IPTango: Guest Post

Showing posts with label Guest Post. Show all posts

Thursday, 15 June 2023

[Guest Post] Brazilian Patent Overview and Challenges for 2023!

IPTango June 15, 2023 No comments:

IPTango is pleased to publish a guest post by Michelle Angelim and Leonardo Cordeiro (Gruenbaum, Possinhas & Teixeira), discussing the current scenario and challenges in the field of patent law in Brazil for this year.

As the world becomes increasingly innovative and technology-driven, it becomes more critical for a country to have fast and efficient patent prosecution. In recent years, Brazil has faced challenges in balancing interests in the intellectual property field, especially in the patent sector. Since the beginning of the pandemic, patents have been the focus of controversies and diverging interests, as balancing the legal, social, administrative, economic, and political influences in the Brazilian patent system is arduous.

Regarding the current Brazilian scenario, it is essential to emphasize that the country has been going through several changes, considering the recent government transitions.

One of these changes directly impacted the Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office (BPTO) because said Institute left the former Ministry of Economy and is now part of the Ministry of Development, Industry, Commerce and Services, which consequently generated significant changes in its directors and presidency. The current interim president, Dr Júlio Cesar Moreira (former Patent Director), has worked at BPTO for years and is one of those responsible for the implementations promoting good progress in the patent application prosecution, such as the backlog tackle project. This project defines, for example, the creation of the preliminary official action, which we will discuss below in more detail.

The backlog tackle project

The implementation of the collaborative examination, through the backlog tackle project, aims to reduce the number of pending patent applications substantially by using previously conducted prior art search reports from other patent offices, requesting amendments in the claims or technical arguments that defend the patentability of the invention over the cited prior art. This implementation has significantly improved the application prosecution, avoiding excessive official actions, promoting procedural economy, and reducing the time for resolution of the cases.

A) Preliminary official actions

A good strategy for complying with the preliminary official action is to conform the Brazilian application to an already allowed/granted or considered patentable subject matter of the same patent family. However, it is important to remember the need for adequacy of the amendments to the current legal provisions, such as the normative instructions and examination guidelines for different areas, to avoid related technical official actions. Furthermore, it is essential to take into account the national sovereignty over the examination, established by the Paris Convention (CUP) in its Art. 4 bis (1); therefore, there are no guarantees that the Brazilian patent application will be immediately allowed because it was adapted to an application already granted in another country.

To submit a good argumentation before the BPTO, it is necessary to clearly explain how the technical characteristics of the invention solve the technical problem described. In addition, it is required to indicate the new technical effect achieved and the advantages in relation to the prior art, citing the lines and pages of the specification that contain this information. It is also important to comment on the cited prior art, highlighting the differences between the subject matter of the application and the cited prior art. This information should demonstrate that a person skilled in the art would not have sufficient resources or inspiration to create or achieve the claimed invention based on the cited documents.

B) Divisional applications and PPH agreements

A new practice that is becoming frequent is filing a divisional application at the moment of compliance with the preliminary official action. However, recently in this compliance, there has been a practice of conforming to the granted patent and filing a divisional application with a set of claims identical to the original ones. This practice has resulted in applicants' rejections and abandonments due to the difficulty of overcoming the objections.

In recent years, another relevant implementation was the creation of several diversified types of fast tracks and the BPTO signing PPH agreements with several countries (for more information about the countries, access the link). Accepting a fast track guarantees a reduction in the prosecution time from 10 - 12 years (average time of an application without fast track and not being part of the backlog tackle project) to 3 - 5 years up to the conclusion of the merit examination in the administrative sphere.

C) Article 32 of the IPL: amendments to the applications

In the prosecution of a patent application, a highly discussed point is the legitimacy of article 32 of the Industrial Property Law No. 9,279/1996 (IPL), which establishes that the applicant may proceed with amendments to the application until the request for examination, provided that these are limited to the subject matter initially disclosed in the application.

The examination must be requested within 36 months after the Brazilian or International filing date, and this is a crucial moment to perform amendments to broaden the scope of protection, for instance, increasing categories, moving the place of the characterizing term, changing categories, and others.

Based on the interpretation of the BPTO, established in resolution 93/2013, amendments must be based on the content initially disclosed and, after the request for examination, can only be performed to reduce the scope of protection or correct typographical errors, for example. Thus, discussions to make the BPTO's interpretation more flexible have been taking place in study groups, such as the Intellectual Property Interministerial Group (GIPI), where the applicant can proceed with amendments to broaden the scope of protection after the examination request, for example.

The National Strategy of Intellectual Property (ENPI), created in 2019, has been strengthening its position as a project to harmonize IP policies in the country, which restarted the GIPI as a technical entity with a thematic strategic plan that demonstrates the adequacy of the intellectual property sector to current needs, including the review of procedures.

Comments

It is essential to mention that the backlog tackle project was and continues to be a success in several technical areas, and, as a result, the backlog issue has now been practically solved in some areas and is advancing to end the backlog in others.

Therefore, based on the examples above, it is evident that Brazil is continuously working to become a more economically competitive country and of international interest without ceasing to value its internal innovation policies, yet, knowing its importance for the world's technological development.

Credits:

The first image is by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay.

The second image is by Ag Ku from Pixabay.

[GUEST POST] The Wiki Law Project: The use of open-source technologies in the dissemination of Intellectual Property and their benefits for teaching

Patricia Covarrubia December 13, 2022 No comments:

The IPTango is pleased to host the following post by Hernán Núñez Rocha, lecturer at the University of Alcalá and a qualified lawyer in Spain and Ecuador.

Hernan writes:

The use of open-source technologies in the dissemination of Intellectual Property and their benefits for teaching

by Hernán Núñez Rocha

The Wiki Law Project took place from 2013 to 2019 in Ecuador, where several governmental actors were discussing about the necessity to move from an economy based on the exploitation of natural resources to a model based on knowledge CITA. The involved parts concluded that it was necessary to promulgate new regulations on Higher Education, Science, Technology, Innovation, Intellectual Property, and Traditional Knowledge. Considering the instrumental use of Intellectual Property, the IPRs were defined as one of the main tools needed for the transition to the knowledge economy. But there was a problem, most citizens were not familiar with IPR. In fact, even most stakeholders neither understood the importance of IPRs, nor the use of new works and technologies. Also, there was an additional problem, stakeholders, who were aware of the importance of IPRs, were divided into two groups that had opposed views. One group saw the IPRs as a profitable tool for their creations, and the other group, saw it as an obstacle for innovation.

Consequently, the idea of the Wiki Law Project about IP came up. The site was developed jointly by the staff of the Instituto de Altos Estudios Nacionales (IAEN), NGOs, professional associations, chambers, and public institutions. Moreover, the Ecuadorian Patent and Trademark Office (now SENADI) and the Ministry of Higher Education (SENESCYT) got involved and support the project.

The wiki was hosted in the domain of the Ministry of Higher Education, as http://coesc.educacionsuperior.gob.ec/. The site explained didactically all the IPRs and its main features, its daily uses, and its economic, scientific, and legal significance. Also, the project included a juridical analysis of the IP Law in forced at that time, as well as a proposal of a draft Law. The wiki had a basic design, based on the Wikipedia interface, and allowed to create an account, review the contents, edit certain texts and create discussion forums.

The wiki was online from 2013 to 2020. However, the period of greatest activity was from its launch in March of 2013 to October of 2016, when the new IP regime was approved within the Organic Code for the Social Knowledge and Innovation Economy, known as the “CÓDIGO INGENIOS”. According to the wiki managers, there were more than 1.8 million visits and more than 38 thousand editions, in that period. Additionally, the wiki generated a domino effect, and suddenly the IPR were in the public opinion. A survey conducted by the IP Office reflected a growth in the news about intellectual property of more than 600% in the period of June 2014 to June 2016.

After the approval of the CÓDIGO INGENIOS, the wiki continued online, but the users’ interactions were gradually decreasing until 2020 when the wiki was finally switched off. Despite this, the impact generated by the wiki in their first years was gradually moved to other places in the remaining years. The Academia was one of the main receivers of the benefits of this project. If we analyse the statistics since the wiki was launched, it is possible to identify a significant and constant growth in the following aspects:

• There was an increase in the number of Technology and Innovation Support Centres located at the universities. Before the project, there was not any Centre according to the WIPO criteria. Today there are 11 universities that have their own Technology Transfer Office.

• Regarding the use of the IPR into the Universities, there is a growth in the average that goes from 1.3 patent applications until 2012 to 27.5 in the period 2012-2019.

• Regarding IP teaching, IP Master's programs increased from 1 to 5 nationwide.

• The number of IP courses in the curriculum of the universities also increased. Before the Wiki Law Project, only 7 universities offered the course of intellectual property as an elective subject, now there are 25 that have the course as a compulsory subject. Before, it was only taught in the Law School, now there are IP courses in 8 different careers.

• Regarding final degree projects, a study conducted in 5 Ecuadorian universities shows an increase of more than 300% since 2013.

As we can see, the Wiki Law Project was not only a success by itself, but also generated several positive externalities. Nowadays, the information technologies allow us to do great things without a big budget. In the case of the Wiki Law Project, a generic website template with basic functions was enough. It was not even necessary to get a hosting since the page was hosted in the domain of the Ministry of Higher Education.

The Wiki Law project is an example of the interaction between academia and society, which also generated an academic demand focused on issues related to intellectual property. It was a project without “owners”. After the idea was launched, many institutions got involved and once the wiki was online, a huge collaborative work was generated. There are also several papers that describe the Wiki Law as a platform that allows to recuperate the public and common sense of knowledge, throughout collaborative work.

However, the Wiki Law Project is just one example of the use of open-source technologies in the dissemination of intellectual property. What is important here, is not the instrument but the process. This process results in the use of information technologies to spread the general aspects of the IPRs and its daily uses. With this, is possible to create a communication channel in two directions. On one hand, universities can provide information to society; and on the other hand, universities could collect data about social and commercial needs. Therefore, with the understanding of these facts, universities could adapt their activities and curriculum in line with the expectations of the society.

PS This blog post is based on the presentation made by the author at the 13th Anniversary EIPTN Conference 2021.

[Guest Post] Brazil: Bill No. 12/2021 on compulsory licensing of patents

IPTango November 09, 2021 No comments:

IPTango is pleased to publish a guest post by Pedro Matheus and Leonardo Cordeiro (Gruenbaum, Possinhas & Teixeira), discussing the Brazilian bill No. 12/2021 on compulsory licensing of patents in cases of national or international emergencies, public interest or public calamity nationwide.

On 11 August 2021, the Brazilian Senate approved the Bill No. 12/2021 to amend the Brazilian Industrial Property Law and regulate the compulsory licensing of patents in cases of declaration of national or international emergencies or public interest by the Executive, or recognition of a state of public calamity nationwide by the National Congress.

The Bill No. 12/2021

The Bill establishes “rules and deadlines compatible with the urgency of the situation”, as well as a “power-duty of action by the Executive when facing the declaration of a National Interest Emergency”.

However, despite the alleged noble purposes, it seems the Bill does not imply significant changes to the compulsory licensing procedure already set forth via decree No. 3.201/1999. Likewise, it’s difficult to foresee how it will objectively solve the problems concerning the acquisition of COVID-19 vaccines in Brazil.

The Bill establishes some new rules and sets deadlines regarding the compulsory licensing procedure, such as a duty of the Executive to issue a list of the patents and patent applications that could be potentially useful during an emergency or exceptional situation (article 71, §2), as well as the participation of public organizations, research, and education institutions (such as universities) and other entities in the procedure (article 71, §3). However, it is not yet clear which patents could theoretically be subject to compulsory licensing since no previous studies point out which patents could be listed to be licensed due to the new Bill.

Moreover, Brazil is not a producer of Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (API), mainly imported from India and China. Thus, it is also not clear how to license pharmaceutical technologies to “manufacturers with proven technical and economic capability”, according to article 71, §6 of the Bill, especially considering that the vaccines currently being produced in Brazil are already subject to transnational contracts, such as the ones between Instituto Butantã and Sinovac, and Fundação Oswaldo Cruz and AstraZeneca.

In this sense, even if there are patents regarding COVID-19 vaccines to be potentially licensed, Brazilian manufacturers would still depend on importing foreign APIs and know-how, which is one of the bottlenecks of the Brazilian COVID-19 vaccination program.

The logistics of importing foreign vaccines and APIs is the main bottleneck of Brazil’s vaccination and not the exclusivity of certain products due to the issuance of patents. It is important to note that Brazil has an exemplary vaccination program due to the capillarity of its system. According to the data of the National Plan for the operationalization of the vaccination against COVID-19, there are approximately 38 000 vaccination locations around the country and a population that, majority, responds positively to the call to receive their vaccine jabs.

As mentioned above, the licensing of any patent does not seem to tackle this issue since merely licensing a technology does not necessarily provide the means to reproduce such technology immediately.

In the view above, the Bill may also have an electoral connotation. Indeed, 2022 will be an electoral year in Brazil, and one of the main criticisms of the current Brazilian government has been the acquisition of vaccines and the handling of the pandemic.

The Bill became Law No. 14.200/2021 on 2 September 2021. However, the President used his veto to override a few provisions, such as the requirement for a patent owner to transfer know-how and provide supplies of medicines and vaccines, which, according to the veto’s text, would be challenging to implement and could discourage investments in technology and the formation of strategic commercial partnerships, such as the ones already mentioned above.

Comments

The new Law aims to clarify and establish rules for a procedure that already existed in Brazilian Law (the compulsory licensing of patents), and which has been reserved for moments of crisis when a patent holder is unable to properly provide the object of a patent that is strictly necessary to tackle and overcome such situation. Nevertheless, it is not yet clear how such a procedure would apply to the current COVID-19 pandemic and if it was indeed necessary to face the current situation since compulsory licensing was already established and could have been used if it was indeed essential.

On a final note, it is necessary to highlight that the Brazilian Congress opted to establish these new rules and regulations through amendments to the Industrial Property Law. In contrast, the previous regulations were set forth via presidential decree No. 3.201/1999, following a proper legislative technique.

Thus, if there is a need to establish new rules and deadlines in the future or to amend any other provision of the regulations, such amendments would require a new bill to be approved by the Congress (Federal Senate and the Chamber of Deputies), which could take more time than the issuance of a new presidential decree.

The Law has already entered into force, but the Brazilian Congress can still maintain or overrule the Presidential decision regarding the vetoed provisions.

Credits:

First image by Alexandra_Koch from Pixabay.

[Guest Post] The Brazilian Supreme Court defines the effects of the decision declaring the unconstitutionality of the sole paragraph of article 40 of the Industrial Property Law

IPTango June 18, 2021 No comments:

IPTango is pleased to publish a guest post by Pedro Matheus and Leonardo Cordeiro (Gruenbaum, Possinhas & Teixeira), discussing the modulation of the effects of the decision declaring the unconstitutionality of the sole paragraph of article 40 of the Industrial Property Law of Brazil. Read here their post on the Direct Action for the Declaration of Unconstitutionality of such provision.

On 12 May 2021, the Supreme Court defined the modulation of the effects of the decision that declared the unconstitutionality of the sole paragraph of article 40 of the Industrial Property Law (LPI).

[Publicación Invitada] Empaquetado genérico de medicamentos y la relevancia del uso de la marca

IPTango May 16, 2021 No comments:

IPTango se complace en compartir con sus lectores la siguiente publicación invitada.

En este artículo, Marissa Lasso de la Vega F. (socia de Alfaro, Ferrer & Ramírez, Fundadora y Presidenta de la Alianza Contra el Comercio Ilícito, Capitulo de Panamá) analiza la relevancia del uso de la marca, a la luz de las propuestas legislativas de empaquetado genérico de medicamentos.

Introducción

Recientes propuestas legislativas en América Latina, tal como el propuesto artículo 128 bis de la Ley de Fármacos II de Chile, contemplan la regulación del empaquetado genérico de medicamentos, estableciendo que una mayor proporción de la superficie total de la etiqueta o su empaque se destine al principio activo (denominación común internacional) y una menor proporción, se destine a la inclusión del nombre de la marca (nombre de fantasía) del medicamento.

Frente a esta iniciativa legislativa, consideramos importante destacar los siguientes aspectos claves:

Un medicamento está compuesto por dos tipos de sustancias: los principios activos y los excipientes.
El principio activo es la materia prima, sustancia o mezcla de sustancias dotadas de un efecto farmacológico esperado. Por lo general, es un nombre complejo difícil de recordar y reconocer.
Los excipientes constituyen una materia prima distinta del principio activo, que carece de actividad o efecto farmacológico. Sin embargo, se utilizan en la elaboración de un producto para darle forma farmacéutica definida y facilitar su conservación, administración y absorción.
Un medicamento puede estar compuesto por más de un principio activo y distintos excipientes con diferencias de potencia o porcentaje.
El objetivo de la etiqueta de un medicamento es no sólo describirlo e identificarlo, sino también evitar errores de medicación; así como proporcionar información clara sobre el manejo y almacenamiento apropiado del producto.
El equivalente farmacéutico es el medicamento que contiene idénticas cantidades de los mismos principios activos del producto al que es equivalente, en idéntica forma farmacéutica, pero que puede contener o no los mismos excipientes.
El bioequivalente es la condición que se da entre dos productos farmacéuticos - equivalentes farmacéuticos – cuyos efectos son esencialmente los mismos. La bioequivalencia se hace con estudios clínicos en que se comparan un medicamento genérico con uno innovador.
Un medicamento innovador es el que posee patente y corresponde a un producto o sustancia nueva que generalmente se emplea como producto de referencia, con base a evidencia clínica, seguridad, calidad y eficacia.
Un medicamento genérico debe entenderse como un medicamento resultado y amparado en documentación del medicamento innovador con una bioequivalencia demostrada y una calidad establecida.
Un medicamento genérico subestándar denominado también producto “fuera de especificación”, es un producto médico que no cumple con las normas de calidad o sus especificaciones, o ambas y, por ende, no alcanza las especificaciones necesarias para asegurar calidad, eficacia y seguridad.
Un medicamento falsificado es el producto que tergiversa deliberada o fraudulentamente su identidad, composición y método de fabricación. No cumple con ningún tipo de norma de salud y se considera producto infractor a los derechos de patentes de un medicamento innovador.

La relevancia del uso de la marca o nombre de fantasía

El medicamento innovador tiene evidencia clínica que demuestra su calidad, seguridad y eficacia. El medicamento genérico, si tiene bioequivalencia demostrada, cumple con calidad, seguridad y eficacia, y también aparece en su etiqueta o empaque el principio activo. Sin embargo, el medicamento genérico subestándar no alcanza las especificaciones requeridas para asegurar su calidad, seguridad ni eficacia y, mucho menos el medicamento falsificado, respecto del cual no sólo no se tienen datos, sino que se desconoce su origen, composición, método de fabricación y canales de comercialización.

Un medicamento puede ofrecerse en venta con el mismo principio activo (denominación común internacional) en su etiqueta o empaque. Sin embargo, aunque los medicamentos innovadores y genéricos estén rotulados con el mismo principio activo, esto no implica que no puedan contar con diferentes características (p.ej., color, sabor), mismas que no afectan el rendimiento, seguridad o efectividad del medicamento genérico.

En tal sentido, la marca permite identificar un medicamento con determinadas características de un fabricante frente a los de otro en el mercado. Asimismo, la marca o nombre de fantasía también puede contribuir a detectar un medicamento subestándar o falsificado (p.ej., si presenta errores gramaticales o de ortografía). De allí la importancia y relevancia del uso de la marca o nombre de fantasía.

Comentarios

En este contexto, previo a la aprobación de cualquier legislación que contemple el empaquetado genérico de medicamentos, resulta necesario que cada país se asegure de contar previamente con la normativa legal correspondiente y las formas de control para asegurar – sin riesgo para el paciente – la intercambiabilidad y prohibir la sustitución.

En tal sentido, la intercambiabilidad (intercambio) y la sustitución de medicamentos no son sinónimos. La intercambiabilidad debe reconocerse como una decisión opcional y voluntaria del médico tratante, quien decide sobre el intercambio de un medicamento por otro, considerando que el otro tiene el mismo efecto terapéutico. Por el contrario, la sustitución debe reconocerse como una práctica en la que se dispensa un medicamento por otro – generalmente a nivel de farmacia – sin consultar al médico tratante y considerando únicamente el principio activo.

Debe considerarse que no todo medicamento rotulado con su principio activo (denominación común internacional) es un medicamento genérico. Por ello, la sustitución de medicamentos sin consultar al médico tratante y basada únicamente en el principio activo (o denominación común internacional) puede llevar a confusiones y errores con diversos riesgos de daño a la salud tales como un fallo terapéutico, una complicación de la enfermedad e incluso la muerte.

Aunado a lo anterior, se ha discutido en diversos foros el impacto que el empaquetado genérico de medicamentos pudiere implicar en términos de aumento en el contrabando y la falsificación de medicamentos y limitaciones o restricciones al uso de marcas.

En conclusión, antes de adoptar una normativa que contemple el empaquetado genérico de medicamentos, resulta pertinente considerar diversos factores, tales como la relevancia del uso de la marca o nombre de fantasía en los fármacos, la necesidad de demostrar y garantizar la equivalencia terapéutica de los medicamentos genéricos, así como asegurar la existencia de reglas claras sobre intercambiabilidad y prohibir la sustitución automática en medicamentos.

Créditos:

Primera imagen de HeungSoon en Pixabay.

Segunda imagen de Pexels en Pixabay.

Tercera imagen de Ajale en Pixabay.

[Guest Post] Propiedad Intelectual y Relaciones Comerciales entre la UE y Mercosur: ¿un nuevo Marco Internacional?

Patricia Covarrubia May 14, 2021 No comments:

Las negociaciones de un acuerdo comercial entre la Unión Europea (UE) y el Mercado Común del Sur (Mercosur), una zona de integración económica entre Argentina, Brasil, Paraguay y Uruguay, empezaron en 1999. En junio de 2019, la UE y el Mercosur llegaron a un Acuerdo Comercial de Principio (el Acuerdo). El Acuerdo aún no ha entrado en vigor de forma definitiva y las partes podrían todavía modificarlo. De hecho, aparentemente, tras la reciente presión de España para vencer la oposición de otros países de la UE al Acuerdo (y acelerar también los procedimientos de ratificación de los acuerdos de la UE con México y Chile), se ha barajado la opción de añadir al Acuerdo una cláusula adicional sobre el medio ambiente.

Pese a los posibles cambios que el Acuerdo pudiera sufrir, su capítulo sobre propiedad intelectual (PI) merece un vistazo en su actual forma en cuanto resultado de largas negociaciones. Además, la protección de los derechos de PI en las relaciones comerciales entre la UE y el Mercosur ha sido un tema delicado como destacaron varios actores consultados para la evaluación del impacto de la sostenibilidad del Acuerdo. Por ejemplo, por un lado, Rolls-Royce International Ltd. ha lamentado la falta de una protección adecuada de los derechos de PI en el Mercosur y, por otro lado, representantes del Foro Consultivo Económico-Social del Mercosur han llamado la atención sobre los efectos sobre desarrollo económico de una mayor protección de la PI en la región del Mercosur.

Respecto a los estándares del Acuerdo sobre los Aspectos de los Derechos de Propiedad Intelectual relacionados con el Comercio (el Acuerdo sobre los ADPIC) en la Organización Mundial del Comercio (OMC), que se aplica tanto a los países de la UE como a los países del Mercosur, en muchas áreas el Acuerdo incluye estándares más elevados de protección de los derechos de PI (ADPIC plus). En particular, cabe destacar las disposiciones del Acuerdo que se refieren a otros convenios internacionales. De hecho, el Acuerdo incluye una disposición específica sobre tratados internacionales de PI que reafirma los derechos y obligaciones en virtud de estos tratados únicamente para los Estados contratantes de estos (Art.X.9). Sin embargo, otras disposiciones conciernen directa o indirectamente otros tratados internacionales de PI.

En cuanto a derecho de autor y derechos conexos las disposiciones del Acuerdo abordan para las dos Partes los derechos establecidos bajo el Tratado de la Organización Mundial de la Propiedad Intelectual (OMPI) sobre Derecho de Autor y el Tratado de la OMPI sobre Interpretación o Ejecución y Fonogramas.

En materia de marcas, las partes tendrán que cumplir con el Arreglo de Niza Relativo a la Clasificación Internacional de Productos y Servicios para el Registro de las Marca como modificado en 1979 (solo Argentina y Uruguay son Estados contratantes del Acta de Ginebra del mismo Arreglo, Art.X.21) y hacer sus mejores esfuerzos para cumplir con el Protocolo concerniente al Arreglo de Madrid relativo al Registro Internacional de Marcas como modificado en 2007 (del que hasta ahora solo Brasil es Estado contratante, Art.X.21). Además, las Partes deberán tener en cuenta la Recomendación conjunta relativa a las disposiciones sobre la protección de las marcas notoriamente conocidas aprobada por la OMPI en 1999 (Art.Χ.24).

En lo que concierne los diseños, las partes tendrán que hacer sus mejores esfuerzos para acceder al Acta de Ginebra del Arreglo de la Haya relativo al registro internacional de dibujos y modelos industriales de 1999 (del que hasta ahora ningún país del Mercosur es Estado contratante, Art.X.27) y que proteger los diseños nuevos y originales a través de un procedimiento de registración (Art.X.28).

Las obligaciones sobre indicaciones geográficas son también muy avanzadas (Subsección 4) sobre todo en lo que concierne la portada de la protección (Art.X.35) y el listado de indicaciones geográficas de la UE y el Mercosur que la otra parte tendrá que proteger (Anexos II y III al capítulo sobre PI). Finalmente, en materia de patentes, las partes tendrán que hacer sus mejores esfuerzos para acceder al Tratado de Cooperación en materia de Patentes (del que hasta ahora solo Brasil es Estado contratante, Art.X.40).

Los estándares sobre los secretos comerciales del Acuerdo son también más elevados que los del Acuerdo sobre los ADPIC (Arts.X.42 y X.43). Asimismo, el Acuerdo hace referencia también a otros convenios, por ejemplo, subrayando los derechos y obligaciones en virtud del Convenio sobre la Diversidad Biológica de 1992 y del Tratado Internacional sobre los Recursos Fitogenéticos para la Alimentación y la Agricultura de 2001 (Art.X.6). Además, las partes subrayan la relevancia de la Declaración de Doha relativa al Acuerdo sobre los ADPIC y la Salud Pública (Art.X.8). En materia de variedades vegetales hay que recalcar que las partes podrán elegir entre proteger las variedades vegetales conforme al Convenio Internacional para la Protección de las Obtenciones Vegetales de 1961 como revisado en 1972 y 1978 o, alternativamente, en su versión revisada de 1991 (Art.X.41).

Dicho esto, cabe señalar que bajo el Art.4 del Acuerdo sobre los ADPIC, relativo al trato de la nación más favorecida, “[c]on respecto a la protección de la propiedad intelectual, toda ventaja, favor, privilegio o inmunidad que conceda un Miembro a los nacionales de cualquier otro país se otorgará inmediatamente y sin condiciones a los nacionales de todos los demás Miembros” de la OMC. Esto implica que, en principio, cualquier nuevo estándar de protección de la PI que sea ADPIC plus en aplicación de nuevos acuerdos comerciales del Mercosur o de la UE con otras partes/estados tendrá que ser extendido a todos los miembros de la OMC e incluso entre sí. Por lo tanto, el marco de las relaciones comerciales y en materia de PI entre la UE y Mercosur podría cambiar pronto como resultado de nuevos acuerdos comerciales.

Fuentes 'Sustainability Impact Assessment in Support of the Association Agreement Negotiations between the European Union and Mercosur' y El Pais

Gabriele Gagliani, LLM, PhD

Lecturer en la Universidad Bocconi (Milán, Italia) & Profesor Adjunto en la Universidad Case Western Reserve (Cleveland, OH, EE.UU.)

gabriele.gagliani@unibocconi.it / gagliani.intlaw@gmail.com