This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Brief Comment on the Importance of Intellectual Property
By Marco Antonio García Euroza. Senior Patent Consultant
As part of the recent celebration of Intellectual Property Day, April 26, it is important to reflect on the economic benefits it provides to its owners.
Intellectual property encompasses rights associated with human creations. The creator may obtain an indirect recognition in favor of its creation by registering it within a specialized office within a country; usually, a patents and trademarks office. The registry grants exclusive rights to its owners and protects them against the use from third parties.
Registries represent intangible assets that add value to companies.
It is estimated that, currently, these represent the largest source of market capitalization for the most important publicly traded companies, Apple, Alphabet, Microsoft, Amazon, and Facebook.
Recently, on March 3, 2021, the Mexican Institute of Intellectual Property, IP Key Latin America, and the European Union in Mexico published a study of the economic impact of intellectual property in Mexico.
The study shows the beneficial economic impact associated with companies that, compared to other companies in the same industry at a national level, rely on the rights provided by intellectual property. Specifically, the study highlights that, by 2019, companies that make intensive use of intellectual property participated with 47.8%of gross domestic product in Mexico, contributed 20.5% of the total paid jobs, provide up to18.1% higher wages for their workers, and contribute 74.7% of the value of exports.
Thus, there is a causal relationship between companies that use intensive use of intellectual property rights and an economic beneficial impact. It is also possible to argue that the correct management of intellectual property adds value to any company.
In Mexico. Mexico’s National Institute of Geography and Statistics estimates that there are around 4.4 million SMEs. These companies play a key role in the country’s economy, as they are responsible for most formal employment, around 70%, and contribute a significant share of GDP, around 52%.
SMEs that consider intellectual property within the start and growth of their company are more likely to survive and have a better economic outlook. Further, the intellectual property also supports any company as a leverage instrument during any negotiation.
While intellectual property is not the determining tool for many SMEs, it is clear that they need to consider it to increase their capitalization and economic outlook.
Sources: IMPI, IP Key, EUIPO, “The Economic Contribution of Intellectual Property in Mexico”, published on 03/03/2021.
Read More 0
Expected Changes on the Industrial Property Framework in Mexico amidst the Entry of the USMCA
By Marco Antonio García Euroza. Senior Patent Consultant.
The recent agreement between the United States of America, the United Mexican States, and Canada (USMCA) was published on the Mexican Official Gazette on June 29, 2020, replacing the previous North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). In Mexico, the entry of this treaty is expected to bring several changes to the intellectual property framework. For example, copyrights, industrial property, plant varieties, imports, and exports, among others.
On the industrial property, a recent proposal of amendment to the Mexican Industrial Property Law has been passed to lower chambers of the Mexican Congress. This proposal of amendment comprises several changes for which we highlight the following:
Empowering the Mexican Institute of Industrial Property (IMPI). IMPI is empowered to condemn and quantify the amount of the respective compensation resulting from the damages to the rights affected owners.
Improving on the electronic means of communication. Expanding on the electronic presentation and processing of applications, including the use of electronic mail, as well as the advanced electronic signature or any other means that allows the identification of individuals.
Modifying the Bolar clause. The proposal dismisses the period of three or eight years in which a third party makes the necessary preparations to obtain the marketing approval of a drug related to a patent that is about to expire.
Extending the protection for the utility models. The modification grants further protection time for utility models, from ten to fifteen years.
Providing further rules for the substantive examination of patents. IMPI will not be required to evaluate the fulfillment of any other patentability requirement when the impediment is seen on a lack of clarity, subject matter which may not be considered an invention, subject of a patent, or absence of an industrial application.
Patent term extension because of administrative delays. The interested party may request a complementary certificate to adjust the term of the patent whenever the IMPI incurs in a delay of more than five years, between the filing date of the application in Mexico and the granting of the patent.
The exclusion for the reduction of rights during a pending procedure. The waiver, rectification or limitation of rights will be discarded when there is pending resolution for a procedure regarding the validity of the patent.
The possibility that a trademark may cover several classes. A single trademark application may be claimed in different classes. Additionally, a trademark may be rejected when it does not meet its distinctive purpose.
Additional mechanisms for the protection of IP holders. New provisional measures related to the suspension of the free movement of goods destined for import, export or transit, and the suspension, blocking, removal of content, or cessation of acts that constitute a violation of the Law through any virtual, digital, or electronic means.
Special subjects such as the Mexican Linkage System may be changed once the proposal of the amendment is published. In summary, modifications are expected to allow further participation from the patent holder while maintaining the same responsibilities for the authorities in charge of the system.
Although some modifications may be controversial, it is clear that these aim to further improve the position of IP holders as well as increasing IMPI’s responsibilities.
References:
LXIV Legislature. Parliamentary gazette of the senate. Retrieved from: https://www.senado.gob.mx/64/gaceta_del_senado/documento/109519
Office of the United States Representative. Agreement between the United States of America, the United Mexican States, and Canada 12/13/19 Text. Retrieved from: https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/united-states-mexico-canada-agreement/agreement-between
Read More 0
Conflicts in the modification procedure of the Copyright Law
The Dominican Association of Intellectual Property (ADOPI) expressed concern about legislative measures to amend Law 20-00 on Industrial Property, which protects trademarks, trade names, patents for their counterfeiting and piracy.
In this regard, ADOPI requested to the president of the Chamber of Deputies and the president of his Permanent Commission of Justice to reject the aforementioned project that aims to modify the “Article 44, numeral 4, of Law 65-00 on Copyright” since it considers that “public communication of works” through television sets in medical clinics as an exception from the payment of royalties.
The aforementioned association deepened by saying that with the proposed exception, it is intended to arbitrarily reduce the rights of the authors, since the communication of works carried out in the “public and private hospital setting” is not private but public and hence the affectation to the normal exploitation of the works and the interests of the authors, which violates art. 30 of Law 65-00. In conclusion, ADOPI stressed that clinics can not be exempted from paying royalties, even though their activity is not the broadcasting of audiovisual works but health services. Also, he added in this regard, that the companies providing television services are not the only ones that must pay the copyright corresponding to the dissemination of works in clinics.
For these reasons, we will have to wait for news about the aforementioned reform and if the Chamber of Legislators will take into account the rejection of the ADOPI and its corresponding foundation.
Source: https://www.diariolibre.com/
Read More 0