WTO: US and Argentina settle dispute over patents and data protection

In May 2000, supplementing an earlier complaint filed in May 1999, the US filed a complaint against Argentina, alleging that its patent laws violate the World Trade Organization's Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (the TRIPS Agreement). The gist of the US complaint was that Argentina's law failed to provide: (1) adequate protection against "unfair" commercial use of undisclosed test data submitted in order to get market approval of pharmaceutical products; (2) certain safeguards for compulsory licences on an invention granted on the basis of inadequate working by the patent holder; and (3) adequate measures to prevent infringements of patent rights. The US also alleged that Argentina denies certain exclusive rights of patent holders, such as the exclusive right to import the patented product into the country. At the end of May 2002, the US and Argentina notified the WTO that they had reached a "mutually agreed solution," without prejudice to their respective rights and obligations under WTO agreements, and the US has withdrawn its complaint.     

US files WTO complaints against Brazil over requirement for "local working" of patents

At the end of May 2000, the US (later joined by the European Communities) filed a complaint against Brazil at the World Trade Organization (WTO), alleging Brazil was in violation of its obligations under the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (the TRIPS Agreement) and the 1994 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Brazilian legislation that came into force in 1997 establishes that, in order to enjoy exclusive patent rights in Brazil, the holder of a patent on an invention must satisfy a "local working" requirement. In other words, the patent holder must "work" the patent in Brazil to enjoy full patent protection. If it fails to do this, the law says it shall be subject to the possibility of the government issuing a compulsory license, allowing someone else to use the invention and pay a royalty fee to the patent holder.     

An overview of the judicial protection of patents in China

Legal context: The present paper introduces how the patent protection systemis organized in China and the competence of various administrativeand judicial instances is reviewed with case studies as illustrativeexamples. Key points: The article describes the patent grant (or refusal) procedureand the means available to an applicant to have a decision reviewed,as well as the prosecution of invalidity actions. Practical significance: Finally, the authors examine responses to patent counterfeitingthrough administrative proceedings along with their practicalimplications. This might possibly involve agreement betweenthe parties, and judicial actions, including both civil andcriminal proceedings.     

Non-obviousness standard under fire: flexible application of TSM test may result in validity challenges against many US patents

The US Supreme Court has reversed a judgment of the FederalCircuit, holding that a flexible application of the TSM testmay result in validity challenges against many US patents.     

Big genetic data and its big data protection challenges

The use of various forms of big data have revolutionised scientific research. This includes research in the field of genetics in areas ranging from medical research to anthropology. Developments in this area have inter alia been characterised by the ability to sequence genome wide sequences (GWS) cheaply, the ability to share and combine with other forms of complimentary data and ever more powerful processing techniques that have become possible given tremendous increases in computing power. Given that many if not most of these techniques will make use of personal data it is necessary to take into account data protection law. This article looks at challenges for researchers that will be presented by the EU's General Data Protection Regulation, which will be in effect from May 2018. The very nature of research with big data in general and genetic data in particular means that in many instances compliance will be onerous, whilst in others it may even be difficult to envisage how compliance may be possible. Compliance concerns include issues relating to ‘purpose limitation’, ‘data minimisation’ and ‘storage limitation’. Other requirements, including the need to facilitate data subject rights and potentially conduct a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) may provide further complications for researchers. Further critical issues to consider include the choice of legal base: whether to opt for what is often seen as the ‘default option’ (i.e. consent) or to process under the so called ‘scientific research exception’. Each presents its own challenges (including the likely need to gain ethical approval) and opportunities that will have to be considered according to the particular context in question.     

Government protection against terrorism and crime

A game theoretic model is developed where a government protects against a terrorist seeking terrorism and criminal objectives. A terrorist can recruit a benefactor providing funds by remaining ideologically pure, or may resort to crime. The model accounts for the players’ resources, unit costs of effort, unit benefit and valuations and contest intensities for terrorist and crime objectives. We determine and quantify how these factors and the government impact a terrorist’s terrorism and crime efforts and relative ideological orientation on a continuum from being highly ideological to being highly criminal. We also consider how the terrorist group is impacted by support of benefactor(s), the central authority’s ability to impose greater sanctions for terrorist activities compared to criminal actions and the ideological orientation of the group’s leadership. We discuss insights from the model and consider a few historical perspectives.     

Investigating the legal protection of data,information and knowledge under the EU data protection regime

Information science distinguishes between the semantic forms/intangibles of data, information and knowledge. Data (e.g. an attribute of a data record in a relational database) does not have any meaning by itself. Information is data brought into context (e.g. data related to its primary key), and knowledge is the collection of information for useful intent (e.g. a database). This paper investigates the mapping of semantic forms in information science (i.e. data, information, knowledge) to correlative concepts in information law (primarily data protection legislation) with a view to investigating how such semantic forms are legally protected. The paper first proposes a data, information, knowledge, rules (DIKR) hierarchy in the context of relational database theory, and interprets this hierarchy with respect to data protection concepts. The paper then gives an in-depth discussion of the elements of the DIKR hierarchy (data, information, knowledge, deduced knowledge, induced knowledge) and how they relate to the EU Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC. These relationships are summarized in the form of a two dimensional correlation matrix. Finally the paper discusses how the semantic forms identified are protected under the EU Data Protection Directive, and gives insightful observations about the connection between information law and information science.     

Body scanners versus privacy and data protection

In recent history, the world has experienced dramatic events which have had a substantial effect on the balance between human rights protection and security measures. Body scanners installed at airports are intended to protect our lives. But at the same time they have a serious impact on privacy and data protection. The international legislation allows limiting people’s rights and freedoms, but only if it is in accordance with the law and is proportionate and necessary for national security, public safety and for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. Do body scanners respect these principles? The article examines the current situation, its background and future prospects. It discusses and analyzes the key terms and legal instruments, problems, disputes and proposed “safeguards”. The work concludes by pointing out the unlawfulness of current regimes and sets forth perspective on the possible solutions.     

The legal construction of privacy and data protection

In this contribution, the authors explore the differences and interplays between the rights to privacy and data protection. They describe the two rights and come to the conclusion that they differ both formally and substantially, though overlaps are not to be excluded. Given these different yet not mutually exclusive scopes they then apply the rights to three case-studies (body-scanners, human enhancement technologies, genome sequencing), highlighting in each case potential legal differences concerning the scope of the rights, the role of consent, and the meaning of the proportionality test. Finally, and on the basis of these cases, the authors propose paths for articulating the two rights using the qualitative and quantitative thresholds of the two rights, which leads them to rethink the relationship between privacy and data protection, and ultimately, the status of data protection as a fundamental right.     

Citizens' perceptions of data protection and privacy in Europe

Data protection and privacy gain social importance as technology and data flows play an ever greater role in shaping social structure. Despite this, understanding of public opinion on these issues is conspicuously lacking. This article is a meta-analysis of public opinion surveys on data protection and privacy focussed on EU citizens. The article firstly considers the understanding and awareness of the legal framework for protection as a solid manifestation of the complex concepts of data protection and privacy. This is followed by a consideration of perceptions of privacy and data protection in relation to other social goals, focussing on the most visible of these contexts–the debate surrounding privacy, data protection and security. The article then considers how citizens perceive the ‘real world’ environment in which data processing takes place, before finally considering the public's perception and evaluation of the operation of framework against environment.     

举讼与息讼

近年来,部分媒体赞扬当事人“打索赔一元钱官司”,实际上是鼓励诉讼。从当事人的诉讼动机、诉讼成本、诉讼心态、诉讼引导、诉讼指导思想诸方面来说,“举讼”与“息讼”各有利弊。