IPR Protection Research Articles

Biotechnology and Development: A Balance between IPR Protection and Benefit-sharing*

The paper discusses various aspects of protection of agricultural innovations specially after the applications of biotechnology have taken place in the agricultural research. Describes the relevant article of TRIPS Agreement in respect of agricultural innovations and new problems of their protection.Apart from protecting innovations, the access to genetic resources is another basic aspect affecting biotechnology as new tool for the conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture. Paper describes the international framework for IPR related to genetic resources and access to these resources. The legal tools available with the Latin American region for protection of IPR, access to genetic resources and fair distribution of benefit are described and the problems faced in achieving these goals are identified. Several suggestions for improving the performance of the system of protection of access to genetic resources and protection of IPR are given.

Biotechnology and Development: A balance between IPR protection and benefit-sharing

The paper discusses various aspects of protection of agricultural innovations specially after the applications of biotechnology have taken place in the agricultural research. Describes the relevant article of TRIPS Agreement in respect of agricultural innovations and new problems of their protection.Apart from protecting innovations, the access to genetic resources is another basic aspect affecting biotechnology as new tool for the conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture. Paper describes the international framework for IPR related to genetic resources and access to these resources. The legal tools available with the Latin American region for protection of IPR, access to genetic resources and fair distribution of benefit are described and the problems faced in achieving these goals are identified. Several suggestions for improving the performance of the system of protection of access to genetic resources and protection of IPR are given.

US Policy towards Research Joint Ventures

The US government has decidedly moved towards encouraging co-operation in research and development (R&D) between firms, universities, and other research institutes since the early 1980s. The Republican Administration in the early 1980s set the stage for a radical shift in market environment affecting business strategy and behaviour,including the undertaking of co-operative R&D, by introducing extensive changes in antitrust and intellectual property rights law and enforcement. These changes weakened competition policy and significantly strengthened IPR protection. Moreover, a series of legislative actions created the legal framework for promoting industry-university-government co-operation in science and technology and for allowing industry and universities to benefit financially from the results of research funded by the federal government The Democratic Administrations in the 1990s further built on this system, largely by pushing forward a series of Programmes actively promoting government-industry-university partnerships and trying to "channel" private sector R&D activity in technological areas with potentially widespread economic returns. While many of the specific S&T programmes have since been scaled down by Congress, the general policy orientation towards closer collaboration between industry, universities, and government has remained intact. ventures

International transactions in intellectual property and developing countries

This paper discusses the international dimension of intellectual property protection with an emphasis on the implications for developing countries. It explores the effects of IPR protection on trade, foreign direct investment, and technology licensing, and reviews empirical evidence in this context. Finally, it discusses how international transactions in intellectual property affect the international transfer of knowledge.

Peptides derived from α-hydroxymethylserine: Aspects of solid-phase synthesis

The solid-phase synthesis of peptides derived from the sterically hindered α-hydroxymethylserine (HmS) was investigated. The acid-sensitive, O,O-isopropylidene (Ipr) protection of HmS is compatible with the Fmoc chemistry, represented here by the Fmoc-HmS(Ipr)-OH and Fmoc-HmS(Ipr)-F derivatives. Three analogs of the opioid pentapeptide DADLE with a single or two consecutive HmS residue(s) were synthesized using Wang resin as the solid support. The HATU method has been shown to effectively accomplish ‘difficult’ couplings with the HmS(Ipr) residue. Wang resin is not suitable for the synthesis of sequences with a C-terminal HmS because of the easy formation of the diketopiperazine resulting from the cyclization of the susceptible dipeptide sequence AA-HmS(Ipr) bound to the resin. A further drawback of the Wang resin methodology is the increased danger of the undesired N→O-acyl shift, when long-lasting acidic cleavage is applied. These side reactions are totally suppressed when the 2-chlorotrityl polystyrene is used as a solid support. The mild conditions (AcOH/TFE/DCM) applied for the peptide detachment from this resin do not affect the Ipr protection, affording highly pure fragments with HmS(Ipr) residues suitable for post-cleavage condensation, cyclization or controlled side-chain deprotection. This approach is documented by the efficient synthesis of linear and cyclic analogs of the opioid hexapeptide DTLET containing two residues of HmS or HmS(Ipr) in positions 2 and 6.

Intellectual Property Rights Protection and International Trade: An Economic Survey

ABSTRACT Intellectual properly right (IPR) protection provides incentives for innovation and consequent spillover benefits for the global economy, but it may also have anti-competitive effects. Economic theory has only recently addressed the international trade flow implications of different IPR protection regimes—including those consistent with the TRIPS agreement. The theory suggests IPR protection offers grounds for both conflict and congruence between net technology importers (mostly developing countries) and net technology exporters. Empirical evidence suggests that IPR protection influences trade and investment flows, but that economic impacts vary across nations and industries. Debate continues over crucial measurement issues.

International Standards for IP Protection and R&D Incentives Revisited

Aoki and Prusa (1993), Journal of International Economics, examine the effects of differing standards of IPRs protection on the R&D intensity of home country firms. This paper builds on this work by examining the R&D outcomes of home country firms when foreign rivals imitate rather than innovate. In infant industries, full commitment to discriminatory protection always leads to the most R&D. In mature industries, full commitment to discriminatory protection leads to reduced R&D intensity. This contrasts with the dynamic case where discriminatory protection, by relaxing a binding cash in advance constraint, leads to more R&D than does uniform protection.

Patent laws and the public good: IPR protection in Japan and the United States

Patent laws and the public good: IPR protection in Japan and the United States

Intellectual Property Rights in the Asian‐Pacific Region: problems, patterns, and policy

This paper explores recent theory and evidence regarding increased protection of intellectual property rights (ZPRs) in Asia. Knowledge has significant public good aspects making optimal provision a problem of trading off universal access against adequate incentives for R&D. Given the ease of evasion of IPR relative to tariffs, attempts to push low and middleincome countries to higher levels of protection may be against their national interests. The Uruguay Round may encounter less than enthusiastic enforcement. Further efforts to refine IPR protection might usefully be focused on flexibility instead of harmonisation.

KEBERADAAN REGULASI DESAIN INDUSTRI BERKAITAN DENGAN PERLINDUNGAN HUKUM ATAS KARYA DESAIN DI BALI

Effectiveness of Industrial Design registration provision based on Act No. 31, 2000 concerning IndustrialDesign in Bali has not been fully enforced. It was caused by some factors such as: lack of understanding ofIndustrial Design in societies and some of them do not know the existence of this regulation which regulate thefirst file system, some societies who has not developed the need to have laws on Industrial Design as well as thepresence of communal cultures of the Indonesian people, which is completely different from the basic concept ofindividual right protection of IPR, which based on legal cultures of west countries have contributed to thedifficulties in fully implementing IPR. The other factors caused by lack of awareness Industrial Design protectionboth the substance and the existence of this provision among law enforcers and the inadequate infrastructurerequired to administer IPR.. The concept protection of Industrial Design protect designer / owner or recipient ofthe right who register their right based on first to file system. Through this system the designer would have anexclusive rights in the form of economic and moral right. The legal consequence of the inefficiency in enforcingarticle 10 jo article 12 of the Act No. 31 of 2000 concerning Industrial Design , which regulate first to file, mightresult in the failure of the designer to secure their right over their designs, whereas the legal protection shall be goto the person who registers and have evident in form of certificate registration.

PERLINDUNGAN HUKUM HaKI DALAM PERJANJIAN WARALABA DI INDONESIA

Always related to the provision granting franchise rights to use and or use of certain intellectual property rights, which in this case embodied in the brand, which covers both trademarks and service marks, or indications of origin (indication of origin) and a specific format, formula, characteristics, methods, procedures, procedures, systems etc. that are typically associated with, and which can not be separated from each output or product that is produced and then sold, delivered or traded by using the trademarks, service marks or indications of origin mentioned above, called a trade secret.The problem is how the legal protection of intellectual property rights for the franchisor (the Franchisor) and Franchisee (the Franchisee) in franchise agreements in Indonesia.Franchise agreements is one aspect of legal protection to the parties of the actions harm others, including in providing legal protection for intellectual property rights. This is because the agreement can be a strong legal basis to enforce legal protections for the parties involved in the franchise system. If either party violates the agreement, then the other party can sue the infringing party in accordance with applicable law. Legal protection of intellectual property rights owned by the Parties to the Franchisor (the franchisor) will be better protected if the Franchise Agreement has been set up specifically on IPR protection, which is a pledge of certain restrictions that must be adhered to by the Franchisee (the franchisee), which directly or not directly intended to protect intellectual property rights of the Parties to the Franchisor (the franchisor). The Franchise Agreement which provides IP protection provisions also set Franchisee shall protect trade secrets provided by the franchisor during the term at least 2 (two) years after the franchise period expires. Franchisee shall maintain the rights and interests as holders of rights to the franchisor's brand. Franchisee is prohibited to run any other business which directly competes with the franchisor during the term of business and franchise and for a period of at least 2 (two) years after the franchise period expires. Intellectual Property Rights in the franchise business is also highly protected by the laws relating to intellectual property rights, namely: Copyright Law, Trademark Law, and the Trade Secrets Act.Key words: Franchise Agreement, Legal Protection.

International Legal Aspects of Civil Protection of Intellectual Property Rights in the Czech Republic and Ukraine

The purpose of the article is a comparative analysis of certain international legal aspects of the Czech and Ukrainian systems of protection of IPR in the context of European integration processes. A comparative analysis of the basic principles of the interaction between international and domestic law between Ukraine and the Czech Republic shows that there are similar and distinct features. The similarity is based on the fact that the constitutions of both states contain an ambivalent legal regime effect of the provisions of international and national law, according to which the provisions of international treaties, which are properly implemented in domestic law, are an integral part of it. This means the supremacy of the national constitution on the provisions of a ratified international treaty, which, in turn, takes precedence over domestic law by virtue of the principle of good faith implementation of international treaties and the inadmissibility of invoking deficiencies in internal law and as a ground for non-compliance with international obligations.
 On the basis of the application of dogmatic, natural law and comparative-legal approaches the peculiarities of interaction of the international and domestic system of legal protection of intellectual property law are analyzed. The peculiarities of international legal protection of intellectual property law in the Czech Republic are revealed, in particular at the level of universal and regional systems of international protection, as well as in the framework of the supremacy of the European Union law and its horizontal effect on the legislation of Czech Republic.
 The difference between the legal order of Ukraine and the Czech Republic on the interaction of international and national law is conditioned by an EU factor, since the Czech Republic is a Member State of the Union. In the course of interaction between the domestic legal order of Ukraine with the EU, this takes place in the form of an approximation, the legal forms of which are defined by the Association Agreement between Ukraine and the EU. The interaction between the internal law of the Czech Republic and the EU law is determined in the field of intellectual property rights through at least two parameters: 1) the supremacy of law of the EU over the legislation of the Czech Republic; 2) the horizontal effect of EU law when the legislation of the Czech Republic does not properly specify and detail the principles and norms of the EU in private-law relations between individuals.

The strength of pharmaceutical IPRs vis-Ã -vis foreign direct investment in clinical research: Preliminary findings

This article examines the effect of the intellectual property (IP) environment in developing countries on the level of foreign direct investment (FDI) and technology transfer occurring in the biopharmaceutical field in these countries. In particular, it considers the correlation between the strength of IP protection in several developing countries (using the Pharmaceutical IP Index) and the number of clinical trials taking place in these countries (as a proxy of biomedical FDI). The article finds that overall, the strength of national pharmaceutical IP environments provide a good estimate of the level of clinical trials taking place in these countries. Accordingly, countries with a more robust level of pharmaceutical IP protection tend to enjoy a greater level of clinical trial activity by multinational research-based companies. In other words, by choosing to improve their level of protection of pharmaceutical IPRs (together with other factors), developing countries may also be exposed to higher levels of biomedical FDI, not least in the field of clinical trials.