Calling all IP Teachers and Researchers in Africa!

Calling all IP Teachers and Researchers in Africa!

By Afro Leo   Friday, February 16, 2018   No comments:

Afro Leo is very excited to learn that the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and the World Trade Organisation (WTO) are organising the first Regional WIPO-WTO Colloquium for IP Teachers and Researchers in Africa.

This WIPO-WTO Colloquium will be held from April 9 to 12, 2018 followed by IP Scholars Africa Conference, hosted by University of South Africa (UNISA) on April 13, 2018, both held at UNISA in Pretoria, South Africa. 

The Colloquium for IP Teachers and Researchers in Africa will:

• provide IP academics in the region with a greater understanding of current international developments in IP law and policy, and the status of WIPO and WTO agreements and ongoing work with bearing on IP, focusing on current activities of particular relevance to the African context; 
• map existing IP teaching and scholarship in Africa, promote cutting edge research focused on the region, and encourage the publication of high quality research as a means of building domestic capacity for adapting and applying policy options within the framework of international IP standards and the broader legal and policy context;
• provide a forum to build academic collaboration, including on current teaching methodologies in the area of IP law, with a view to strengthening collaborative networks and academic exchanges across Africa so as to build sustained policy and legal capacity in African developing countries; 
• identify how WIPO and the WTO can improve their support for teaching and research capacity on international IP law in Africa, on IP teaching, academic exchanges, and a stronger network of African IP scholars and teachers; and
• prepare for the publication of presented research papers in the "WIPO-WTO Colloquium Papers: 2018 Africa Edition".

The Colloquium will be linked with the Works-in-Progress Conference “IP Scholars Africa” hosted by the SARChI Chair, UNISA, in order to:

Provide a platform for IP teachers and researchers selected by WIPO, the WTO and UNISA to present their research work in progress to a larger audience of experts at the Conference.  WIPO and WTO officials will participate in plenary panels to offer information about work in the WIPO and WTO, including on areas of capacity building and technical assistance, to a larger audience of IP scholars in Africa and beyond.

• Offer the opportunity for WIPO and WTO to identify IP teachers and scholars in the region and create a more comprehensive database of IP scholars and their institutions, including for their future contribution to the delivery of technical assistance in the region. 

For more information please contact Karen Zaayman at zaaymcj@unisa.ac.za or wipo-wto-ipsacolloq@wipo.int

Scholarships

Between 15 to 20 scholarships are available from WIPO and the WTO for IP teachers and researchers preparing a paper for publication in the 2018 Colloquium Papers Edition.

Scholarships cover: return ticket; fees related to the Colloquium; full board and lodging.

Successful applicants for WIPO and WTO scholarships will be notified by the WIPO Academy and the WTO Intellectual Property, Government Procurement and Competition Division. Thereafter, they will be provided with relevant information, including travel arrangements.

Kindly inform your colleagues and friends who qualify to participate in the Colloquium and IP Scholars Africa to apply online. All applications are done online: WIPO Academy (link no longer available). Deadline for applications is: February 25, 2018.

Read More

Upcoming Events for Africa’s IP Gurus

Upcoming Events for Africa’s IP Gurus

By Afro Ng'ombe   Thursday, October 16, 2014   No comments:

Two IP events relevant to Africa recently wandered onto this Little Leo’s hunting grounds.  For those who have the inclination and ability to travel, these are worth checking out.

Uganda

Next Monday, 27th October, the Uganda Christian University and Center for Health Human Rights and Development (CEHURD) as a participant in the Open AIR project are presenting a public lecture on Intellectual Property and Innovation in Africa. 

The program will feature world renowned experts and Open AIR researchers Dr. Jeremy de Beer and Dr. Chidi Oguamanam, both coming from the University of Ottawa in Canada.  Both are also contributors to the Open AIR books Innovation & Intellectual Porperty: Collaborating Dynamics in Africa and Knowledge & Innovation in Africa: Scenarios for the Future, which were released last December at the Open Air conference in Cape Town. (Afro-IP posts on the conference here.)

The lecture is from 2pm – 4pm Monday in lecture room (M3) at Uganda Christian University Mukono.  If you are interested in attending, please RSVP with Ms. Primah Kwagala at kwagalap@gmail.com.  There is a book launch event the following day, 28 October at Protea Hotel Kampala from 9am – noon.  Tickets for the book launch are available through Eventbrite.

Geneva

WIPO, WHO and WTO are collaborating on a program covering Innovation and Access to Medical Technologies – Challenges and Opportunities for Middle-Income Countries on 5 November.  This all-day event (8:30am – 5pm) will cover plenty of hot topics, including Ebola, trends in medical technologies, and challenges in ensuring access to medical technologies.  Full pdf schedule here.

Since roughly half of the countries on the continent are classified as middle-income countries in some way (one list here), this program could be relevant to a number of Afro-IP readers.  It’s also nice to see the big organizations collaborating together to discuss important issues.  Registration is open until 3 November through the WTO site.

 

If any readers are able to attend either of these programs, we’d love to hear reports back about them.

Read More

International IP Summer-Up-North Programs

International IP Summer-Up-North Programs

By Afro Ng'ombe   Thursday, May 29, 2014   No comments:

One might say, “better late than never,” or one might say, “darn you Little Leo! This looks great but the notice is too short.”  Let’s hope for the former in this case.  [You can take the lion out of Africa but you can’t take African village time out of the lion?]

An American university, called American University, has teamed up with a variety of scholars, practicing attorneys, WIPO and the WTO to present a summer series of Intellectual Property-focused courses for law students and attorneys alike.  Participant hopefuls can apply for the full set of courses or individual topics.  Two course are taught in Geneva, at WIPO and the WTO, respectively; the rest are in Washington, DC.  The first courses kick off rather soon, on 2 June, but it does look like applications are still being accepted, at least for the later courses.  The Geneva courses do not begin until 1 July.

The conversations in these courses (at least the conversations the organizers of these courses hope they will have) are exactly the kind that can benefit from more African IP voices.  If you’re great with doing things on the fly, and particularly if you’re already near DC or Geneva, it’s worth taking a look at the program.  This is an annual thing, so if you can’t attend this year, you can start planning for next.

Full info is available here: http://www.wcl.american.edu/pijip/go/resources-for-students/summer-session

Courses and dates are as follows:

• Introduction to International Intellectual Property Law I: Foundations June 2-5
• Introduction to International Intellectual Property Law II: Practicum June 2-5
• IP Management and Business Strategy June 6-7
• IP Protection of Mobile Applications June 9-10
• Intellectual Property and Sustainable Development June 11-12
  (This Little Leo is very excited to be attending this one)
• Copyright, Clearance & Fair Use in the Film Industry June 13-14
• Standard Essential Patents June 16-19
• Design and Fashion Protection June 16-19
• Post Grant Review Before the Patent and Trademark Office June 16-19
• Pharmaceutical Regulation and Litigation Under Hatch Waxman June 20-21
• International Intellectual Property at the World Intellectual Property Organization 
  July 1-July 19
• The World Trade Organization: Rule Making and Dispute Settlement July 1-July 19

Read More

Ethiopia to join WTO in 2015?

Ethiopia to join WTO in 2015?

By IPcommentator   Wednesday, July 10, 2013   No comments:

This Leo has just learned from Reuters that Ethiopia may officially join the WTO club in 2015. According to the report, Ethiopia will 'apparently' not be signing off a lot; for example, by significantly liberalising its economy. Perhaps, this may well be as a result of the streamlined entry standards agreed last year for least-developed countries (LDCs). 

As a LDC and currently a non-WTO Member, Ethiopia would, generally, not be concerned with the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) extension for LDCs last month. But a little scratch  beneath the surface reveals an already-established interest in IP.

In fact, Afro Leo feels that Ethiopia has generated tangible publicity in relation to IP (for example, see here, here, here and here) than some African countries who are current WTO Members. And, when it comes to the A-Z series, Ethiopia's IP office has a commendable web presence when compared to some - not to mention others who do not even have any.

Let's see what happens in 2015.

------------------------------------------------------------
Why the WTO thinks open trade is good, see here
Is Ethiopia a signatory to the Marrakesh Treaty? Yes she is!

Read More

Hurray! LDCs offered 8 years TRIPS extension: Enough or not enough?

Hurray! LDCs offered 8 years TRIPS extension: Enough or not enough?

By IPcommentator   Monday, June 17, 2013   No comments:

This blog has followed the TRIPS extension debate and development this year here and here since over 70% (25 out of 34) of WTO member countries categorised as least-developed countries (LDCs) are in Africa. Today, this Leo learns from the WTO press release (dated 11 and 12 June 2013), that a decision has been reached on TRIPS extension for WTO LDC members. 

The WTO Council for TRIPS have agreed to extend the transition period for LDCs to implement the TRIPS Agreement until 1st July 2021 - with an option to seek further extension beyond 2021 ('The 2013 transition period agreement') or until such a date on which they cease to be LDC, whichever date is earlier. Without this extension, LDCs would have been expected to provide for intellectual property rights protection stipulated under the TRIPS Agreement from 1st July 2013 pursuant to the initial extension in 2005.

This Leo highlights these key points although 2 and 3 are closely linked:

1. Patents for pharmaceuticals intact: The 2013 transition period extension agreement does not apply to the current expectation on LDCs to provide for patent protection for pharmaceutical products from 1st January 2016 ('The 2002 transition period agreement'). (Afro Leo notes that LDCs have the right, like they have successfully done this month, to seek for a further extension of the 2002 agreement)
2. Non roll-back provision: Unlike the stronger wording in the 2005 transition period extension agreement, LDCs have now only expressed a willingness not to reduce or do away with their current IPRs protection if they have already voluntarily implemented TRIPS. (Afro Leo thinks that most have voluntarily done so or probably coerced to do so by trading partners). 
3. May continue to implement and/or apply TRIPS: LDCs may continue with their progress in TRIPS implementation and fully utilise its flexibilities such as introducing compulsory licensing to get around patent rights and this does not count as rollback. Developed countries are also expected to offer incentives to support LDCs' technological base.

Comment

Basically, the 2013 extension agreement does not entirely exempt LDCs from implementing and/or applying TRIPS. They are free to implement TRIPS if they wish to do so and as a gesture of goodwill, have expressed an intention to take necessary steps in readiness for the 2021 implementation deadline. In addition to this kindness, they have also agreed to act in good faith by not reducing or scrapping the protection they already provide for under TRIPS.

Obviously, this news will not be all that positive or encouraging for some while others may well think it is a fair compromise. (Whichever side you sit on, even WTO's news headline 'The least developed get eight years more leeway on protecting intellectual property' sounds as if the extension is somewhat not enough or fair, says chuckling Afro Leo). 

Fikremarkos Merso argues, as reported by this blog here, that "...Extending the transition period under TRIPS is just one step. There is also a need to address the underlying issues beyond extension such as helping LDCs build their technological base and better integrating IP and development, rather than focusing on mere implementation and compliance. Comprehensive work is required to identify trends, gaps, successes and challenges facing African LDCs in this area. Finally, the issue of the LDC TRIPS extension should be considered in the context of LDCs that are in the process of WTO accession."

Considering that this Leo is not a development expert, he currently takes no firm view on whether an eight (8) year extension or an indefinite extension is the right or wrong solution. What he is eager to see is more transparent and useful IP technical assistance and capacity building initiatives which would enable both developing countries and LDCs develop sustainably and navigate TRIPS for their respective socio-economic development and needs. (Afro Leo finds it interesting that the enhanced technical cooperation provision has been dropped this time around. So back in 2005, developed countries were expected and eager to assist developing countries and LDCs in need of TRIPS implementation but this is now irrelevant or not needed in the 2013 extension agreement. How come and why? And, what about those LDCs who have been assisted to implement TRIPS considering that they agree not to reduce or scrap whatever IP regime they have put in place. Essentially, the lucky ones are those who have not put anything in place to begin with)

We welcome your general comments on WTO's decision, including on the following:

(a) Do you think 8 years is enough?

(b) Do you agree with Fikremarkos Merso's view? 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For a history on TRIPS and LDCs, see here
For global academics's expert support for unconditional extension of TRIPS, see here
For ICTSD's commentary on this, see here and for IP-Watch, see here

Read More

Ugandans Fight for More Time

Ugandans Fight for More Time

By Afro Ng'ombe   Friday, May 31, 2013   No comments:

Several organizations in Uganda have joined with Haiti in pressuring the WTO to extend the deadline for Least Developed Countries (LDCs) to comply with TRIPs.  The desired extension time: indefinitely.

Haiti submitted the Request for an Extension of the Transitional Period Under Article 66.1 of the TRIPS Agreement on behalf the WTO LDC Group in November of last year.  According to news(1) reports(2), several Developed Countries are pressuring the TRIPS Council to deny or limit Haiti’s request.  TRIPS-structured talks between LDCs and Developed Countries have put on the table a limited extension of 5 to 7.5 years and a “no rollback” provision that would prevent LDCs from removing TRIPS compliant provisions from their laws.

Ugandan organizations* are working to build pressure in the opposite direction.  The organizations have submitted a letter to the WTO Council Chair in support of Haiti’s request.  They have petitioned the East African Legislative Assembly to apply pressure in support of the request.  They have also written to several developed country-Ambassadors to Uganda, outlining the consequences for Uganda of not receiving an extension or introducing the suggested no-rollback provision.  A media campaign is underway to inform people of the LDCs’ concerns.  Organization representatives quoted in The Observer stressed the importance of ensuring Ugandans’ access to HIV medications and the country’s need to develop a competitive technological base, sentiments that echo Haiti’s concerns. 

Article 66.1 of TRIPS states:

In view of the special needs and requirements of least-developed country Members, their economic, financial and administrative constraints, and their need for flexibility to create a viable technological base, such Members shall not be required to apply the provisions of this Agreement, other than Articles 3, 4 and 5, for a period of 10 years from the date of application as defined under paragraph 1 of Article 65. The Council for TRIPS shall, upon duly motivated request by a least-developed country Member, accord extensions of this period. (emphasis added.)

The TRIPS agreement was signed in 1994.  Everyone was granted an initial grace period of one year and LDCs were granted an additional 10 years.  The LDC exemptions were set to expire at the end of 2005.  Zambia made a request in 2005 for an extension as outlined in Article 66.1 on behalf of the LDC members.  The TRIPS Council granted that extension, moving the compliance deadline to 1 July 2013.

Haiti’s request differs substantially from Zambia’s request in that it asks for LDCs to be exempt from full compliance as long as they remain LDCs.  While the TRIPS provision mentions “10 years,” for the original exemption time period, it mentions nothing about time limits for extensions.  In this respect, Haiti’s request is within the bounds of the agreement.  However, Afro Leo wonders if it’s a good idea.

Least Developed Countries are designated by the United Nations, unlike Developing Countries which can designate themselves into that category.  33 of the 48 Least Developed Countries** are in Africa.  (See UN Factsheet.)  There is no set number of countries that must be LDCs, for example, LDCs are not the bottom 5% of countries.  Rather, LDC status is determined by 3 factors: per capita income, human assets and economic vulnerability.  Since the LDC status was introduced, three countries have improved enough to graduate off the list.  Two of these, Botswana and Cape Verde, are African.  This shows that a change in status is possible.  (Full LDC Report.)

Would an indefinite exemption for most TRIPS provisions provide reverse incentives to remain on the LDC list?  Once a country graduates from LDC status, it can still designate itself a Developing Country for WTO purposes.  TRIPS does provide extended deadlines for Developing Country compliance, but these deadlines have all passed by now.  The only remaining benefit to being a Developing Country under TRIPS is the technical cooperation from developed countries granted under Article 67.  Therefore, in order to not be in immediate violation of TRIPS, current LDC members need to be in full compliance with TRIPS before graduating from LDC status.

While purposeful holding back on development could be a risk of granting the indefinite extension, this Little Leo thinks it too risky to LDCs for any country to purposely pursue.  (But she has been told she gives too much benefit of the doubt in general.)   More likely is that a permanent extension would allow LDCs to focus on elements of development in the orders that best suit their individual country circumstances.  As LDCs focus on development and continue to engage in the international discussions on IP, they will begin implementing laws and regulations that comply with TRIPS provisions.  Not all at once, but piecemeal.  This Little Leo predicts there will also be some tradeoffs where certain implementations are required by the international community in exchange for progression in the areas of Traditional Knowledge, Expressions of Folklore and Genetic Resources, areas being championed by Devolving Countries.

Afro-Leo is interested to hear others’ thoughts on the extension request.

Hat tip to Primah Kwagala of CEHURD for links to several articles on this topic.

* Ugandan organizations involved in the appeals:
1. The Center for Health, Human Rights and Development (CEHURD)
2. The Aids Support Organisation (TASO)
3. Uganda Network on Law, Ethics and HIV/AIDS (UGANET)
4. Coalition for Health Promotion and Social Development (HEPS -Uganda)
5. The HIV/AIDS Alliance
6. Health GAP
7. The National Community of Women Living with AIDS (NACWOLA)
8. The Mariam Foundation
9. Health Advocates Network(HAN)
10. Community Health and Information Network (CHAIN)
11. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights –Uganda Country Office (OHCHR)
12. SALT –Uganda
13. Uganda Youth Against AIDS foundation (UYAF)
14. The Action Group for Health, Human Rights and HIV/AIDS (AGHA)
15. Southern and Eastern African Trade Information & Negotiations Institute Uganda

** LDCs: Afghanistan, Angola, Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Kiribati, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, Niger, Rwanda, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sudan, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Vanuatu, Yemen and Zambia.

Read More

Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) and TRIPS: A reader's comment

Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) and TRIPS: A reader's comment

By Anonymous   Monday, December 17, 2012   No comments:

Having raised curiosity on the effectiveness of Article 67 of TRIPS in 'TRIPPING on IP Technical Assistance parts I and II', this blog is pleased to host this comment by Tom Suchanandan of the South African Department of Science and Technology. Taking a slightly different perspective, this is what Tom had to say regarding the use of FTAs by developed countries to derogate from the flexibilities under TRIPS:

"Just some concerns which should be brought to the fore in the implementation of Article 67 of TRIPS. It is obvious that DC have no intention in committing to its implementation. FTA have been the vehicle to work around Article 67. In all fairness DC should take measures to clarify and where necessary amend FTA provisions. My concern is that most FTA have a non-derogation clause – hence it is not clear if this clause would override a specific obligation to relinquish flexibilities under TRIPS. 

A careful study of these FTAs seems to effectively take away flexibilities under TRIPS in many respects for example protection of information. Some of these FTAs go even further and require automatic patent term extension. So what’s the point in having domestic IP offices when the rules of engagement are determined outside  national borders. What is more ridiculous in the FTAs is that test data and term of protection are linked which effectively makes mockery of domestic laws. Perhaps DC should get together and ensure that  all flexibilities under TRIPS should be retained and respected in the FTAs. 

To ensure that flexibilities are respected the IP components in the FTAs must clearly spell the objectives of IP with the focus of assisting developing countries in strengthening their IP offices.  Where developing countries have entered into FTAs should seek creative ways to amend or at least clarify those provisions that impede the development of strong national IP legislation.  Similarly, those developing counties intending entering into FTAs should resist for example changing patentability or any other IP criteria to conform to DC standards.  

In sum my view is that FTA’s have turned IP on its head – rather than having a harmonized treaties on patents, copyright etc we should have a treaty on FTA."

Afro Leo & Zebra
 happily signed a FTA to swap diets

Yet more questions?

Indeed, Afro Leo envisages how certain regional and bilateral FTAs between developed and developing/least-developed countries can become like suitcases stuffed with a copy of the TRIPS Agreement-PLUS and other IP brochures and manuals for the latter to swear by. 

As this Leo knows little to nothing about FTAs, he would be grateful for further insights from other readers on this topic. So please do share any thoughts in general, or on the following:

(1) What do you think of the concern that "....most FTA have a non-derogation clause – hence it is not clear if this clause would override a specific obligation to relinquish flexibilities under TRIPS"? 

(2) Should there be a "treaty" governing FTAs?

(3) Do FTAs derogate from specific obligations under TRIPS, in particular, Article 67?

(4) Is it better for African countries to negotiate and enter into FTAs as a bloc or bilaterally?

(5) Are African countries not yet well-represented or getting better at negotiating and entering into these IP-related agreements?

(6) Is this the sort of area where PAIPO (see here, here and here) becomes a welcomed development in terms of negotiating IP-related agreements on behalf of African countries?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A short summary on the potential impact of FTAs on public health, see here
The failed US-SACU FTA in hindsight, see here
The potential impact of TRIPS-plus in the US-SACU FTA could have been, see here

Read More

TRIPPING on IP Technical Assistance: Part II

TRIPPING on IP Technical Assistance: Part II

By Anonymous   Wednesday, December 12, 2012   No comments:

In part I of this two-part piece, this Leo picked excerpts  from Article 67 of TRIPS and then set out a series of questions scrutinising the effectiveness of the provision in ensuring holistic IP technical assistance from developed-country WTO Members (DCs) to developing and least-developed country WTO Members (D/LDCs). This investigation continues here in part II where we consider phrase (B) - which this Leo has split into two strands:  

• ...as well as on the prevention of their abuse,..... 
• and shall include support regarding the establishment or reinforcement of domestic offices and agencies relevant to these matters].

The first strand - including its foregoing in bold red - tells this Leo that DCs are not just required to assist D/LDCs become TRIPS-compliant, but shall also support them utilise the flexibilities within TRIPS. In particular, it states that DCs ought to assist D/LDCs in framing IP laws and policies which will withstand or deter potential abuse of IPRs. This Leo further reads the second strand as placing a duty on DCs to play a role in the establishment and/or the sustainability of domestic IP offices and agencies in D/LDCs. So, the curiosity is as follows:

    (1)  Why would any IP enthusiast easily believe that a DC, such as the USA, would want to assist D/LDCs get around their TRIPS commitment or ensure they fully apply its flexibilities? (Afro Leo is thinking that the opposite is the case - a DC is more likely to push for TRIPS-plus);

    (2)   If the mandate in Article 67 is for the advancement of domestic IP offices in D/LDCs, why is there also the increasing links and support through regional organisations such as ARIPO and potentially coming soon, to the much criticised over-arching PAIPO? (Digressing, Afro Leo does not even feel that the regional organisations (ARIPO and OAPI)  are supported well enough. If you consider their status in Africa and compare that to their websites,  one would expect their websites to look like either of these: OHIM, BOIP or EPO);

     (3)   Is it fair and reasonable (cheeky, says Afro Leo) to interpret “reinforcement of domestic IP offices” as not just meaning, 'the training of personnel and the like', but to also include equipping the IP offices across Africa for 21^st century IP administration and practice? (Afro Leo notes that there are countries in Africa (e.g. here and here) whose houses are in order in this regard - as things appear online); and

(4) Which sort of "agencies relevant.." are we referring to here? (To Afro Leo, "agencies" resonates as 'IP enforcement').

Conclusion

Taking parts I and II together, it seems to me that a proper debate is due on the effectiveness and benefits of Article 67 as this specific area receives little or no attention in the midst of the often heated arguments on the form and/or existence of IP laws in D/LDCs.

Before drawing my conclusions, it is worth pointing out that the level of economic development, resources and IP activities across Africa varies and hence the need for a tailored approach in any technical assistance rendered. Furthermore, and although not the focus here, this Leo does not lose sight of the various IP technical assistance projects undertaken by WIPO including the IP information service in collaboration with some DCs. (Afro Leo says, the expectation that in a 21^st century, all IP registries across Africa should have an online presence is a plausible one. He feels that the same effort put in by DCs to assist African countries draft and/or enforce the sort of IP laws and policies, by will or pressure, on a par with theirs should also be put towards making sure that the IP offices in these countries operate online for benefit of interested parties within or outside a given country.)

Perhaps, it would be too costly for a DC to provide the IP office of an African country (or even ARIPO or OAPI) with a fully functioning database-integrated website. As this Leo found out, in 2008, the UK Intellectual Property Office (UK IPO) rebuilt its website at a cost of £362,000, and currently maintains it at an annual cost of £258,000. Although one would not expect those two figures to be the same in a D/LDC, in some way, it paints a picture as to why most African countries – especially, the less well-off ones - would be reluctant to commit sparse funds to a website slightly comparable to that of the UK IPO. (Afro Leo knows that some African countries are resource-rich and may well afford it, but wonders whether the income they generate are actually used  to solve their critical problems. He also feels that IP is, probably, at the bottom of the list of priorities for most African countries though some are beginning to take serious notice of it recently)

The only thing that is clear to this Leo about Article 67 is that IP technical assistance to D/LDCs is not exclusive to multi-lateral institutions such as the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO).  Having broken Article 67 into bite-sizes, he remains sceptical - hypothetically speaking - because it feels as if DCs are comfortable and busy performing well on those excerpts highlighted in bold red in part I (e.g. training D/LDCs to enact and enforce IP laws and policies - sometimes strict ones); while there appears to be little appetite to seriously work on phrase (B) above - a part which may well be more advantageous to D/LDCs. This doubt is further exacerbated because there are no clear repercussions if  DCs fail to act in accordance with the spirit and letter of Article 67.

Therefore, this Leo is left to conclude that Article 67 is not an obligation in its strict sense; rather, a gratuitous interest-driven and one-sided commitment to get everyone fully on-board (Just because a great majority of African IP offices lack an online presence does not mean Article 67 is not fit for purpose or does not work, Afro Leo warns. But he also holds similar views that Article 67 is based on a DC's own terms). The hope is that one day, readers would be able to visit the website of any IP office in Africa to conduct searches for prior art or earlier registered trade marks as well as get relevant IP news update. DCs can make this day come sooner rather than much later.

Maybe, the problem does not lie within Article 67 after all; what do readers think.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

To search the records of technical assistance by developed countries, see here (This year alone, developed-country WTO members such as European Union (including its individual Member States), Canada, United States, Australia, Norway, Switzerland, Japan and New Zealand have all offered assistance and cooperation to D/LDCs. Most of these were in the form of training, workshops and seminars geared towards enforcement of IPRs)

For a factsheet on WTO’s trade-related technical assistance, see here

Read More

TRIPPING on IP Technical Assistance: Part I

TRIPPING on IP Technical Assistance: Part I

By Anonymous   Monday, December 10, 2012   2 comments:

This blog’s second year running campaign on the online visibility of the intellectual property (IP) offices in Africa makes it inevitable that it would share any news or thoughts on matters relating to these offices, the IP regime they operate in and generally, on the development of knowledge-based economies across Africa.

In a two-part post, this Leo would briefly shine a spotlight on the technical assistance provision under the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). He is doing so in order to awaken thoughts on whether there is a real and serious “obligation” on developed-country WTO Members to advocate for the most favourable implementation of TRIPS and assist IP offices  across Africa upgrade to 21^st century working standards.  (Afro Leo warns that internet access and basic infrastructure is still a working progress across the continent) Though this post focuses on the North-South cooperation, regard should be had to the recent drive towards South-South IP cooperation.

TRIPS and IP Technical Assistance

TRIPS did not just establish minimum standards of IP regime for developing and least-developed countries (D/LDCs) to follow (NB: when the latter’s transitional period expires), it also contains flexibilities which allow these countries to address critical socio-economic needs and at the same time, be TRIPS-compliant.  Under the same agreement is the so-called Article 67 obligation on developed-country WTO Members to provide technical and financial cooperation assistance to D/LDCs WTO members to enable them effectively utilise and implement TRIPS. In order to ensure compliance - or transparency, to be precise - with Article 67, developed-country WTO Members agree to publish records of their technical assistance.

Article 67: Technical Cooperation

“In order to facilitate the implementation of this Agreement, developed country Members shall provide, [on request and on mutually agreed terms and conditions], technical and financial cooperation in favour of developing and least-developed country Members. Such cooperation shall include assistance in the preparation of laws and regulations on the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights [as well as on the prevention of their abuse, and shall include support regarding the establishment or reinforcement of domestic offices and agencies relevant to these matters], including the training of personnel.”

Questioning Article 67

To this Leo, the highlighted phrases in the above Article 67 are worth bearing in mind; but the salient ones which go to the heart of this post are:

(A) [on request and on mutually agreed terms and conditions]; and

(B) [as well as on the prevention of their abuse, and shall include support regarding the establishment or reinforcement of domestic offices and agencies relevant to these matters].

First in this two-part post, let us look at phrase (A). According to Article 67, D/LDCs have to actually put in a request for IP-related assistance and this would - as one would infer - be considered, negotiated and on the terms and conditions agreed by both parties (Afro Leo is not sure if the protocol involved in “request” is an onerous one, but it is clear that the policy is: “ask and it shall be given unto you”. But Afro Leo also understands the sayings: “A beggar has no choice” and “He who pays the piper calls the tune” are often true - if not always). Consequently, my thoughts on this part are as follows: 

(1)  if I were to buy into Afro Leo’s sayings, would it not be safe to conclude that D/LDCs really had no say in what they have been offered so far or what they can be offered in the future by developed-country WTO members?

(2) Is Article 67 really an obligation considering that there is no consequence if a developed-country WTO Member fails to provide assistance? Also, is it fair that it is rare, if not impossible, to bring a WTO dispute proceeding against a developed country such as the USA for not providing the requested assistance when the same USA can bring a similar action against a non-compliant country identified in its Special 301 Report?

(3) What sort of “mutual” terms and conditions are we talking about here: That technical assistance is offered on the condition that the recipient shall enact and/or enforce stringent IP laws/policies?; And, in whose interest is it to have IP laws on a par with international standards?

(4) Is there not an inherent inequality of bargaining power and obligations within this so-called “Article 67 commitment” since a developed-country WTO Member could refuse the terms and conditions put forward by a D/LDC? What options does a D/LDC have in such an event?

Readers, over to you for comments. Part II to follow.

Read More

Medicines for Rwanda -- but what about the 'drug miles'?

Medicines for Rwanda -- but what about the 'drug miles'?

By Jeremy   Monday, October 19, 2009   No comments:

Shire Canada Inc., a division of Shire plc, announced today its voluntary cooperation to enable further royalty-free access to HIV/AIDS medicines for Rwanda as part of that company's ongoing collaborative efforts to improve health and save lives in the developing world.

Shire is a supporter of Canada's Access to Medicines Regime (CAMR) -- under which Canadian generic companies can manufacture in Canada a fixed dose triple combination antiretroviral medicine that contains 3TC(R), a patented drug over which Shire Canada owns the local patent rights. According to Shire Canada VC Claude Perron,

"Shire is totally supportive of this initiative, and will work collaboratively with government and non-governmental agencies worldwide to help secure medicines for those that request it. Our industry wide efforts are aimed not only at preventing and treating HIV/AIDS but also tuberculosis, malaria and other diseases that affect sub Saharan Africa."

The CAMR is a positive consequence of the August 2003 World Trade Organization (WTO) agreement which lets WTO member countries with pharmaceutical manufacturing capacity issue licences for the manufacture and export of generic versions of patented drugs and medical devices to developing countries that do not have the capacity to manufacture the products themselves.

What Afro Leo would like to know is what steps are taken to transfer to Rwanda, and other HIV/AIDS-rife jurisdictions, the necessary technology and know-how to enable them to manufacture vital patented medicines locally rather than have them sent half way round the world, virtually from the Arctic to the equator. Once the principle of licensing the manufacture of generics is accepted, there must surely be a more efficient way of doing it. In developed countries, foods flown in from developing African economies are often tainted with the environmentally hostile stigma of 'food miles'. Surely the same can be said of the 'drug miles' clocked up by pharma products travelling in the opposite direction.

Read More

Balancing importance of IP and Health

Balancing importance of IP and Health

By techla10   Sunday, May 25, 2008   No comments:

Following stories of widespread proliferation of fake medicines in Uganda, the New Vision Newspaper has since reported that fake drugs were impounded and destroyed by burning in Soroti, Eastern Uganda.

Meanwhile, on the global scene, IP Watch reports on the recent closing ceremony of the World Health Organization(WHO)and its global strategy on IP and health. According to this report by William New, the closing hours of the global health assembly saw the draft plan of action spark of debate on "on the role of the World Health Organization in intellectual property-related matters".

The intense debate on the direction of the WHO's program on Public Health, Innovation and Intellectual Property led representatives from Brazil and India to assert that “WHO’s primacy as the technical agency for health" and that "the mandate and its core competencies will not be allowed to be diluted".

In the broader context, how to balance health issues with commercial issues(and IP) remain areas of contention, especially for most countries in Africa. It is important that WIPO, in particular its Africa bureau take a leadership role in supporting member countries to deal with counterfeits through technical assistance to reduce the negative effect fake drugs are having on various health innitiatives. This will ensure that the WHO maintains its focus on health matters, and is not percieved to be veering into manifestly commmercial/ trade related areas which are better left to the WTO's TRIPS council.

Read More