Innovation Council Analysis on IGC talks at WIPO
This detailed analysis by the Innovation Council critically examines the proposed international instrument with respect to the patent system, R&D, and avoiding legal uncertainty. We highlight challenges in achieving transparency, legal certainty, and the impact on R&D commercialization. With insights into the balance between protecting indigenous knowledge and fostering innovative landscapes through the patent system, this report underscores the need for clear definitions and harmonized global standards.
Click here to read our analysis.
WIPO SCP Statement: SEPs Sharing Session
The following document is an account of the statement made by Innovation Council at the World Intellectual Property Organization surrounding the EU standard essential patents (SEPs) regulation. We provide a summary of discussions that took place in WIPO and highlight common misconceptions about SEPs in the real economy before ending with some key takeaways.
Click here to read our statement.
WIPO SCP Statement: IP and COVID
The following document is an account of the statement made by Innovation Council at the World Intellectual Property Organization surrounding the role of intellectual property during COVID. We emphasize how IP was crucial in fostering collaboration, investments, and expanding biomanufacturing capacity.
Click here to read our statement.
Letter: Brussels patent revamp imperils Europe’s mobile industry
InterDigital CEO and President, Liren Chen, discusses SEP regulation in this letter to the editor of the Financial Times. The message is clear: regulators should tread carefully. In his convincing argument, Chen discusses why preserving a balance between innovators and implementers is key and advises the use of market based solutions.
Click here to read the letter.
Summary of TRIPS Council Special Session Presentation
This document provides a synopsis of the remarks made by Jennifer Brant, the executive director of Innovation Council, at the TRIPS Council Special Session in September of 2023. Jennifer discusses three of her most prominent works: Unprecedented (2021, co-authored with Prof. Mark Schultz), Making Biologics (2022), and Biomanufacturing Resilience (2023). She noted that the topic of the Special Session – extension of the 2022 TRIPS decision – is really about ensuring adequate health products supply and extending biomanufacturing capacity, for health security.
Jennifer spoke in her personal capacity.
Click here to read the synopsis of her remarks.
Q&A: Cellular Technology Standardization and the EU SEP Regulation
The Standard Essential Patents Regulation (SEP Regulation) is moving through the EU legislative process, with the draft Regulation now under review by the Parliament. This background document presents the fundamentals of cellular technology innovation, standardization, and IP management. It also unpacks key elements of the draft Regulation. It is intended to serve as a resource for lawmakers and other stakeholders, to provide context for the EU legislative process.
Click here to read the background document.
IP Europe blogs on the new SEP Regulation – Part 2
As the SEP Regulation moves through the European legislative process, experts continue to question whether the draft Regulation (a) responds to the concerns raised by the Commission and (b) whether the concerns motivating development of the Regulation exist, based on evidence.
IP Europe has published a series of blogs arguing that the Commission is pushing through new legislation without evidence indicating there is a need for such action. In the third blog, IP Europe focuses on SMEs arguing that that SMEs’ involvement litigation regarding SEPs is rare. The author suggests the Commission may have theorized the problems that SEP litigation is causing for SMEs rather than relying on empirical evidence to form conclusions. In the fourth blog, aggregate royalties is the focus. The author points to the Commission’s perception that there is an absence of information about SEPs and licensing, and thus more SEP disputes, when in reality the Commission’s own impact assessment does not support this. In the fifth blog of the series, IP Europe argues that there is no support for the Commission’s claim that the dispute resolution system for SEP-related disputes is flawed, once again questioning the need for the new Regulation.
IP Europe blogs on the new SEP Regulation – Part 1
As the SEP Regulation is moving through the European legislative process, questions have been raised as to whether the draft Regulation (a) responds to the concerns raised by the Commission and (b) whether the concerns motivating development of the Regulation exist, based on evidence.
IP Europe has released a series of blogs arguing that the Commission are pushing through new legislation without evidence to support the decision. In the first two blogs, the author notes that the Commission appear to have ‘cherry picked’ the evidence that supports the Regulation and has focused on complaints by larger technology companies rather than taking an impartial view of the situation. Furthermore, the IP Europe blogs present data indicating that SEP litigation and FRAND disputes are generally declining, another basis for questioning the need for the new Regulation.
“Navigating the Pandemic: How Different Partnership Models Supported the Response Against COVID -19” – hosted by IFPMA.
To raise awareness about the different forms of voluntary collaborations, particularly those related to technology transfer, IFPMA hosted a working lunch in Geneva in June.
Several partners shared insights and experiences about their COVID-related manufacturing partnerships. The discussion touched on the types of bottlenecks that slowed the pandemic response – and how these can be tackled in the coming months.
Particularly fascinating is the part of the session starting at minute 46 where the panel discussion with industry experts begins.