May 012015
 

sean at podium

In preparation for my role in warming up for Noam Chomsky on WORTFM Madison Wisconsin today, I put together this FAQ on the TPP ISDS leak and intellectual property policy concerns. As with all our posts, this is a CC-By product — please feel free to use or adapt for other purposes with attribution.

What is the core concern with ISDS? Continue reading »

FacebookTwitterRedditStumbleUponWordPressTumblrBlogger PostEmailPrintFriendly
Apr 302015
 

sean at podiumThe 2015 Special 301 Report continues a trend, beginning last year, of scrubbing a lot of language that long graced previous reports threatening other countries about WTO TRIPS and other international treaty violations. (See Special 301, A Historical Primer). This could be seen as an acknowledgment that such threats violate the World Trade Organization dispute settlement understanding. The WTO clearly states: Continue reading »

FacebookTwitterRedditStumbleUponWordPressTumblrBlogger PostEmailPrintFriendly
Apr 232015
 

sean at podiumThis presentation is in the IP room. But my message is for the IP team to be talking to the ISDS folks next door. The reason is that there is an increasingly urgent need revise the EU and US ISDS templates to protect IP policy decisions from the ISDS chapters of trade agreements. Both the US and EU have been tinkering with their models of late. But both revised models fail to ensure a key domestic sovereignty protection that has been the core of international IP law for 130 years – the exclusive use of state-to-state dispute resolution for enforcement of international IP commitments. Continue reading »

FacebookTwitterRedditStumbleUponWordPressTumblrBlogger PostEmailPrintFriendly
Apr 212015
 

sean - 150x150[Cross posted from the American Constitutional Society blog, Link] The Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) bill that was released last week contains a fascinating Section 8 on “Sovereignty.”  The section appears intended to make all trade agreements with the U.S. not binding to the extent that they contradict any provision of U.S. law, current or future.  If valid, the section would go a long way to calming fears in this country that new trade agreements, like the old ones, could be used by corporations or other countries to force the U.S. to alter domestic regulations.  (See, for example, analysis on how the leaked TPP text could enable challenges to intellectual property limitations and exceptions like the U.S. fair use doctrine). Continue reading »

FacebookTwitterRedditStumbleUponWordPressTumblrBlogger PostEmailPrintFriendly
Apr 152015
 

sean - 150x150I released a statement earlier today opining that the today’s leak of the Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) chapter proposed for the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement (available at https://wikileaks.org/tpp-investment/WikiLeaks-TPP-Investment-Chapter.pdf) would give new rights to private companies to challenge limitations and exceptions to copyrights, patents, and other intellectual property rights in unaccountable international arbitration forums. This note gives further background and analysis supporting that statement. Continue reading »

FacebookTwitterRedditStumbleUponWordPressTumblrBlogger PostEmailPrintFriendly
Apr 082015
 

sean - 150x150Last week I expressed my shock in seeing that the Trans Pacific Partnership agreement proposes to expand (or at least clarify) the ability of corporations to challenge intellectual property limitations and exceptions in so called investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) tribunals. One source of that surprise came from my recollection of repeated meetings with USTR negotiators who assured me and others that ISDS forums were not intended to provide a means to challenge intellectual property limitations and exceptions. Continue reading »

FacebookTwitterRedditStumbleUponWordPressTumblrBlogger PostEmailPrintFriendly
Mar 262015
 

sean - 150x150I released a statement earlier today opining that the today’s leak of the Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) chapter proposed for the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement (available at https://wikileaks.org/tpp-investment/WikiLeaks-TPP-Investment-Chapter.pdf) would give new rights to private companies to challenge limitations and exceptions to copyrights, patents, and other intellectual property rights in unaccountable international arbitration forums. This note gives further background and analysis supporting that statement. Continue reading »

FacebookTwitterRedditStumbleUponWordPressTumblrBlogger PostEmailPrintFriendly
Mar 262015
 

sean at podiumToday’s leak of the Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) chapter proposed for the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement would give new rights to private companies to challenge limitations and exceptions to copyrights, patents, and other intellectual property rights in unaccountable international arbitration forums. The text contains the same provisions that are being used by Eli Lilly to challenge Canada’s invalidation of patent extensions for new uses of two medicines originally developed in the 1970s. The same language is also being used by Philip Morris to challenge Uruguay’s regulation of advertising on cigarette packages as an “expropriation” of their trademarks. But the TPP language goes farther. It includes a new footnote, not previously released as part of any other investment chapter and not included in the U.S. model investment text — clarifying that private expropriation actions can be brought to challenge “the cancellation or nullification of such [intellectual property] rights,” as well as “exceptions to such rights.”

Continue reading »

FacebookTwitterRedditStumbleUponWordPressTumblrBlogger PostEmailPrintFriendly
Feb 022015
 

sean - 150x150On Friday, I joined law professors Srividhya Ragavan of University of Oklahoma and Brook Baker of Northeastern University Brook Baker in comments to the Indian government on its recently released “Draft Intellectual Property Policy.” Our overarching comment is that the proposed policy makes a categorical and critical mistake of promoting intellectual property as an end in itself rather than as a means for achieving social and economic progress through enhanced production of and access to the fruits of creativity and innovation. The heart of the comment states: Continue reading »

FacebookTwitterRedditStumbleUponWordPressTumblrBlogger PostEmailPrintFriendly
Oct 072014
 

Flynn - Favored PicBrand name pharmaceutical companies are advocating for inclusion of disciplines on public pharmaceutical reimbursement programs in the ongoing negotiations of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) trade agreements. This post answers some frequently asked questions by U.S. public health advocates about these proposals.

Why is pharmaceutical reimbursement policy being negotiated in trade agreements? Continue reading »

FacebookTwitterRedditStumbleUponWordPressTumblrBlogger PostEmailPrintFriendly
Oct 012014
 

Sean FlynnCo-published on atlantic-community.org.

As the 7th Round of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) gets underway behind closed doors in Chevy Chase, Maryland, it is an opportune time to ask what proponents of a successful TTIP should learn from the latest failed trade agreement negotiation involving the U.S. and Europe – the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA).  Continue reading »

FacebookTwitterRedditStumbleUponWordPressTumblrBlogger PostEmailPrintFriendly