INPI's modernization under discussion

It is no news that the backlog of the Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office ("INPI") is a major issue - possibly the most crucial one - within the Brazilian IP landscape. A possible lack of political interest in tackling the main problems within the INPI structure has been preventing any major developments. Nonetheless, Brazil is currently in times of change.

The undergoing impeachment procedure might affirm Temer, the current Acting President, as the man in charge and with it a new party in power (with possible new policies).

Taking the opportunity of these winds of change, several activities have been held to discuss the future of the country, and this is the same with IP. In an event held on July 8th in Brasilia, the "Business Mobilization for Innovation" ("MEI"), a group within the "National Confederation of Industry" ("CNI"), presented several proposals related to the goal of enhancing innovation in Brazil. Among those, the optimization of INPI was highly discussed.

The event had the presence of the Acting President, Michel Temer, who could hear about the current issues related to INPI. Besides him, the President of the INPI, Luiz Pimentel, was also present as well as many big political figures and around 150 leaders of major companies with activities in the country.

In a presentation held during the event, Pedro Passos, from the Brazilian cosmetic company Natura, highlighted the importance of reducing the backlog to stimulate innovation in Brazil, as well as the operational improvement of INPI. In the context of this debate, Robson Andrade, the chairman of the National Confederation of Industries of Brazil ("CNI"), said that Acting President Michel Temer pledged to discuss and support measures to promote innovation, including the reduction of the time for examining patents within the INPI.

It is important to highlight that the MEI has an agenda with six priorities, the first of which involves the Industrial Property, namely:
- Regulatory framework for innovation and industrial property;
- A governmental framework for innovation;
- Financing innovation;
- Global Integration via innovation;
- Human resources for innovation;
- Small and medium-sized innovative companies.

In a separate occasion, during an interview to CNI about the 20th anniversary of LPI, the President of the INPI noted that the improvement of INPI's operational performance is being done in four main areas: (1) increase in personnel, related to the hiring of staff already approved in the test; (2) optimization and automation of the examination process of applications for IP rights; (3) governance, related to improvement of the infrastructure and a search for the economic autonomy that is provided in LPI Art. 239; and (4) national and international cooperation to improve even more the quality of examinations, the training of the examiners and the awareness of the need for IP.

On July 11th, the President of INPI, Luiz Pimentel, and the Deputy Minister Fernando Furlan participated in a meeting of the Strategic Council of the Industry Federation of the Brazilian State of Santa Catarina. In this meeting, it was stated that the solution to the backlog and the valorization of the career of the examiners is a top priority of MDIC.

It is true that in early June INPI was able to hire 70 new patent examiners, bringing the tally to around 270 patent examiners. It is difficult to believe that this might have a direct impact on solving the backlog. INPI did take a large step in starting a PPH with the USPTO. However, considering that INPI only applications containing claims directed to oil, gas, or petrochemical inventions, only a couple of dozen cases have been accepted so far.

We do hope that Brazil can solve the current deadlock of the backlog of applications pending examination, but with the steps taken so far, it is still difficult to see how far ahead they can go. Let's hope that these winds of change may push INPI to different approaches that can be more pragmatic into solving this very complicated issue in Brazil.

Post written by Roberto Carapeto, Attorney at law at the Tokyo office of Licks Attorneys.

El conocimiento tácito

La voz «conocimiento» tiene significados variados según su uso contextual.

En la concepción económica el conocimiento tiene un rol central en las investigaciones relativas a las organizaciones, con un amplio elenco de consecuencias en la teoría de la dirección de empresas y, en términos más generales, en la teoría económica.

Para la reciente Directiva 2016/943 son secretos comerciales los conocimientos técnicos y la información empresarial de gran valor que no se han divulgado y se quieren mantener confidenciales. Esta información debe ser secreta, comercialmente valiosa y sometida a medidas razonables de protección, según exige la norma.

Por su parte el RECATT (Reglamento de exención por categorías de acuerdos de transferencia de tecnología Nº 316/2014) define los conocimientos técnicos como un conjunto de información práctica derivada de pruebas y experiencias, que es secreta, sustancial y determinada.

Dentro del contexto económico, uno de los usos dados a la palabra conocimiento, es el relacionado con la noción de Gestión del Conocimiento (Knowledge Management). Este concepto multidisciplinario reúne estrategias, herramientas y técnicas combinadas que coordinan recursos humanos, tecnología y procesos, y puede ser definido desde perspectivas sistemáticas, de las ciencias del conocimiento o de negocios. En este último sentido, puede decirse que consiste en la creación, captura, organización, acceso y uso de activos intelectuales (o capital intelectual), a través de un enfoque colaborativo e integrado, para la obtención de resultados positivos en los negocios de la empresa. En este contexto se le considera como un «recurso competitivo».

En este último ámbito, todas las contribuciones teóricas de la Gestión del Conocimiento tienen como centro común el análisis de las organizaciones desde una perspectiva basada en los conocimientos que éstas poseen.

Dentro de este escenario se han diferenciado varias clases de conocimiento, siendo relevante aquella clasificación que distingue dos conceptos fundamentales: el conocimiento explícito o codificado y el conocimiento tácito.

Esta división conceptual -formulada por Polanyi y desarrollada por Nonaka & Takeuchi- es relevante desde un punto de vista jurídico. Determina las formas que adopta la información objeto de intercambio comercial, no limitada a la tradicional transferencia de conocimiento codificado (v.gr. el paradigmático acuerdo de cesión o licencia), sino que abarca, además, al conocimiento tácito (en especial el técnico), que adquiere trascendencia en los procesos de conocimiento (v.gr. de externalización organizacional como los contratos KPO o de I+D), por tratarse de un vínculo de cooperación entre empresas/entidades, de mayor nivel de relaciones entre sus recursos humanos, por su propia función y propósito.

Las relaciones entre conocimiento tácito y codificado, objetivo y subjetivo y las skills and knowledge, tienen puntos de contacto con el secreto empresarial y figuras de externalización de procesos de conocimiento como formas servicios intensivos.

Esta concepción bifronte del conocimiento (tácito / codificado) se basa en tres ideas centrales: (i) que un conjunto articulado de reglas o algoritmos no alcanza para explicar el descubrimiento verdadero; (ii) que el conocimiento es público y, dado que es construido por seres humanos, es en gran medida personal y contiene emociones; y (iii) existe un conocimiento que subyace al conocimiento codificado y que es más fundamental que el mismo y es el conocimiento tácito.

Así, codificado es aquel conocimiento racional y objetivo que puede expresarse en palabras y números y ser compartido en forma de datos, fórmulas científicas, especificaciones, manuales y soportes similares. Este conocimiento puede ser correctamente transmitido entre individuos, formal y sistemáticamente. En cambio, el conocimiento tácito es altamente subjetivo y experiencial, difícil de formalizar y compartir con otros (v.gr. creencias, modelos mentales, ideas, intuiciones, redes, perspectivas), por lo que requiere ser articulado para su codificación.

El conocimiento tácito está profundamente enraizado en las acciones y experiencias personales, así como en ideales, valores o emociones del sujeto, existiendo dos dimensiones: una técnica y otra cognitiva. La dimensión técnica del conocimiento tácito abarca el tipo de habilidades y destrezas personales, a menudo referidas a un saber-hacer (know how). La dimensión cognitiva, en cambio, consiste en creencias, ideales, valores, modelos mentales, etc. los cuales están profundamente arraigados en cada sujeto, y que habitualmente se da por hecha.

En materia de contratación de I+D+i la distinción es relevante, pues se incardina con el factor más crítico en esta clase de procesos de conocimiento, cual es la propiedad intelectual relacionada con las operaciones, tanto con relación al background, como al foreground y al sideground. Este deslinde conceptual determina, en último término, las formas que adopta la información objeto de intercambio comercial y sus resguardos. Así, el concepto conocimiento explícito o codificado, corresponde, de forma principal aunque no exclusivamente, a aquellos bienes inmateriales susceptibles de ser transferidos por medio de los mecanismos de propiedad intelectual (en sentido amplio, que incluye la propiedad industrial), sometiéndose a sus estándares generalmente aceptados (v.gr. contenidos en los ADPICs, en el CUP, en las legislaciones nacionales, etc.).

Por su parte, respecto del denominado conocimiento tácito debe efectuarse una nueva distinción. En principio, este tipo de conocimiento tiene correspondencia con las denominadas skills and knowledge de los recursos humanos de las empresas y se le considera como difícil de transferir separado de los sujetos poseedores, pues se dice que viajan juntos. La dimensión teórica se enlaza con el concepto jurídico de la contratación intuitu personae, que establece una vinculación obligacional basada en la identidad o calidad de las personas que contratan o que ejecutan las actividades de las empresas (como entidades jurídicas proveedoras de conocimiento) o en atención a la propia reputación de la entidad contratante, o a sus trabajadores, socios y/o administradores. Se trata, aquí, de contratos no celebrados –exclusivamente- intuitu pecuniae, sino esencialmente en atención a un know how codificado (y, por lo tanto, incorporable en el acervo de una persona no física identificable por signos distintivos en el mercado) o tácito-técnico, propio de las personas físicas que actúan por o para la empresa respectivamente obligada, como puede ser una empresas de ingeniería, laboratorios de desarrollo, desarrollos informáticos, abogacía, auditorías, diseño industrial o, en general, servicios con valor agregado.

El fenómeno de la personalización del contrato inter-empresas y sus consecuencias jurídicas es relevante en tareas de alta complejidad y carga intelectual, pues se puede considerar como una causa esencial para que las partes entren en relación de provisión de funciones por largo tiempo, en atención a personas determinadas, sean funciones directivas o funciones operativas, y determina el nivel de riesgo de la operación (por la incertidumbre en la obtención de los resultados relacionada con los recursos humanos destinados a su ejecución).

Una ponderación favorable a la disminución del factor de riesgo (comercial, técnico, financiero y/o jurídico), vinculada a ciertas cualidades técnicas y/o éticas de los sujetos vinculados a las empresas respectivas o a éstas mismas y a los resultados esperados según esa ponderación, pueden ser una motivación determinante para la contratación, junto con los recursos financieros y tecnológicos de la empresa.

Se visualiza así, claramente, un elemento que permite caracterizar jurídicamente los contratos relacionados con procesos de conocimiento, a partir de un concepto conocido en el derecho continental como «intuitu personae», entendido en un sentido amplio aplicable al contexto actual, jurídicamente más sofisticado que su original concepción dogmática, relacionada directamente con contratación entre personas físicas.

El próximo estadio de análisis del conocimiento está determinado por la evolución de la inteligencia artificial, que está tomando posición en la ejecución de tareas anticipadas por la ciencia ficción, que hoy son una realidad que moverá el paradigma hacia fronteras no humanas del conocimiento tácito.

Post publicado en Lvcentinvs

Partnership: promoting Geographical Indications

A new partnership has been established between the ASIPI, “Asociación Interamericana de Propiedad Intelectual" (Inter-American Association of Intellectual Property) and the Geneva-based NGO OriGIn (“Organization for an International Geographical Indication Network”).

Both associations operate in the IP sector and share common objectives, such as the promotion of IP matters through the organization of seminars and the participation in international fora, such as the World Trade Organization (WTO), the World Intellectual Property Office (WIPO) and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN).

The activities of OriGIn are specifically focused on the promotion of the Geographical Indication (GI) concept worldwide: many Latin American Associations of producers (including Federacion National de Cafeteros de Colombia and Consejo Regulador del Tequila, are already among its members; to this extent, the new partnership strengthens the links between the respective networks.

Due to the issues still revolving around GIs, such as the criteria to determine whether or not a name of a product originating from a particular geographic place has become generic, this is a worthwhile initiative aimed at exchanging information and points of view on the matter.

Post written by Nicola Coppola – CIPPM Bournemouth
More information here.

Colombia – Concede primera marca táctil a la textura de la botella de “OLD PARR”

La Superintendencia de Industria y Comercio (SIC), mediante Resolución No. 34.530 de 2016, concedió a la sociedad Diageo Brands B.V.,  una marca táctil, consistente en una textura (superficie) grabada en relieve de apariencia craquelada, cuarteada o resquebrajada, creada a partir de la aglomeración de formas geométricas irregulares que incluyen en su mayoría, pentágonos, romboides y hexágonos, cuyos lados o segmentos de línea miden entre 3 y 6 milímetros de longitud, entre 0,08 y 0,5 milímetros de altura y entre 0,1 y 1 milímetros de grosor, para identificar bebidas alcohólicas excepto cervezas, productos comprendidos en la Clase 33 de la Clasificación Internacional.

Así mismo, los lados/segmentos de línea y las áreas contenidas dentro de dichos segmentos de línea son lisas, el material en el que se use esta textura será vidrio de color ámbar y se podrá usar en distintos tamaños. 

La marca, que corresponde a la botella del scotch whisky Old Parr, se solicitó con las siguientes imágenes:

Evidentemente el registro de esta clase de marcas no es sencillo, de hecho, en este caso concreto la Dirección de Signos Distintivos de la SIC solicitó al Tribunal de Justicia de la Comunidad Andina de Naciones, una Interpretación Prejudicial para que el alto Tribunal se pronunciara respecto de:

•  ¿Si se puede registrar una textura específica como una marca táctil?;
• ¿Cómo se cumple el requisito de la distintividad de una marca táctil?;
• ¿Cómo opera la representación gráfica?, y
• ¿Si el análisis de distintividad está absolutamente ligado al tipo de producto o servicio que el signo identifica

Considerando la interpretación de las normas dadas por el Tribunal, la SIC consideró que la textura solicitada por Diageo, tal y como fue descrita en la solicitud, se ajusta a los requisitos de distintividad necesarios para ser identificada por los consumidores en el mercado de bebidas alcohólicas.

Más información aquí.

Fuente: SIC

Exporting is Great

Last week the UK Trade & Investment (UKTI) did a road-show around the UK. The campaign was regional focusing on trade and investment for Latin America.

I have the opportunity to make a presentation alongside the UKIPO as part of my role for the Latin America IPR SME Helpdesk and while the room was not packed the feeling was the same: is IP important for my company?

One of the key issues that Rahul Rahhavan (UKIPO) and I emphasised was that IP is territorial. And before that, it was important to point out that the protection of IP is essential for a company; be it a logo, slogan, the packaging, the invention, at the end it is your time and money that have been invested. It was your company that made such a product; your name, logo, colour are the ones that have made the public aware of ‘your’ good/service that differ from the competition. Why then not protect it?

In the road-show there were different representatives from Latin American countries. I have the opportunity to speak with the UKIT from Venezuela, Richard Hyde and talk about my beautiful home country: are there any opportunities for investment? As we all know, many Latin American countries are suffering from political issues and economic (in)stabilities and one cannot turn a blind eye on this. So, I rather not disclose Venezuela's state of affairs.

One of my roles was to address the weakness of IP in the region such as the backlog presented in some of the national IPO and the lack of specialised IP courts. But even so, it is good to see that the region has good legislations in place that fulfil international IP standards. Moreover, it is good to know that the majority are members of the Patent Cooperation Treaty (anyone from Argentina that can enlighten us on the country status? It appears that Argentina signed but has not ratified the Treaty as yet). There is also the possibility to include countries for the international trade mark registration system (Madrid system). This part went well since everything cannot be gloomy - otherwise will scare the UK to invest in our continent!

Hopefully after this event that took place in Cambridge, London, Reading and Midlands we will see some investors crossing the pond and interchanging some know-how, technology, and skills.

Thanks UKIPO for extending the invitation to the Latin America IPR SME Helpdesk. We are here to make it easier for SMEs to protect their IPR in our region.

Intellectual Property along does not promote innovation

The Brazilian Instituto Nacional da Propriedade Industrial (INPI)'s vice-president, Mr Mauro Maia, recently acknowledged that many important issues surround intellectual property, but the most important one was to understand and to be conscious of its relevance to the country.

Mr Maia affirmed that IP was used and relevant to the innovation environment nevertheless, it also noted that this legal instrument and system does ‘not promote development’ by itself.
These remarks were part of Mr Maia participation on the seminar ‘20 Years of Law. 9,279 / 96’ taking at the Universidade Cândido Mendes (UCAM) on 13 May, in Rio de Janeiro. This event was attended by other IP experts such as a federal judge; the president of the Brazilian Association of Intellectual Property (ABPI); and the president of the Brazilian Association of Industrial Property Agents (ABAPI); among others.

Different parties brought crucial remarks such as noting the importance of keeping update especially in this era of globalization which is relevant to the mere enforcement of IP rights; the importance of strengthening the national IPO (i.e. INPI).


Indeed, following these remarks there is obviously the issue that IP legislation along does not promote innovation. IP protects patents, copyrights, and other IP but what promotes creations and inventions and developments is much more than a mere legislation. For instance, R&D is the backbone of a globally knowledge driven economy; incentives to this may come through direct Government support such as grants or tax credits; higher education also has an important role in R&D. In any case, the IP role is to protect the creator of the work from unfair practices and it does so by balancing exclusive rights given to owners with accessibility rights to the society.

There is indeed a (bad) culture in many countries to illegally appropriate IP and use it without paying and/or recognising the right holder. Cases of piracy in DVDs and software, and counterfeit clothing are still pretty common to find on the streets (and even in shopping malls! – mum just came for a visit, of course presents are always expected…a t-shirt which has a CHANEL logo in the front and reads CHANNEL).

Mr Maia’s message is clear: there is the need to make people aware that IP is important. Nevertheless, in some countries this awareness should be at the same time/level as to make people knowledgeable what IP is for. Rather than just instructing the SMEs to use IP protection, consumers (we) need to appreciate IP. At the end we are the ones that buy that invention or creativity – why should consumers pay that extra money? By answering this simple question, the society can engage in a healthy debate of IP protection [or overprotection].

Source here.

Do you remember why IP protection is needed?

A few days ago there was a press release including some facts noted by the “Special 301” Report 2016. This report is the annual review of the global state of IPR protection and enforcement written by the United States Trade Representative (USTR).

In the press release it is noticeable some quotations which reflects the importance of protecting IPRs.
For example:

“This final Special 301 Report of the Obama Administration underlines the great value that unique American creativity and innovation have for millions of families – ranging from small businesses owners to medical researchers to employees of the recording and motion picture industries – as well as the efforts of the executive branch, our bipartisan partners in Congress, and the United States business community to vigilantly monitor abuses of American intellectual property rights anywhere they exist in the world.”[emphasises made] U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman.

“Without strong IP laws, our member labels could not do what they do best: discover talented musicians and performers, nurture their sound, and distribute, market, and promote their music across the world.” [emphasises made] Cary Sherman, Chairman and CEO of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA).

“Intellectual property protections enhance job growth both domestically and internationally” [emphasises made] Stanley Pierre-Louis, general counsel of the Entertainment Software Association (ETA).

The rationale for the protection afforded to IPRs has been explained by many scholars, and they are best represented in 4 theories:

1. Labour Theory (by John Locke) ‘the labour of his body, and the work of his hand, we may say, are property his’.
2. Personality Theory (by Hegel) -- creation is an extension of its creator’s individuality or person, belonging to that creator as part of his or her self-hood.
3. Pendleton’s Theory - nobody owns an idea before its appropriation. However, ‘an invention can be seen as a (new) combining of known units of information’ (Catherine Colston).
4. Utilitarian Theory is a ‘theory of ethics that prescribes the quantitative maximization of good consequences for a population’ (George D. Catalano).

The first two are based on the creator’s private interest. The others are based on the society well-being.

In any case, the theories highlight the importance of protection and the words heard by various US parties are welcome. It is good to be reminded the rational of IP protection, of course, the debate sometimes focus on overprotection rather than lack of it.

The press release can be read in full here.