Speedy Patents

In an effort to facilitate the filing of more domestic patents, the Peruvian National Institute for the Defense of Competition and Intellectual Property Protection (INDECOPI) has announced a new program called “Speedy Patent,” or “Patente Rapida.” The program will be administered by the newly created “Subdivision of Support for Innovation,” or “Subdireccion de Soporte a la Innovación”.

As implied by the name, the service gives national applicants the opportunity to obtain a patent much faster than the current time it takes to obtain a patent from first filing to approval. According to sources, the service will reduce the time to obtain domestic patents by about half of the current time. Currently, in Peru the average time to obtain a patent is around 39 months. Regionally, the average time is 4-5 years.

The service is particularly tailored to encourage national investment by first time patent applicants. Peruvian inventors without experience in drafting or processing patent applications will be entitled to receive advice and direction from the new Subdivision as a part of the program. If the applicant does everything correctly, the Peruvian inventor can expect to receive an approval in as few as eighteen months on average.

Bruno Merchor, Director of Inventions and New Technologies of INDECOPI, said of the new service that “the fruit of the efforts of the institution to promote a culture of invention in the Peruvian society and to bring the system of national patents to the inventors. This is so, with the aim of increasing national patents against foreign firms.”

While Director Merchor’s aims of fostering domestic investment and growing the number of national patent applications, commentators have noticed that this new program raises some eyebrows for several reasons pertaining to international intellectual property law.

It appears that this program aims to give Peruvian citizens special treatment over international patent applicants. As a member of the Andean Community, Peru is a designee of the Common Intellectual Property Regime. Decision 486, Article 1, states “On National Treatment” that:

“Each Member Country shall accord the nationals of other members of the Andean Community, the World Trade Organization, and the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, treatment no less favorable than it accords to its own nationals with regard to the protection of intellectual property, subject to the exceptions already provided in articles 3 and 5 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) and in article 2 of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property…”

To delve a little deeper, if one looks at the explanation in TRIPS, the treaty states, “for the purposes of Articles 3 and 4, ‘protection’ shall include matters affecting the availability, acquisition, scope, maintenance and enforcement of intellectual property rights.” It could be argued that Peru’s new program could easily be said to affect the availability, acquisition, or maintenance of patents. With this interesting question in mind, there could be new controversies arising because of this issue on the horizon.

Sources:
IPTango
INDECOPI

Source: Dumbarton Oaks

In a continuing effort to curb the illegal importation of Peruvian cultural property into the United States, the two nations have renewed their bilateral Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).

In effect since 1997, the agreement is officially entitled “Memorandum of Understanding Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Peru Concerning the Imposition of Import Restrictions on Archaeological Material from the Pre-Hispanic Cultures and Certain Ethnological Material from the Colonial Period of Peru.”
This agreement is possible under the U.S. Cultural Property Implementation Act (CPIA), which provided implementing legislation for the UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (UNESCO 1970). Recognizing the irreparable threat of losing their cultural history that many nations experienced, UNESCO 1970 provides an international framework to provide protection to deserving nations.

Peru has a rich Pre-Colombian history, and the Latin American nation contains some of the most sought after Pre-Colombian art. The location of some of South America’s most significant archeological sites, for a long time, Peru was a rich trading ground for art-lovers. Collectors and art dealers found in Peru a rich market for antiquities, along with a minimal level of enforcement from domestic authorities. This combination of factors lead to the pillaging of Peru’s antiquities, an example of which was the plunder of countless Moche artifacts in the aftermath of the historic find at Sipan, Peru.

By renewing this agreement, the United States has expressed its continuing respect for the cultural heritage of Peru that is embodied in its antiquities. The MOU protects objects created by ancient cultures such as the Moche, the Chavin, the Cuzco, and the Incas, which were created before the start of the Colonial Period in 1532. Additionally, the MOU also protects materials created during the Colonial Period until 1821 if the objects in question meet certain qualifications.

According to the memorandum, any materials meeting the MOU’s criteria may only enter the United States if accompanied by a legitimate export permit issued by the Peruvian Government or proof of provenance prior to 1997, when the MOU went into effect.

The extension of the agreement reflects the U.S. Government’s recognition that nations such as the United States that purchase and collect such art must work hand in hand with nations such as Peru that contain Pre-Colombian antiquities. Prior to the imposition of the CPIA, the stance of the United States on imports was very different. It was not illegal for cultural objects to be imported into the United States just because they were illegally exported from the source nation. Individuals in many poorer nations such as Peru took to pillaging archeological sites in order to capitalize on the demand for these valuable objects. There was too much money to be made, domestic enforcement was minimal due to lack of resources and corruption, and many smuggling networks developed in the process. Many important sites have been destroyed, rendering their historical and educational contributions negligible.

This commitment reflects the desire to impose demand side controls on the dissemination of cultural objects in addition to supply side controls implemented by Peru. Without help from nations such as the US whose collectors demand such artifacts, Peru´s cultural property regime would be ineffectual. However, Peru´s problem of cultural property exports is exacerbated because of Peru´s lack of domestic enforcement, which increases the nation´s reliance on countries such as the U.S. to enforce its cultural property regime. Peru, and other Latin American nations with concerns about the sale and export of antiquities, could take the example of other source countries such as Egypt whose cultural property is in demand. Egypt´s robust domestic cultural property regime has crippled smuggling and illegal export due to harsh punishments for looters and those found to be exporting such materials. In turn, Egypt has developed a world class system of archaeology and preservation that is a source of great pride for Egyptians.

The extension of the MOU with Peru is bad news for American art dealers and art collectors, who view Peru as a legitimate trading ground for acquiring important pieces of Pre-Colombian art. Additionally, opponents of the MOU argue that the Peruvian government has proven to be unable to protect its precious archeological sites from looting, and that the objects will be better cared for in places such as the United States.
On the other hand, the extension of the MOU is a victory for archeologists, who want undiscovered sites to remain intact rather than be looted, and for the Government of Peru, which needs the aid of the governments of demand nations in order to have a chance to effectively safeguard it’s cultural property.

The United States has active MOUs with several Latin American nations, including Bolivia, Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Peru.

Sources:
The Latin American Herald Tribune
Scoop Independent News

Source: Wikimedia Commons

The Office of the United States Trade Representative has released it’s 2012 Special 301 Report.

This document is an annual review of the state of intellectual property rights, protection and enforcement in trading partners around the world. This report is a valuable guide to understand current issues in IP Law and to highlight positive and negative trends on emerging markets.

The report creates a list of priority issues on IP. This year’s  report has mentioned Capacity Building Efforts, focusing on the lack of prosecution and conviction on the ground of IP infringements. The ever growing trends in Trademark Counterfeiting and Copyright Piracy, warning that the markets of pirated and counterfeit goods will soon surpass the sales volume of the licit vendors, and commenting on new ways for transportation and selling of counterfeit products such as the separate shipping of labels and packaging in order to evade enforcement efforts. Piracy over the internet, demanding stronger actions to strengthen legal regimes and enhance enforcement in order to respond to the increased availability of broadband internet connections and the piracy in new mobile devices. The violation of trade secrets and forced technology transfer, expressing the dangers of trade-distortive policies designed to promote ‘indigenous innovation’ through the lack of enforcement of IP rights and the creating of market barriers based on IP disclosures laws. Finally, the report also highlights the government use of software, trademarks and DNS, implementation of WTO TRIPS agreements, WIPO treaties and issues on IP and health policy.

However, this report is notorious for it’s Country Reports, in which US trading partners are sorted into the “Priority Watch List” and the “Watch List”, depending on their progress on IP issues and the vulnerability for US’s IP rights owners in their markets.

As to Latin American countries, Argentina, Chile and Venezuela were listed on the Priority Watch List, alongside Ukraine, Thailand, China and India. Concerns on these countries include inefficiency in Argentina’s judicial system, lack of protection against unfair commercial use and growing copyright piracy on the internet; Chile’s inefficient system for addressing patent issues for pharmaceutical products, unfair commercial use, and to fulfill it’s commitments  under the US-Chile FTA; and Venezuela’s withdrawal from the Andean Community in 2006, and widespread piracy and counterfeiting.

On the watch list, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Mexico and Peru are said to have progressed in protecting IP Rights, but issues on enforcement and internet piracy remain largely neglected.

Read the Full Report here.

Do you need to know how to issue POAs for your legal representation in trademark and patent issues in Latin American countries?

We have created a ABC Guide to POAs for Latin American Countries for you.

Learn about the requirements and procedures for a Power of Attorney in:

• Argentina

• Bolivia

• Chile

• Colombia

• Ecuador

• Mexico

• Panama

• Peru

• Venezuela

This is a summary of the current procedures for POAs:

Whenever you get one of our legal products, you will get special instructions for your POA, this Guide is intended for informational purposes only.

In Bogotá, Colombia march 16, 2012 the Culture ministers of the Andean Community countries agreed to start the Andean Plan for the Development of Cultural Industries 2012-2015 and gave precise guidelines to advance the proper management, enhancement and social appropriation of the Intangible Cultural material and Heritage.

These decisions were adopted at the First Meeting of the Andean Council of Ministers of Culture and Cultures, held on Friday March 16in Bogota, with the participation of the Ministers of Culture of Colombia, Ecuador and Peru, as well as the vice Minister Intercultural of the Ministry of Culture of Bolivia and vice Minister of Ecuador Heritage Coordinator.

http://www.comunidadandina.org/prensa/notas/np19-3-12.htm

The WIPO: International Patent Filings Set New Record in 2011

The past days (March, 5, 2012) was published by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) its annual audit of Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) filings from the last year. The principal date gave with this publication it is related with the growth of the volume of applications filed in the last year, that represents an increase of 10.7% over 2010 and the most important growth rate since 2005. “International patent filings under the WIPO-administered Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) set a new record in 2011 with 181,900 applications – a growth of 10.7“

The fastest growth in PCT applications are from China (+33.4%), Japan (+21%), Canada (+8.3%), the Republic of Korea (+8%) and the US (+8%). The United States remained the top PCT filer with 48,596 applications, but also there are a significant increases in applications originating from Japan and China (Japan and China filed 38,888 and 16,406 applications in 2011, respectively)

In Latin America the leader is Brazil with a 17.2% growth, but also have an important growth, countries like Mexico and Chile. In the next Graphic, we can see the international applications in latin American countries.

INTERNATIONAL APPLICATIONS BY LATIN AMERICAN COUNTRIES
Source: B&R Latina::Trademarks & Patents, elaborated with WIPO information

The Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), it is an international system for seeking patents on a global scale. This system was adopted through the subscription of a treaty done at Washington on June 19 of 1970 . Actually 144 countries belong to the union according to the WIPO publication of the World Intellectual Property Indicators . Between these States, we can found different Latin-American countries: like Colombia, Chile, Brazil, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Peru, Ecuador, Mexico, and Nicaragua.

The studied of the statistics available in the Wipos website can us say that since 2005, the sum of the number of PCT applications filed by this developing countries and transition economies has been increasing annually.