin, Viagra,Lipitor, Gleevec, and Plavix.
By Patricia Covarrubia - February 25, 2011 No comments:
Desde el 21 de febrero hasta el 7 de marzo el Instituto Nacional de Propiedad Industrial de Chile (INAPI) recibirá comentarios y opiniones sobre la nueva propuesta de formulario único de marcas, actualmente en fase de estudio.
Según informa el comunicado del Instituto, esta medida de publicidad e interacción con los usuarios pretende optimizar la tramitación de las marcas comerciales en Chile, de la misma forma como se implementó el formulario único de patentes puesto en funcionamiento en noviembre del 2010.
By Rodrigo Ramirez Herrera @ramahr - February 24, 2011 No comments:
Labels: Chile, filing application, inapi, Trademarks
By Jeremy - February 22, 2011 No comments:
Labels: Ecuador, ex officio actions, piracy
By Aurelio Lopez-Tarruella Martinez - February 22, 2011 No comments:
Labels: generic drug industry, mexico, pharma patents
The Chilean newspaper El Mercurio approaches today President Barack Obama’s visit to Chile (in a month time). It refers to the tight agenda and two of the main topics that are to be discussed, namely energy and intellectual property.
Javier Irarrázaval, the Chamber of Commerce Chilean-American (Amcham) president , believes that president Obama's visit will be a very good opportunity to strengthen the strategic alliance that Chile and the U.S. began in 2008 on energy.
"The United States has positioned itself as a leader. It takes the lead as a supplier, developer and patent holder in virtually all technologies" he says.
Continuing he states that Amcham has concerns in the scenario faced by Chile. "If we want to grow and generate business we need energy at competitive costs". Mr Irarrázaval, who is in favour of sustainable sources, emphasizes the need to be realistic.
The second point to be raised in this visit will be the protection of intellectual property. In 2010, Chile ranked for the fourth time on the ‘Priority Watch List’, which groups countries that lack intellectual property protection. Mr Irarrázaval asserts that they “do not want to continue on the Watch List”. He appears to be astonished to the fact that in Chile there is not the necessary protection to safeguard industrial property, because according to him (and I guess every reader on this blog), this fact undermines entrepreneurship and innovation.
By Patricia Covarrubia - February 22, 2011 No comments:
Labels: Chile, priority watch list, United States
By Rodrigo Ramirez Herrera @ramahr - February 21, 2011 1 comment:
Labels: Chile, inapi, Newsletter, PI
El día de ayer se celebró la primera audiencia pública sobre el ACTA, la cual tuvo una duración de más de 2 horas.
En dicha reunión participaron más de una veintena de personas de diferentes sociedades, asociaciones y representantes de partidos políticos. Sin dudas habrá diso una interesante reunión.
Como ya hemos comentado antes, los mayores defensores del ACTA son las industrias, mientras que los ciudadanos expresan diversos argumentos del por qué la firma del ACTA no es no solo necesaria, sino claramente perjudicial para sus derechos.
Un interesante resumen de dicha reunión aquí.
No es la primera vez que el ACTA resulta un tema controvertido en México. Habrá que ver como evoluciona, pues evidentemente el ACTA seguirá dando mucho de que hablar y, seguramente, para decepción de una gran mayoría de ciudadanos, será aprobado por razones/compromisos políticos y en beneficio ($) de las industrias. No sería el primer caso, en España ha pasado con la famosa Ley Sinde.
De verdad cuesta tanto cambiar y mirar al futuro en beneficio de todos?
Sin lugar a dudas es necesaria la creación de nuevos modelos de negocios, cuantas veces será necesario repetirlo?
By Gilberto Macias (@gmaciasb) - February 18, 2011 No comments:
Labels: ACTA, mexico, México
Los asuntos tratados con el director de la OMC versaron acerca de la Ley de Etiquetado de País de Origen (COOL) y la negativa para el uso de la etiqueta “Dolphin safe”, que afectan directamente a las exportaciones de ganado bovino y atún mexicanos. Al respecto un panel integrado por expertos internacionales se pronunciará sobre la compatibilidad de estas medidas con los compromisos adquiridos por Estados Unidos ante la OMC.
Como miembro de la OMC (desde 1995), México forma parte del programa de trabajo de la Ronda de Negociaciones de Doha que busca determinar el marco de referencia para el establecimiento de las políticas de apoyo gubernamental y de acceso a mercados del sector agroalimentario. El Secretario mexicano comentó que el Acuerdo sobre la Agricultura de la OMC contiene tres puntos centrales: disciplinas para el acceso a los mercados (aranceles, contingentes arancelarios y salvaguardia especial); compromisos en materia de ayuda interna (subsidios internos permitidos y prohibidos), y compromisos en materia de competencia de las exportaciones. En este último tema, dijo, se reportan mayores avances, toda vez que en la Conferencia Ministerial de Hong-Kong (2005) se acordó la eliminación de los subsidios a las exportaciones para el año 2013 (países desarrollados) y 2018 (países en desarrollo); sin embargo, estos resultados están supeditados al avance del resto de los temas a negociar, por ello la importancia de establecer una comunicación permanente y recíproca entre las partes interesadas y este organismo multilateral.
En materia agropecuaria, la Ronda de Doha busca específicamente lograr mejoras sustanciales respecto al acceso a los mercados, reducción de todas las formas de subvenciones a la exportación (con miras a su eliminación progresiva) y la disminución sustancial de la ayuda interna causante de distorsión del comercio.
El trato especial y diferenciado para países en desarrollo es parte integrante de las negociaciones y se incorporará a las normas y disciplinas que se están negociando.
Mayorga Castañeda afirmó que México está ampliamente comprometido con los procesos de negociación y consideró que debe fortalecerse el papel de la OMC como un foro neutral para la resolución de controversias comerciales.
Previamente y como parte del programa de trabajo, el Titular de la SAGARPA, se reunió con el Director de la OMPI para intercambiar información acerca de la participación de México como reserva de capital vegetal y material genético.
En dicha oportunidad se mencionó el reconocimiento internacional al liderazgo de México a nivel Latinoamérica en materia de protección a los derechos de obtentor y por su trabajo en coordinación con la Unión Internacional para la Protección de las Obtenciones Vegetales (UPOV), al haber sido sede en las reuniones de Agrícola (TWA en 2001, Texcoco), Automatización y Programas de Cómputo (TWC en 2002, Texcoco) y Hortaliza (TWV en 2006, Guanajuato).
México ha sido autor y colaborador principal en la elaboración de directrices técnicas de validez internacional para la descripción de variedades vegetales de amaranto, nopal, chirimoya, aguacate, cempasúchil, tejocote, tomate de cáscara y otras en vías de aprobación (papaya, cacao y pitahaya), que constituyen documentos en los que ha sido plasmado el conocimiento y la capacidad nacional reconocida internacionalmente.
Ambos representantes reconocieron que mantener la membresía de la UPOV impacta directamente en el fomento a la investigación agrícola y su vinculación con centros de investigación y enseñanza, a la vez que fomenta la confianza y garantías a inversionistas, al respetar la propiedad intelectual y combatir la piratería. Además, destacaron, se potencia la ubicación estratégica de México en cuanto a su variedad de microclimas propicios para la agricultura y su amplía biodiversidad.
Fuente: http://www.negociosenelsur.com
By Rodrigo Ramirez Herrera @ramahr - February 15, 2011 No comments:
Labels: mexico, omc, ompi, UPOV 91
By Patricia Covarrubia - February 15, 2011 No comments:
El Instituto Nacional de la Propiedad Industrial de Argentina (INPI) expidió la Resolución No. P-339 de 29 de diciembre de 2010, referida al intercambio del orden cronológico del estudio de patentes.
Esta Resolución, que es una continuación de la Resolución INPI No. P-264 de 16 de diciembre de 2003, tiene como finalidad complementar los esfuerzos realizados por el INPI para mejorar el plazo de estudio de las solicitudes de patentes de invención. Con la expedición de ésta Resolución se hace un llamado a los titulares de patentes de invención para que antes del 30 de abril de 2011, requieran el intercambio del orden cronológico de estudio de examen de fondo de sus solicitudes de patentes de invención.
Normalmente, el orden cronológico para el comienzo del examen de fondo inicia una vez el mismo haya sido requerido y se haya pagado la correspondiente tasa. Con la Resolución No. P-339, el titular de una patente de invención puede intercambiar las fechas en las cuales se presentó el requerimiento de examen de fondo, entre solicitudes de patentes de su propiedad, siempre y cuando las mismas pertenezcan a la misma subclase de la Clasificación Internacional de Patentes (CIP) y ya hayan sido publicadas.
Teniendo en cuenta lo anterior, los interesados deberán presentar, antes del 30 de abril de 2011, sus peticiones ante el INPI, mediante el formulario previsto como Anexo de la precitada Resolución INPI No. P-264 del 16 de diciembre de 2003.
By Natalia Franco Onofre - February 14, 2011 No comments:
Labels: Argentina, examen de fondo, INPI, patent law
"... merely created a system that is unfair to both sides, they may have drawn the battle lines for disputes that will be detrimental to the Mexican patent system and Mexican business at an international level".
Source: "Reform for pharmaceutical patents: fair balance or fresh disputes?", prepared for International Law Office by Héctor Elias Chagoya and Juan Carlos Amaro of Becerril, Coca & Becerril SC, Mexico (an earlier version of this piece was published in IP Value 2011 - An international guide for the boardroom, by IAM magazine).
By Jeremy - February 13, 2011 No comments:
Labels: mexico, pharma patents
The Brazilian Instituto Nacional da Propriedad Intelectual (INPI) informs that the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice (STJ) denied on February 8, 2011, extending the period of two patents relating to drugs Sifrol (used to fight Parkinson's disease) and Persantin (against thrombosis).
This decision follows the understanding of the STJ regarding the pipeline system. The STJ has in several occasions rejected the extension of patents such as: Viagra, Lipitor, Gleevec, and Plavix.
The pipeline system refers to a mechanism established by Brazilian Intellectual Property Law 1996. It refers to the protection of inventions of pharmaceutical and chemical patents that could not be registered before under the old legislation. This considers the possibility of protecting under the patent system chemical substances, compositions and products, through a ‘pipeline’ mechanism, which should be counted from the ‘first filing’ abroad. Through the mechanism, the patent would have a year to be made to the INPI and worth the time remaining in the country where it was ‘first file’ and its validity cannot exceed 20 years.
By Patricia Covarrubia - February 11, 2011 No comments:
President Obama has instructed Ron Kirk (United States Trade Representative) to step up with Colombia and Panama as to resolve any outstanding issue. The goal is to approve both FTA: the US with Colombia and the US with Panama.
To this effect next week Mr Kirk is sending to Colombia a delegation to begin the process. However, he warns that "any schedule will depend on resolving" issues like labour right protection and human rights.
I presume that if the FTA between the US and Colombia is finally ratified by the US Congress, many can raise again hopes that the adoption of the Madrid Protocol is a certain fact.
Few months back this blog raised the issue that in this FTA there was a footnote where Colombia committed itself to accede to the Madrid Protocol. Also we need to remember that the FTA between the EU and Colombia do cover this issue as well.
That said, does it mean that Colombia will discuss the Bill 234/2009, concerning the adoption of the Madrid Protocol? Will it be any time soon?
By Patricia Covarrubia - February 10, 2011 No comments:
Labels: Colombia, Madrid Protocol, panama, United States
Según informa la Organización Mundial de la Propiedad Industrial (OMPI), el número de solicitudes internacionales de patente solicitudes internacionales de patente presentadas con arreglo al Tratado de Cooperación en materia de Patentes (PCT) aumentó un 4,8% en 2010.
El país que registro un mayor crecimiento durante el año pasado fue China (+56.2%), seguido de la República de Corea (+20,5%) y el Japón (+7,9%), lo cual compensó unos resultados desparejos en los países europeos y un descenso en los Estados Unidos de América (1,7%).
Según sus estadísticas durante el 2010 se presentaron 162.9001 solicitudes internacionales de patente, siendo los EE.UU. el país que más solicitudes presentó.
Ningún país de Latinoamérica figura entre los primeros 15 países, siendo Brasil el mejor colocado con 442 solicitudes, seguido de México con 144 solicitudes.
By Gilberto Macias (@gmaciasb) - February 10, 2011 1 comment:
Labels: ompi, patent, patent applications, PCT
By José Carlos Vaz e Dias - February 09, 2011 No comments:
By Aurelio Lopez-Tarruella Martinez - February 09, 2011 No comments:
Labels: counterfeits, Ecuador, legal nature of IPR
By Rodrigo Ramirez Herrera @ramahr - February 08, 2011 1 comment:
It has been reported by the IP watch, that four developing countries have already signed a recent international agreement -- The Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits. The agreement was adopted on October 2010, and seeks to facilitate access to genetic resources.
Algeria, Brazil, Colombia, and Yemen appear to be keen to sign the protocol (open for signature until 1 February 2012) and having a quick look at it, it appears too mellow. The protocol is full of words such as ‘recognizing, acknowledging, and reaffirming’. However, the text has been considered by some as not quite there (can we say ‘immature’?). The critiques focus on the fact that the text is open to interpretation and ‘much left to national level implementation.’ This view can be observed in some of the Articles which state for example: ‘in accordance with domestic law’; ‘subject to domestic law’; ‘ as appropriate’; to name a few.
However, the protocol needs to be ratified by at least 50 parties and would enter into force 90 days after the fiftieth ratification. I guess we can start counting now – there are less than 360 days to see if the protocol will be (or not) ratified.
The protocol is very much ‘what it says on the tin’ -- fair and equitable share. That said, it is for every party to interpret according to their domestic legislation and procedures. In general, the text is bringing into attention the following: when you have the ingredients to make a cake and do not know how to make one, along comes someone uses the ingredients and leave with the whole cake! This is pretty much what the Protocol is establishing, you cannot leave with the whole cake, and you need to recognise and acknowledge the party that gave you the ingredients.
By Patricia Covarrubia - February 08, 2011 No comments:
Labels: Argentina, biodiversity, Brazil, Colombia
By Jeremy - February 06, 2011 No comments:
Labels: Argentina, trade mark infringement
From Marques Class 46 blog I read that the Consorzio del Formaggio Parmigiano Reggiano has submitted in Colombia an application for recognition of its Parmigiano Reggiano as an Appelation of Origin (AO).
Colombia being part of the Andean Community of Nation (formed by Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru) operates a customs union similar to the EU and it boasts a common IP regime governed by Decision 486. Geographical Indication is found under Title XII and AO definition under Art 201, regulating though this subject.
Under the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) signed between the EU and Colombia and Peru, Parmiggiano Reggiano appears on the list (more than 200 products are listed – only 4 are from Colombia and Peru). Looking further the FTA, under title VII named Geographical Indications (GI), clarifies that GI of a Party to be protected by the other Party, shall only be subject to this Title if they are recognised and declared as such in the country of origin. This implies that the parties each accept that the other party’s domestic examinations are also sufficient for their domestic market. As we may know Parmiggiano Reggiano not only enjoys protection in its own country but in the whole European Union (also in those Members States that are parties to the Lisbon Agreement since this GI has been registered under this regime).
That said, here comes my questioning: why is the Consorzio looking for this further protection? There is the issue that though the FTA has been signed, it has not entered into force as yet -- is this a sign? I feel that this cheese does not smell right.
Moreover, will the other 228 EU products apply for this recognition? Or is just this stinky cheese that wants to have another slice of protection?
By Patricia Covarrubia - February 01, 2011 2 comments:
Labels: Colombia, EU, FTA, geographical indications

References: resolución 
 Resolución 
 Resolución 
 Resolución 
 Resolución 
 Resolución