Current Global News & Emerging Issues in Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) as of February 2026

Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) are at the centre of global legal, economic and technological debates in 2026. Rapid advances in artificial intelligence, the digital economy, biotechnology and cross-border trade are testing the limits of traditional IP frameworks. Courts, governments and international organisations are responding with new regulations, policy shifts and landmark decisions. Here is a clear, up-to-date overview of the key IPR issues shaping the world right now.

1. Artificial Intelligence vs Copyright Law

One of the most pressing global IPR issues is whether AI-generated content can be copyrighted and whose rights are implicated when AI systems are trained on protected works.

Across jurisdictions: Courts are grappling with authorship and originality in AI-generated music, text and images. Content creators are challenging the unauthorised use of copyrighted material for training large language and generative AI models. Policymakers are debating new disclosure and licensing requirements for AI training data.

International bodies such as World Intellectual Property Organization are leading discussions on harmonised approaches to AI and IP, recognising that fragmented national rules could stifle innovation while failing to protect creators. Balancing innovation with creator rights in the age of generative AI.

2. Patent Wars in Technology & Pharma

Patent disputes remain intense in semiconductors, telecommunications (5G/6G), biotechnology and pharmaceuticals.

Current trends include: Increased litigation over standard-essential patents (SEPs) in telecom technologies. Ongoing debates on patent evergreening and access to affordable medicines. Tensions between public health priorities and patent monopolies, especially in developing economies. Countries are also reviewing compulsory licensing provisions to address emergencies while staying compliant with international obligations under TRIPS. Key issue are protecting innovation without restricting access to essential technologies and medicines.

3. Global Trademark Challenges in the Digital Marketplace

With e-commerce and social media platforms dominating global trade, trademark enforcement has become more complex than ever.

Recent concerns include: Proliferation of counterfeit goods on online marketplaces. Cybersquatting and misuse of famous marks in domain names and social media handles. Liability of digital intermediaries and platforms for trademark infringement. Jurisdictions are strengthening intermediary guidelines and notice-and-takedown mechanisms, but enforcement across borders remains a challenge. Key issues include enforcing trademark rights effectively in a borderless digital economy.

4. Geographical Indications (GIs) & Cultural Ownership

Geographical Indications are gaining renewed global attention, particularly in Asia, Africa and the EU.

Recent developments show: Growing recognition of traditional knowledge and cultural heritage through GI protection. Trade negotiations increasingly including GI chapters, sometimes leading to disputes between countries. Conflicts over generic names versus protected geographical terms. The European Union, for instance, continues to expand GI protection in international trade agreements, influencing global IP diplomacy. Key issues are safeguarding local heritage while avoiding trade barriers.

5. Enforcement Gaps & Cross-Border IPR Violations

Despite stronger IP laws, enforcement remains uneven worldwide. Common problems include: Weak enforcement mechanisms in developing economies. High cost and time involved in IP litigation. Jurisdictional challenges in online infringement cases. Countries like India are focusing on specialised IP benches and digital enforcement tools, while international cooperation is being strengthened through multilateral forums. Key issue are translating strong IP laws into effective, accessible enforcement.

6. Policy & Regulatory Reforms Worldwide

Several countries are actively reforming their IP regimes to keep pace with technological and economic change: The EU is modernising copyright rules for the digital single market. India is refining its approach to patent scrutiny, trademarks and digital piracy enforcement. The US continues to witness intense judicial scrutiny of fair use, AI training data and patent eligibility. These reforms highlight a global trend toward adaptive, technology-responsive IP regulation.

What This Means for Stakeholders

For policymakers: Update IP laws to address AI, digital platforms and cross-border enforcement. Promote international cooperation to avoid regulatory fragmentation.

For innovators & creators: Reassess IP strategies in light of AI tools and digital dissemination. Monitor evolving case law on authorship, licensing and infringement.

For businesses & startups: Strengthen IP compliance and due diligence, especially in global operations. Protect brands and innovations proactively in multiple jurisdictions.

Final Takeaway: In 2026, Intellectual Property Rights are no longer confined to legal textbooks or courtrooms they sit at the heart of debates on innovation, creativity, public interest and digital governance. The challenge for the global community is to design IP systems that are fair, future-ready and flexible, ensuring protection without stifling technological progress.

Intellectual Property Challenges of Artificial Intelligence : By Prof. (Dr.) Tabrez Ahmad

The fast growth in Artificial Intelligence (AI), specially generative AI, has brought complicated issues to intellectual property rights (IPR) frameworks globally. Below is a detailed analysis of key issues and fast grwowing trends based on latest legal, technological, and ethical developments: 1. Authorship and Ownership of AI-Generated Content Defining Authorship: Traditional IP laws attribute authorship to humans, but AI-generated works (e.g., art, music, or text) blur this distinction. For instance, the European Court of Justice ruled that AI-generated content cannot have a human author, though the AI developer or user may claim ownership 611. In India, the Copyright Office initially recognized an AI tool (RAGHAV) as a co-author but later retracted the decision, highlighting legal ambiguities. Ownership Disputes: Courts and legislators are grappling with whether rights belong to the AI developer, user, or the AI itself. For example, IBM and MIT’s AI co-invented a semiconductor material, but patent laws in many jurisdictions (e.g., the U.S. and India) restrict inventorship to humans. 2. Infringement Risks in AI Training Data Data Scraping and Copyright: AI models like Stable Diffusion and ChatGPT rely on vast datasets, often scraped from copyrighted works. Legal disputes, such as Andersen v. Stability AI and Getty Images v. Stable Diffusion, center on whether unlicensed use of copyrighted material for training constitutes infringement. Courts are evaluating whether such use qualifies as "fair use" or violates derivative work protections. Regurgitation Concerns: AI outputs that closely mimic training data (e.g., verbatim text or near-identical images) risk infringement claims. However, proving "substantial similarity" remains a hurdle for plaintiffs, as most AI outputs are transformative. 3. Jurisdictional and Regulatory Fragmentation Divergent Legal Frameworks: The U.S. Copyright Office rejects AI-generated works for lacking human authorship, while the UK recognizes the AI system’s operator as the author. The EU is drafting legislation to address AI’s role in IP creation, but global consensus remains elusive. Cross-Border Enforcement: AI’s global reach complicates enforcement, as seen in cases like Alibaba’s AI-powered platform removing counterfeit goods across multiple jurisdictions. Blockchain integration is emerging as a tool to track ownership and automate licensing. 4. Ethical and Procedural Challenges Bias and Transparency: AI tools used for IP enforcement may perpetuate biases if trained on skewed datasets. For example, biased algorithms could disproportionately target certain demographics in trademark disputes. Litigation Hurdles: Plaintiffs face procedural barriers, such as proving specific copyrighted works were used in training data. In Millette v. OpenAI, only plaintiffs with registered copyrights could proceed, underscoring the importance of formal IP protections. 5. Policy Recommendations and Future Directions Adapting Legal Frameworks: The OECD’s GPAI report advocates for voluntary codes of conduct, standardized contracts, and technical solutions (e.g., data access controls) to balance innovation with rights protection. Collaborative Ownership Models: Joint ownership of AI-assisted works (human + AI) and recognition of original content creators in AI-generated outputs are proposed solutions. Recapitulation: AI’s transformative impact on Intellectual Proeprty demands proactive modification of laws, international cooperation, and ethical safeguards. Institutions and corporations should adopt AI tools for IPregulation & management, stay informed on legislative changes, and collaborate with legal experts to navigate this evolving landscape. For a deeper dive, refer to sources like the WIPO Conversations on AI 11 and the GPAI report on data scraping. Refrences: 1. https://omnuslaw.com/insights/ai-and-the-evolution-of-intellectual-property-in-2025/ 2. https://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/frontier_technologies/ai_and_ip.html 3. https://csipr.nliu.ac.in/miscellaneous/navigating-the-ip-landscape-in-the-age-of-ai-challenges-and-opportunities/ 4. https://techcrunch.com/2025/02/17/what-the-us-first-major-ai-copyright-ruling-might-mean-for-ip-law/ 5. https://www.debevoise.com/insights/publications/2025/01/lessons-learned-from-2024-and-the-year-ahead-in-ai 6. https://oecd.ai/en/wonk/ip-data-scraping 7.

Stay Home and Save Lives: Prevention is Better Than Cure from the Corona Virus Lead Disease of COVID-19

It is challenging to know at early stages when you are infected by the novel coronavirus that causes the COVID-19 disease. There is a most common and rare symptom loss of smell that could signal you must be tested. According to Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health epidemiologist Marc Lipsitch, the virus could ultimately infect between 40% and 70% of the population worldwide. Some people might show no symptoms at all but many of those cases would be mild, while the prospect of being infected with a new virus can be devastating. The most symptoms, as per the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), are fever, coughing and shortness of breath. These symptoms usually appear between two days and two weeks of exposure to the virus. Doctors recently added "loss of smell" as a potential symptom that may show up alone without any other symptoms, Live Science reported. 

As per the Journal of the American Medical Association, as many as 98% of COVID-19 patients who were hospitalized had a fever, between 76% and 82% had a dry cough, and 11% to 44% reported exhaustion and fatigue.  As per the current WHO ( World Health Organisation ) reports the coronavirus pandemic has killed more than 21,000 people worldwide, most of them in Europe. Most affected nations have called for complete lockdown to stop spread of the deadly virus.

The WHO said on 25^th March, 2020 that countries which have locked down their populations to prevent the spread of the coronavirus need to use the time to find and attack the virus. With 7,503 deaths, Italy is the most affected country ahead of Spain with 3,434 and China with 3,281, the country where the initial outbreak occurred. The United States has also seen over 900 deaths and some 60,000 infections.

Coronavirus has now spread to over 190 countries across the world affecting billions of people. "Asking people to stay at home and shutting down population movement is buying time, and reducing pressure on health systems. On their own these measures won't extinguish epidemics," said WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus*. *As per the Reports from India Today.

Physicians work with state health departments and the CDC to determine who should be tested for the new virus. However, the CDC also recommends that people with COVID-19 or any respiratory illness monitor their symptoms carefully. If you become ill with the said symptoms and think you have been exposed to the virus, the CDC recommends calling your doctor first rather than traveling to a clinic Worsening shortness of breath is reason to seek medical care, particularly for older individuals or people with underlying health conditions. The CDC information page has more information on what to do if you are sick.

The disease appears to become more severe with age, with the 30- to 79-year-old age range predominating the detected cases in Wuhan, where the outbreak began, according to a study in JAMA. Children seem to be at less risk of suffering noticeable symptoms of the disease. However, a recent study of 2,000 children confirmed or suspected to have COVID-19 found that 6% developed severe or critical illness. The study is detailed in the March 16 issue of the journal Pediatrics.

In more serious cases of COVID-19, patients experience pneumonia, which means their lungs begin to fill with pockets of pus or fluid. This leads to intense shortness of breath and painful coughing.

Ultimately, the decisions about who should be tested are left to the discretion of state and local health departments, according to the CDC. However Govts in various countries have taken right decision to lock down. This is one of the best strategy to control the further spread of the Corona Virus. But the problem is that few people in general not observing it seriously and taking it casual.

For the specific details and news please click the following links.

ü  Coronavirus in the US: Map & cases

ü  How long does virus last on surfaces?

ü  How does the coronavirus spread?

ü  How deadly is the new coronavirus?

ü  Is there a cure for COVID-19?

ü  How does it compare with seasonal flu?

Please click here for current Global updates on Covid-19

Please click here for current update in India of Covid-19

Wish all the Blog Readers a Very Happy New Year 2015

If we could stop for a minute to solve real problems facing humanity, instead of imaginary problems mystified with complex mathematics and vocabulary, we may be convinced to realize that education would have been one of the most luxurious adventures of mankind. If we don't have time to read a book in the New Year 2015, at least let us read and inculcate the thoughts of this message. It may make us think, to think is to expand, to expand is to gain and the thought process goes on. If we look on the bright side of things, we shall find enough to make us cheerful and happy. The most powerful thing in life... is our thinking, which has ability to change any situation. We often make two mistakes in our search of inner peace... focusing on things we cannot change, and ignoring things we can change.

As we all know that if we give smiles, they will be returned to us; if we speak pleasant, cheerful words, they will be spoken to us again. Our own words are the bricks and mortar of the dreams we want to realize. Our words are the greatest power we have. The words we choose and their use establish the life we experience. Therefore let us live our moments for what we are, not for what we may become. Let us always find time to tell those people we love, that we love them, care for them, or whatever they mean to us in our life. Life is precious, and we need to be grateful for each day we are given. We should not have only dreams but set goals and achieve what we would otherwise dream! Let us smile in trouble that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. Time heals all wounds, but only wisdom keeps them from reopening.

Making hundreds of friends is not a miracle. The miracle is to make a single friend like you who will stand by our side even when thousands are against us. The limitations of us are our own creation, designed to provide cover for our unwillingness to try. We should never be afraid to change our vision, set new goals, and challenge ourselves. Life is best experienced without boundaries; so let us live each day ceremoniously. In fact we are not bound to succeed, but we are bound to live by the light that we have. Let us stand with those whose stands are right, and remain with them while they are right. Let us seize the present opportunity; work with dedication and sincerity and enjoy it; this is the best reward that we can give to ourselves.  As we all came here, into this life, with our own music to play; each of us our own set of notes. Let's all play together nicely so that the world becomes a sweet music along the manuscript of life.

With these few words i wish you, your family and friends a very happy and successful year ahead.

Cheeky monkey! Macaque borrows photographer's camera to take hilarious self-portraits held not Copyrightable

In 2011, British wildlife photographer David Slater was traveling through the jungle in Indonesian when a crested black macaque grabbed his camera and started snapping selfies. Somebody posted the images in Wikipedia Commons, meaning anybody could use them for free. A legal battle ensued, with Slater claiming the images belong to him, and Wikipedia countering that the images belong to the public since they weren't created by a human. Wikimedia, the organisation behind Wikipedia, has refused a photographer’s repeated requests to remove one of his images which is used online without his permission, claiming that because a monkey pressed the shutter button it owns the copyright. The Wikimedia Commons is a collection of 22,302,592 images and videos that are free to use by anyone online, and editors have included Mr Slater’s image among its database. Slater, from Coleford, Gloucestershire, was on a trip to a small national park north of the Indonesian island of Sulawesi when he met the incredibly friendly bunch.

The crested black macaque is extremely rare and critically endangered.  These were part of a study group near a science base in the region, home to researchers from Holland. Slater teamed up with a local guide because I knew about the apes and wanted to photograph them. Slater now faces £10,000 in legal costs to recover his rights. And he’s got a good argument: Mr Slater said that the photography trip was extremely expensive and that he has not made much money from the image despite its enormous popularity. That trip cost me about £2,000 for that monkey shot. Not to mention the £5,000 of equipment I carried, the insurance, the computer stuff I used to process the images. Photography is an expensive profession that’s being encroached upon. They’re taking our livelihoods away. For every 100000 images I take, one makes money that keeps me going. And that was one of those images. It was like a year of work, really.

To capture the perfect wildlife image, you usually have to be in exactly the right place at precisely the right time. But in this instance, David Slater wasn’t there at all and he still got a result. Visiting a national park in North Sulawesi, Indonesia, award-winning photographer Mr Slater left his camera unattended for a while. It soon attracted the attention of an inquisitive female from a local group of crested black macaque monkeys, known for their intelligence and dexterity. Fascinated by her reflection in the lens, she then somehow managed to start the camera. The upshot: A splendid self-portrait. The U.S. Copyright Office addresses the dispute in the latest draft of its “Compendium Of U.S. Copyright Office Practices”, which was published on 19^th August, 2014. The previous compendium stated clearly that “Materials produced solely by nature, by plants, or by animals are not copyrightable.

First there was a lot of grimacing with their teeth showing because it was probably the first time they had ever seen a reflection.' They were quite mischievous jumping all over my equipment, and it looked like they were already posing for the camera when one hit the button. 'The sound got his attention and he kept pressing it 'At first it scared the rest of them away but they soon came back - it was amazing to watch. 'He must have taken hundreds of pictures by the time I got my camera back, but not very many were in focus. He obviously hadn't worked that out yet. 'I wish I could have stayed longer as he probably would have taken a full family album.

A musical work created by solely by an animal would not be registrable, such as a bird song or whale song. Likewise, music generated entirely by a mechanical or an automated process is not copyrightable. For example, the automated transposition of a musical work from one key to another is not registrable. Nor could a musical composition created solely by a computer algorithm be registered. Dances performed or intended to be performed by animals, machines, or other animate or inanimate objects are not copyrightable and cannot be registered with the U.S. Copyright Office.

It can be argued that if the photographer had set up the camera, framed the shot, and simply let the monkey click the shutter, perhaps there is some copyright there (though, even then it would likely be limited to some of the framing, and not much else). But David Slater has already admitted that the monkeys found a camera he had left out by accident and that he did not have anything to do with setting up the shot. He's stated that the monkeys were playing with the shiny objects and when one pushed the shutter, the noise interested them and they kept it up. It would be difficult to argue he made any sort of creative contribution here to warrant copyright. Can the monkeys get the copyright But since Slater is a British citizen and there are no international copyright laws, it's not clear how the case will pan out or whether Slater will continue to press the matter.

In the U.K., under the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988, a photographer can claim rights over an image even if he or she did not press the shutter button if the results are their “intellectual creation. However, such a case has never been tried in court and the outcome would be uncertain.

Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news

Review of the new UK Intellectual Property Act 2014

The Act will come into force between October 2014 and the end of 2015. It specially deals with product design, 3D Printing, fashion design, furniture or jewelry design. The Design Right protects the internal or external shape: two-dimensional designs or surface patterns; or configuration of an original design. This right will give protection for a period equal to the earlier of: 10 years from the first marketing of articles produced from the design; or 15 years from the date of creation of the design. It should be noted however, that during the last 5 years of this protection period the design is subject to a license of right entitling a third party to be granted a license to make and sell products copying the design. Typically design right protects commercially produced designs and not 'artistic' designs which will generally attract copyright protection.

The Act helps to speed the granting of patents by allowing the UK Intellectual Property to send patent information to other global offices. The goal is to reduce paperwork and to speed up the process for which patents are granted. This is a major help to business’s hoping for quick turnarounds on their patents. The law contains multiple provisions on how to solve patent design disputes.

The law synchronizes UK law with that of EU law in regards to IP law. This will provide consistency that will aid all businesses that do business in the EU. The laws regarding unregistered design right have been greatly simplified so as to clarify which aspects of the design are covered. These measures will also help bring a timely resolution to conflicts as to avoid long drawn out litigation. Although it will take a couple of years to see what impact these changes have, it is still promising that the UK was able to pass this law and hopefully it serves as a building block to provide further protection for companies. This comes at a time when the United States Congress could not come to an agreement for a new IP Bill. Hopefully, seeing a major world leader pass significant IP legislation will inspire Congress to also pass new IP legislation. The purpose of the new design law are to; simplify design law and allow the intellectual property framework to better support innovation; improve the enforcement of designs and understanding the design rights of others, and improve the processes associated with the design framework.

The law provide various changes like the initial ownership position in respect of registered designs is also changed, as for unregistered designs i.e. the designer will be the initial owner unless otherwise agreed, rather than the commissioner. The Act expands the exception from copyright infringement already available to registered UK designs to registered community designs, i.e. so that an authorised user of a UK or registered community design cannot be sued for infringement of associated copyright. Applicant does not need to be the owner of the design: The Act removes the requirement for the applicant of a registered design application to be the proprietor of the design. The Act makes intentional copying of a registered design a criminal offence. This applies to acts which take place in the course of business and the penalties for such an offence are now a fine or prison sentence. Again, this brings the penalties into line with sanctions for trademarks and copyright infringement. The Act gives Trading Standards officers similar powers of enforcement for design offences as those already available to them in respect of copyright and trademarks.

The Act grants power for the Secretary of State to implement the Geneva Act of the Hague Agreement in the UK, this means that international registration procedures will be available for UK registered designs. At present UK designers can only access the Hague registration process via the EU community design registration. New good faith exception to infringement: The Act introduces a right of prior use, allowing a third party who has acted in good faith to continue to use a registered design which is subsequently registered by another. The aim of this amendment is to provide an entitlement to limited exploitation in respect of uses already made.

One fundamental change to existing law is that the Act changes the deemed first owner of unregistered designs so that unless otherwise agreed, the designer will be the owner of the designs and not the person who commissioned the designs. Historically the first owner has been the commissioner. This amendment will bring design law into line with UK copyright law. The Act clarifies the definition of design so that to be original a design must not be commonplace in a 'qualifying country' rather than in the 'relevant design field', which caused confusion as to its geographical coverage. The definition of Unregistered Design Right has been amended to limit the protection for trivial features of a design. The Act has amended the provisions related to qualifying persons who can claim unregistered design right so that those who are economically active in the EU and other Qualifying Countries (as set out in the CDPA) have protection.

The Act extends the exceptions for infringing unregistered designs, so that acts done privately for no commercial purpose or for teaching will not infringe unregistered design rights. A similar exception applies for acts done for experimental purposes, this is to encourage innovation. The Act aligns the financial liability provisions for innocent infringement with those provisions under the Community Design Rights legislation. The Act allows a new route of appeal against Intellectual Property Office (IPO) decisions via an Appointed Person instead of appealing via the courts, such root already exist for trade mark appeals. This amendment is intended to allow appeals be cheaper and less time consuming. The Act clarifies that proceedings for an offence committed against a partnership must be brought against the partnership. The Act has added a new exemption to the Freedom of Information Act for information obtained in the course of or derived from a continuing programme of research, a report of which is intended for future publication, where disclosure would prejudice the report.

The Act provides for a voluntary non-binding opinion service to be introduced by the IPO which is similar to the opinions service which currently exists in respect of patents. There is an obligation on the secretary of state to report on the IPO's activities each year to show how innovation and growth have been supported in the UK. The Act provides for automatic extension of certain copyright provisions of the CDPA to materials of, and works first published in other countries i.e. it recognizes certain foreign works.

 It is expected that the Act will benefit many UK businesses and design professionals and make obtaining international registrations easier. If you are a designer or design company you should be aware of the implications of the new Act to your business. If you are commissioning a design, it is important to ensure that you have an appropriate agreement in place with the designer to ensure that the design rights are owned by you. It is advised that the right holders should review their standard terms and conditions and, where necessary, amend them to ensure that appropriate provisions are included. With £16 billion being contributed to the UK economy by intellectual property investment each year, you can see why modernising UK intellectual property law for the digital age is an important object of the UK Government. Whether the new Act achieves its objectives only time will tell us.

Source:

1. Effects of New UK IP Law- Tyler King- http://www.ipbrief.net/2014/06/30/

2. Laura Harper (http://www.shoosmiths.co.uk Intellectual-Property-Act-2014

Intellectual Property Strategy is Integral to Business Development Plan-Lessons for India

Intellectual property (IP) simply refers to any creation that can be leveraged for its innovation, ingenuity and monetary value. It typically includes patents, trademarks, copyright, which are the more commonly understood terms. Patents are the staple of the competitive advantage of businesses. If you look at your everyday use gadgets, the cellphone for instance, each one of them out there is protected by at least 400-800 patents. IP has been a ‘protection’ tool for companies for many years. However, the focus has now shifted from simply ‘protecting’ your IP assets to monetising these assets by licencing IP rights to third parties or by selling assets that are no longer core to the business. As per the current Merger & Amalgamation trends and the intense patent litigation between the biggest players in the smartphone field, it is evident that IP assets are at the core of both. The effective commercialization of inventions, creative ideas and innovations is going to lead economies of the world in coming future.

 As per US commerce Dept.  IP-intensive industries support at least 40 million jobs in the country and contribute more than $5 trillion (34.8%) to US gross domestic product (GDP). European nations aren’t far behind. Asia Pacific too is forging ahead with Korea, Taiwan and China paving the way. Intellectual-property based sectors in both developed and developing countries are substantial drivers of GDP and employment growth. The effective management of IP assets requires not to just managing the business but also more importantly to expand the business. To realise the commercial value of assets is the essence of the IP business today. That’s why you see that the world’s biggest and most successful businesses have one thing in common—their IP strategy has become integral part to their business development plans.

A typical IP strategy has three key steps like getting IP protection, managing IP and then maintaining IP. It looks like as three simple steps, but in-fact a way more complex business than that does an innovation need to be patented. The challenging economic climate of recent years has brought with it a sharper need for innovation in order for businesses to be able to differentiate themselves in the marketplace. Investment in IP will undoubtedly bring with it new technologies, that will eventually lead to fast economic growth.

In 2012, China received a total of 652,777 patent applications, the highest ever received by any single IP office. Among the top 10 IP offices, China’s IP office saw the fastest annual growth in filings received [+24%]. China topped the ranking for both the source (filings by China) and the destination (filed in China) for patents, utility models, trademarks and industrial designs. It recorded a double digit growth of 24%, making its share in the mentioned IPs the largest worldwide. This offers a glimpse into the IP supporting strategy that China has developed viz. a less restrictive R&D tax regime, reduced corporate income tax rate, big deductions for R&D costs, duty exemptions for R&D equipment and concessions for technology transfers. Recognising how critical IP is to economic growth, the Chinese government has incorporated IP into their national policies involving R&D and innovation. As a result, Chinese business investment in R&D remains strong with expenditure in 2012 exceeding $160 billion together with double-digit annual increases in R&D spend.

Apparently, in 2011-2012, intellectual property was responsible for driving close to $25 billion worth of M&A activities globally. In the US alone, 10 million jobs have been created with a need for three million more IP skilled graduates. India too is trying to develop and progress in the area of IP. To quote a few statistics, in 2012-13, 43,955 patent applications were filed in India—a rise from 8954 in 2008. Out of this, the number of applications filed by Indian applicants in 2011 and 2012 were 8841 and 9553 respectively, an 8% increase from the previous year.

Indian government and Indian MNCs should realize the monetary importance of IP and take lessons from Japan, USA and China to upgrade and reformulate its strategy accordingly. The following steps are sine-qua-non like to upgrade the existing system for online filing of applications and update all IP records to benefit the IP stakeholders and to facilitate the retrieval of data from IP offices. Revision and enactment of IP laws to create a research culture to turn India into an innovation conglomerate. This will help India to get an edge and extract the real benefit of IP-Commercialization, monetization and maintain its claim of future economic power.

Sources:

1.        WIPO IP Statistics Data Center.

2.       http://www.financialexpress.com/

World Intellectual Property Day - April 26, 2014.

Wish you all the Intellectuals a great World Intellectual Property Day - April 26, 2014.

In 2000, WIPO's member states designated April 26 – the day on which the WIPO Convention came into force in 1970 – as World IP Day with the aim of increasing general understanding of IP.  Since then, World IP Day has offered a unique opportunity each year to join with others around the globe to consider how IP contributes to the flourishing of music and the arts and to driving the technological innovation that helps shape our world.

Now there is a great need to dwell and realise the complex emerging issues of IP Law. As what used to be science fiction is now fact. But what’s next? What is the future beyond the future? What disruptive technology is now just an idea bouncing around a young engineer’s mind? Who will create the next online sensation that again changes how we talk to each other? What new music will emerge from a garage somewhere to rock the world’s dance floors or unnerve the academy? Who are tomorrow’s great artists and innovators? How are they working; how do they create? And how will they get their creations to market in a world where the game changes, almost daily? The future?  Ask the next generation.

World IPR Day Celebration at CoLS, UPES Dehradun

The World IPR Day celebration, 2014 will be organized by the IPR Cell of College of Legal Studies, UPES in association with UCOST (Uttrakhand State Council for Science & Technology) R & D (UPES) and Center for Innovation & Entrepreneurship (CIE) on 28th April. The celebrations will include IPR awareness, a brief video on intellectual property, Debate and Essay writing competition where any undergraduate and post graduate student is welcome to participate irrespective of the discipline. There will also be release of the draft UPES IPR policy, a poster presentation and exhibition highlighting creativity and innovation of the students.

In 2000, WIPO's member states designated April 26 – the day on which the WIPO Convention came into force in 1970 – as World IP Day with the aim of increasing general understanding of IP.  Since then, World IP Day has offered a unique opportunity each year to join with others around the globe to consider how IP contributes to the flourishing of music and the arts and to driving the technological innovation that helps shape our world.

The UPES has emerged as a premier institution and the first Indian Energy University, working towards building the nation by creating skilled professionals to drive the economy. Its College of Legal Studies (CoLS) is a unique domain-specific college with specialization in courses such as Energy Law, Corporate Law, Cyber Law and IPR. In furtherance to our objective of becoming a distinctive and successful institution in the domain specific sector, the College organized various events regularly. This World IP Day celebration aims to keep alive the importance of IP in the business world.

GPMLex (Global Peace Movement): Wish All the Blog Readers a Very Happy New Year 2014

GPMLex (Global Peace Movement): Wish All the Blog Readers a Very Happy New Year 2014

Conference on ‘The Copyright Amendments, 2012: A fair Balance?’

[The following is a conference announcement from the Intellectual Property & Technology Law Society] The MHRD IP Chairs at the National University of Juridical Sciences (NUJS) and the Cochin University of Science and Technology (CUSAT) are jointly hosting a two-day Conference on ‘The Copyright Amendments, 2012: A fair Balance?’ at NUJS on November 27 and 28, 2012. The conference is supported by the NUJS Law Review and the Intellectual Property & Technology Law Society (IPTLS). The Indian Copyright Act, 1957 has been amended six times to date in 1983, 1984, 1992, 1994, 1999 and this year. The latest and the most voluminous of all the amendments so far, introduces wide-ranging changes, some of which have no parallel in any copyright regime, marking a new beginning to India’s copyright jurisprudence, industry practice and social justice. The provisions affect an array of stakeholders, to name a few: lyricists, directors, record labels, copyright societies, public libraries, disabled, intermediaries and enforcement agencies. As with most legal policies, the amendments seek to balance various competing interest groups, ranging from the entertainment industry to disability rights groups.  The Conference will set the stage to brainstorm and reflect on the changes and various interpretative challenges to the provisions. The stellar panel put together by the organizers comprises academicians, policy makers, IP practitioners, industry voices, civil society organizations and students. And not to mention those responsible for the changes itself to give a comprehensive account to the legislative history of the amendments.  Here's a glimpse of what these two days will bring forward The keynote address by noted composer and lyricist Javed Akthar will be followed by an overview to the amendments by Prof. N. S. Gopalakrishnan and history of the amendments by the Registrar of Copyrights, Mr. G. R. Raghavender.  Session I on ‘Copyrights & Entertainment Sector’ will undertake a discussion on provisions affecting Bollywood and the entertainment industry from eminent voices in music industry and legal practice. This includes a Round Table Discussion on the provisions and its impact on industry with experts such as Pravin Anand (Managing Partner, Anand & Anand), Rakesh Nigam (CEO, IPRS), and Deepak Jacob (Star India) participating.  Session II on ‘Copyrights & Technology’ will brainstorm on the worrisome tech-related provisions of the Copyright Act. In particular, the session will dissect the intermediary liability and technology enforcement measures including Technological Protection Measures (TPMs) under the Act.  Session III on ‘Copyright Limitations & Exceptions’ comprising strong voices from the civil society organizations and legal academia will evaluate the laudable exceptions to copyrights in the amendments and will also take stock of missed opportunities. The Panel features Prof. Basheer, Rahul Cherian (Inclusive Planet), Pranesh Prakash (Centre for Internet & Society), Lawrence Liang (Alternative Law Forum), Abhishek Malhotra (TMT Law Practice) and SpicyIP’s Amlan Mohanty.  Session IV on ‘Copyright Enforcement, Adjudication and Governance Issues’ will address the constitutional challenges to the Copyright Board and transparency concerns in collecting societies. This Session features Ananth Padmanaban and SpicyIP’s most prolific blogger, Prashant Reddy.  The tentative schedule for the event can be accessed from here. If you wish to join in on any of the panels and have something interesting to say on any of these provisions, please do drop us an email at iptls@nujs.edu (with a copy to shamnad@gmail.com) informing us. If there is space in any of the panels, we will certainly accommodate you. Else, we look forward to your participation as a member of the audience. And we really hope you can join us and enrich the discussion.  The conference is just the start  The aim of the conference is to generate papers on the various themes outlined above which will culminate into both:  1.      a journal issue: the Special Issue of the NUJS Law Review  2.      a book to be published by the publishers of the NUJS Law Review, Eastern Book Company (EBC).  The book will contain expanded versions of the papers in the journal. Edited by Prof. Basheer, it will be the first comprehensive book to deal with the copyright amendments. Apart from the value it promises to bring to IP practitioners, policy makers and students, we aim to produce articles that could proffer interpretative assistance to courts confronted with litigation in the immediate aftermath of the amendments.  Registration  The conference is open to all. Those interested to attend the conference are requested to send an email to iptls@nujs.edu with their names and designations by November 20, 2012. No registration fee is required for students enrolled in any university and non-profit organizations. For others, the fee is Rs 5000 for registering and attending. You will also be invited to the gala evening (with a creativity theme) we have planned on the 27th night. - IPTLS

CopyrightLex ( Copyright Law India): Twitter to replace copyright violating tweets with takedown notice

CopyrightLex ( Copyright Law India): Twitter to replace copyright violating tweets with takedown notice

TrademarkLex (Trademark Law India): Apple loses trademark battle to iFone in Mexico

TrademarkLex (Trademark Law India): Apple loses trademark battle to iFone in Mexico

GILex (Geographical Indication Law India): Pattamadai Mats May Get GI Mark Soon

GILex (Geographical Indication Law India): Pattamadai Mats May Get GI Mark Soon

Intellectual Property Appellate Board revokes patent on Roche's Pegasys; victory for Hepatitis-C patients

In a landmark victory for patients' groups fighting against patents, the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) has revoked a patent granted in India to Roche for Pegasys, a medicine used to treat Hepatitis C.

The order followes an appeal filed by a Mumbai-based non-profit organisation, Sankalp Rehabilitation Trust, challenging the rejection of its post-grant opposition by the Patent Office. The appeal was against a decision the IPO delivered in March 2009, which rejected the Trust's post-grant opposition against the grant of patent for Pegasys (Peg-Interferon a2a). The appeal is allowed through the IPAB order now.

Source: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-11-02

War of Games

The makers of famous games in Facebook as "Cityville", " Farmville" etc. Zynga LLC has found itself in muddy waters when a French company Kojobo SAS introduced new game named as "Pyramidville". Zynga claiming trademark infringement over the mark "Ville" as it is very popular in the social networking arena and has over billions of players worldwide who plays the game and identifies the word designated to Zynga. Zynga filed the infringement action suit in California Court against Kojobo SAS for violation of Fedral Lanham Act. Zynga claiming dilution and unfair competition in the suit has also claimed its mark as well known. It is another instance of battle of trademarks popular in internet or social network domain. It is to be seen whether the California court is going to allow Zynga LLC for the injunction or not.

The original suit can be accessed on: 

http://www.scribd.com/document_downloads/direct/92406442?extension=pdf&ft=1336449422&lt=1336453032&uahk=bepjOU/daH3IcV4peFwEWg/McGA

GI Status to Gujarat's Kutchi shawls

The colourful Kutchi shawls, woven with motifs in one solid colour throughout, has been granted the Geographical Indication (GI) tag, a move which is expected to benefit its hereditary weavers in Kutch region of Gujarat. The GI registration of this shawl will convey assurance of quality and distinctiveness -- essentially attributed to the place of its origin in a defined geographical locality. 

Gabhubhai Vankar, President Kutch Weavers Association (KWA)  said that we have been granted the GI tag for our Kutchi shawls, which is famous worldwide. The tag will provide a push to its marketing and also help check the cheap imitation being done in other parts of the nation. . 

--

Prof. (Dr.) Tabrez Ahmad,

Program Director 

College of Law, Alliance University,

 City Campus -2^nd Cross, 36^th Main, Dollars Scheme, BTM 1^st Stage 

Bangalore -560068

Central Campus- Chandapura - Anekal Main Road, Bangalore – 562106

tabrez.ahmad@alliance.edu.in

Websites: My Website <Website > Website,  My Blogs , 

Profiles: Google, Linkedin , Facebook,  Peerpower

 CV ,  Research Papers , Presentations , Twitter ,  Video ,

Technolex Facebook

Phone: 080-30938100

Novartis Case by Supreme Court and Evergreening of Patent

NGO's, activists and others protested recently outside Novartis's annual shareholders meeting in Basel, Switzerland, and also at Novartis offices in New York, Washington, and Cambridge, Mass., demanding that the company drop the case. Demonstrators complain that Novartis is trying to stop generic reproductions of its drugs that millions in poor countries depend on. The problem started when the Chennai HC approved the Govt. of india's decision not to grant patent to Gleevec. Novartis appealed in the Supreme Court of India, and the case has been winding through for the last six years and now the Court is preparing to hear final arguments this month. It represents a high-stakes showdown between defenders of intellectual property rights, who say the generic knockoffs stifle innovation by drug makers, and Indian drug companies and international aid groups, who warn that a ruling in favor of Novartis could dry up the global supply of inexpensive medicines to treat AIDS, cancer, and other diseases. The said drug is approved by United States Food and Drug Administration in 2001. The drug, which is sold outside the United States by Novartis as Glivec and known generically as imatinib mesylate, has turned deadly chronic myelogenous leukemia into a manageable chronic disease for many patients. It is also used to treat a form of gastrointestinal cancer.

India is the world's third-largest drug producer by volume and exports about $10 billion worth of generic medicines every year, more than any other country, primarily selling to other fast-growing developing countries that are expected to become significant new markets for big drug companies. The decision could also help determine how much Western drug companies invest in India at a time when they want to increase sales in emerging markets to compensate for slowing business in the United States and Western Europe. India resumed granting drug patents in 2005 as part of a World Trade Organization agreement on patents, but medicines created before 1995 did not qualify. And that's where the disagreement arises over Gleevec The case before the Supreme Court revolves around Section 3(d) of The Indian Patent Act 1970, that prohibits a newer form of a known substance from receiving a patent unless it significantly improves the medicine's "efficacy," or effectiveness. The standard was aimed at preventing a practice known as evergreening, in which a pharmaceutical company makes minor changes to existing drugs and earns new patents, thereby providing many more years of protection from generic competition.  Gilead Sciences, for instance, is appealing India's rejection of a patent application for its drug Viread, or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, which is used to treat H.I.V. infection. And Roche is fighting several court cases to uphold its patent on the anticancer drug Tarceva, or erlotinib, that Indian drug makers argue does not meet the effectiveness standard. Courts have allowed generic versions of that drug to be sold in India while the case is being litigated. India's patent law does not define "efficacy" or say how it should be measured. Novartis is arguing that the term should encompass modifications that might make a drug safer or easier to use, not just more effective in treating a disease. It says more than 40 other countries have granted a patent on Gleevec.Novartis maintains that the current version of Gleevec is 30 percent easier for the body to absorb than an older chemical that it developed but never marketed as a drug. The older compound was patented in the United States, Europe and elsewhere in the early 1990s, but not in India because India did not allow patents on drugs at that time.

Generally when drug companies discovered a compound that fits some specifications in a test tube or animal study, they patented it to protect themselves from copycats. But that initial compound is often not suitable for use as a drug because it might not be absorbed into the bloodstream well enough, or it might be chemically unstable, or unsafe. So, modifications are made until a suitable form is found, and that new form is then also patented. The United States and European Union often grant patents for chemical modifications of existing drugs.The chances are there that the victory for Novartis would not shut off the production of generic Gleevec or of other existing generics, but could impede the ability of Indian manufacturers to develop generic versions of future drugs. The decision of the case will clarify about what kind of innovation is and is not patentable in India. The court while interpreting Section 3 (d) of the Patent Act 1970, must keep in mind the balance of the need for innovation and public health.

--

Prof. (Dr.) Tabrez Ahmad,

Program Director 

College of Law, Alliance University,

 City Campus -2^nd Cross, 36^th Main, Dollars Scheme, BTM 1^st Stage 

Bangalore -560068

Central Campus- Chandapura - Anekal Main Road, Bangalore – 562106

tabrez.ahmad@alliance.edu.in

Websites: My Website <Website > Website,  My Blogs , 

Profiles: Google, Linkedin , Facebook,  Peerpower

 CV ,  Research Papers , Presentations , Twitter ,  Video ,

Technolex Facebook

Phone: 080-30938100