Abstract: The Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) is a large regional trade agreement involving twelve countries. It was signed in principle in February 2016 but has not yet been ratified in any of the participating countries. The TPP provisions place a range of constraints on how governments regulate the pharmaceutical sector and set prices for medicines.
Abstract: In the past few years, the Trans-Pacific Partnership has garnered considerable media, policy and scholarly attention. Rarely analyzed and only occasionally mentioned is the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP). This Agreement is currently being negotiated among Australia, China, India, Japan, New Zealand, South Korea and the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Launched in November 2012 under the ASEAN 6 framework, the RCEP negotiations build on past trade and non-trade discussions between ASEAN and its six major Asia-Pacific neighbors.
The civil law tradition was one of the obstacles when civil societies and lawmakers tried to introduce flexible and open-ended fair use exceptions into the Korean Copyright Act (“KCA”) in 2005 and 2009. According to opposers, the fair use doctrine, developed under the rules of equity in common law countries such as the U.S., did not fit with the Korean civil law system.
Senior copyright industry experts described the Trans Pacific Partnership and other recent free trade agreements as likely setting a “high water mark” for intellectual property commitments in trade agreements. The statements came as part of a symposium last week on Trading in IP: Copyright Treaties and International Trade Agreements sponsored by Columbia Law School’s Kernochan Center for Law, Media, and the Arts.
Steve Metalitz, Partner at Mitchell, Silberberg & Knupp LLP and long-time Counsel to the International Intellectual Property Alliance, kicked off the discussion
95 health, community and development organisations in the Asia Pacific region call on trade ministers to reject provisions that would negatively affect access to generic medicines in the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership agreement
The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) is a free trade agreement (FTA) currently under negotiation between the ten member states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) (Brunei, Burma (Myanmar), Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam) and countries with existing FTAs with ASEAN which includes Australia, China, India, Japan, South Korea and New Zealand.
[Tessel Mellema, Sophie Bloemen and Peter Maybarduk, Link, (CC-BY-NC)] The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) negotiations pose serious risks to Europeans’ access to medicines and affordable healthcare. TTIP is likely to help entrench a broken medical innovation system rather than seize today’s opportunities to advance medical innovation and affordable access to medicines for all.
Abstract: From the debate among presidential candidates on whether the United States should ratify the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Agreement to the arbitrations Philip Morris and Eli Lilly have sought through the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism, the investment-related aspects of intellectual property rights have recently garnered considerable policy, scholarly, and media attention.
This growing attention, to some extent, has brought back memories about the time when the WTO TRIPS Agreement began to transform intellectual property law by redirecting our focus to the trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights. Whether the recent developments on the investment front represent yet another paradigm shift in intellectual property law remains an important academic and policy question.
The Cato Institute has released a report that “presents a chapter-by-chapter analysis of the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) from a free trader’s perspective.” It notes that TPP is really more of a “managed” or “freer” trade agreement than an agreement that really promotes “free trade” in a classic sense. It finds that overall, the “terms of the TPP are net liberalizing,” but that some of the individual chapters – including the intellectual property chapter – are actually “protectionist.”
Abstract: This paper contains the outline, as well as the introductory and concluding chapters of a monograph on the protection of intellectual property (IP) in the wider context of international law (OUP, 2016). Against the background of the debate about norm relations within and between different rule systems in international law, the book construes a holistic view of international IP law as an integral part of the international legal system.
The first part sets out the theoretical foundation for such a holistic view by offering several methodological frameworks for the analysis of norm relations in international law.
Medicins Sans Frontiers press release, Link
The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal is currently under consideration by the US and eleven other Pacific Rim nations: Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. The agreement is slated to further expand its membership, potentially to all 21 Asia Pacific APEC nations.
Abstract: The Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) is a large regional trade agreement involving 12 countries. It was signed in principle in February 2016 but has not yet been ratified in any of the participating countries. The TPP provisions place a range of constraints on how governments regulate the pharmaceutical sector and set prices for medicines. This article presents a prospective policy analysis of the possible effects of the TPP on these two points in Canada and Australia.
The New Zealand Parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade has posted draft legislation to bring its law into compliance with the Trans Pacific Partnership, as well comments on the legislation, all of which are available here. The following excerpt from the comments submitted by Google New Zealand focuses on the importance of a “flexible and dynamic” copyright exception.
Google believes that in order to promote innovation and creativity, New Zealand should adopt copyright exceptions that allow the market, new technologies and new creativity to evolve. New Zealand needs not only technologically neutral copyright protections, but also dynamic, technology neutral exceptions that allow new, legitimate uses of copyright and services to evolve as technology evolves.