Trans-Pacific Partnership intellectual property provisions
The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a multilateral Free Trade Agreement under negotiation. The Advanced Intellectual Property Chapter for All 12 Nations with Negotiating Positions (August 30, 2013 consolidated bracketed negotiating text), was published by Wikileaks on 13 November 2013. Previously, the US proposal for the chapter had been leaked by U.S. Congressman Darrell Issa (R-CA) in May 2012. Other drafts available are from February 2011 and September 2011 - the latter focuses on patent.
The intellectual property provisions are a source of controversy, especially in terms of their effects on pharmaceutical patents and digital innovation. TPP members agree that they will follow and expand upon the legal rights and obligations delineated in the World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), and the agreement's discussions thus far have included trademark, geographical indication, copyright and related rights, patents, trade secrets, genetic resources, and traditional knowledge. Furthermore, statements from former US officials indicate that the agreement is intended to “set the bar” for future agreements.
- 1 Intellectual property section
- 2 Comparison with existing free trade agreements
- 3 Criticisms
- 4 See also
- 5 References
Intellectual property section
The language of the TPP borrows heavily from the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) (the most recent multilateral agreement involving copyright). The most recent intellectual property agreement that applies to all TPP members is TRIPS.
Article 2: Trademark
Scope of Trademark: Article 2.1 of the TPP states that “No Party may require, as a condition of registration, that a sign be visually perceptible, nor may a Party deny registration of a trademark solely on the grounds that the sign of which it is composed is a sound or a scent.”
This mirrors the scope of trademark in the Lanham Act. This places an obligation on TPP members to grant trademarks that they could reject under TRIPS, which allows a member to “require, as a condition of registration, that signs be visually perceptible.” The language of this article also duplicates the wording of the trademark provision in the Korea-US Free Trade Agreement.
Exclusive Use Rights: Article 2.4 provides the owner of a registered trademark the right to exclude third parties from using it in the course of trade. Furthermore, it states that they may also exclude those using “similar signs...for goods or services that are related to those goods or services in respect of which the owner's trademark is registered.”
The Lanham Act states that non-rights-holders may not “use in commerce any... colorable imitation of a registered mark in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of any goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive” (emphasis added). The difference in these two standards is unclear. Article 2.4 of the TPP has very similar language to the corresponding provision of TRIPS, however TRIPS allows the trademark owner to prevent others from using the mark “in the course of trade identical or similar signs for goods or services which are identical or similar.” It appears that the TPP language affords greater protection to trademarks, but this is not yet clear.
Well-Known Marks: Article 6bis of the Berne Convention refers to well-known marks as “a mark considered by the competent authority of the country of registration or use to be well known.” Such marks are to be protected outside of their home country. Article 2.6 of the TPP states that a party may not require registration of a trademark for it to be considered well-known. It states that parties may not deny relief based solely on “the lack of: (a) a registration; (b) inclusion on a list of well-known marks; or (c) prior recognition of the mark as well-known.” Furthermore, Footnote 5, found in Article 2.7 states that when determining whether a mark is well-known, “no Party shall require that the reputation of the trademark extend beyond the sector of the public that normally deals with the relevant goods or services.”
US law does not have a legislative standard for determining whether something is a “well-known mark.” However, the TPP's language deviates from the TRIPS standard. According to TRIPS Article 16.3, members must only take into account the “relevant sector of the public” - and may therefore go beyond it.
The Treatment of Geographical Indications: Protection: Article 2.4 of the TPP provides that “geographical indications are eligible for protection as trademarks.” It defines geographical indications as “s indications that identify a good as originating in the territory of a Party, or a region or locality in that territory, where a given quality, reputation, or other characteristic of the good is essentially attributable to its geographical origin.” It further states in footnote 4 that “any sign or combination of signs” can be a geographical indicator.
The main effect of this provision is to subsume geographical indication protection into trademark law. This marks a departure from TRIPS, which deals with geographical indications (GI) in an article separate from trademark (Article 22).
Geographical Indication vs Trademark: Article 2.15 of the TPP prohibits the use of a GI where it is “likely to cause confusion with a trademark.” Furthermore, Article 2.18 “defines a generic GI in a way that would allow one country's generic use of a term to defeat a claim of a GI that is protected in another country.” Lastly, Article 2.22 allows the registration of trademarks “reference a geographical area even though it is not the true place of origin.”
In the United States, geographical indications are treated in a manner almost identical with trademark law, so this merging of doctrines will have little effect. However, the language of the TPP deviates from that of TRIPS. Where the TPP focuses on “confusion with a trademark,” TRIPS regulation of GIs requires members to enable the prevention of “the use of any means in the designation or presentation of a good that indicates or suggests that the good in question originates in a geographical area other than the true place of origin in a manner which misleads the public as to the geographical origin of the good.”
Article 4: Copyright and Related Rights
Temporary Copies: Article 4.1 provides that rights holders may “authorize or prohibit all reproductions of their works, performances, and phonograms, in any manner or form, permanent or temporary (including temporary storage in electronic form).”
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (codified in Title 17 of the United States Code) does not provide rights over temporary copies. The statute's definition of “copies” as “material objects” that are fixed (i.e., “sufficiently permanent…for a period of more than transitory duration”) indicates that temporary storage of copyrighted material would not infringe. In addition, 17 USC § 512(b)(1) specifically provides that internet service providers are not liable for infringement “by reason of the intermediate and temporary storage of material….” There is some debate in US federal courts regarding liability for temporary copies, beginning with MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc. which held that temporary copies stored on RAM may infringe. Recently, however, several Courts of Appeals have found that qualitatively transitory copies do not violate the DMCA. ACTA does not define copyright rights, and TRIPS references the Berne Convention, which contains no language regarding temporary copies.
Parallel Imports: Article 4.2 provides that rights holders may authorize or prohibit parallel imports.
In March 2013, the United States Supreme Court decided in Kirtsaeng v. John_Wiley & Sons, Inc. that the first-sale doctrine applies to works manufactured outside the United States, establishing the legality of parallel imports. Likewise, New Zealand lifted a ban on parallel importation in 1998 and has found that the decision has not had a negative impact on New Zealand’s creative sector. TRIPS provides that “nothing in this Agreement shall be used to address the issue of the exhaustion of intellectual property rights,” effectively allowing each country to determine their own exhaustion regime. ACTA does not address parallel imports.
Copyright Terms: Article 4.3 provides that copyright terms shall be “not less than the life of the author and 70 years after the author’s death.” TRIPS, on the other hand, sets the term at 50 years. In addition, 4.3 does not provide a presumption for the author’s death, unlike 17 USC § 302(e). ACTA does not address copyright duration.
Anti-Circumvention: Article 4.9 is similar to U.S. law on anti-circumvention (17 USC § 1201-04). However, there are some differences between Art. 4.9, U.S. law and other agreements. ACTA and KORUS, for example, require knowledge that one is circumventing a technology measure, while Art. 4.9(a)(i) and U.S. law do not have knowledge requirements.
Art. 4.9(a)(ii)(C) provides that prohibited devices and services include those that “enabl[e] or facilitat[e]” circumvention, whereas the DMCA and ACTA only prohibit devices and services that have “the purpose of circumventing.”
Article 4.9(c) provides that any violation under Art. 4.9 is a “separate cause of action, independent of any infringement that might occur under…copyright.” There is a Circuit Court of Appeals split on this issue between the 9th Circuit – holding the view reflected in Art. 4.9(c), that is, that you may be guilty of circumvention even if you do not violate a copyright – and the 2nd Circuit, which has held that an underlying copyright must actually be infringed to trigger circumvention liability (the “infringement nexus requirement”). TRIPS does not address anti-circumvention.
Rights Management Information: 4.10(a)(iii) provides for civil liability if one “distributes, imports for distribution, broadcasts, communicates or makes available to the public copies of works” with removed RMI. This language is identical to ACTA article 27.2(b). It is broader than U.S. law, which imposes liability only for distribution, importing for distribution, or public performance.
Article 5: Making Available
Distribution – Making Available: Article 5 provides that authors have “the exclusive right to authorize or prohibit the communication…of their works,…including making available…their works in such a way that…the public may access these works from a place and at a time individually chosen by them.” U.S. law, on the other hand, only provides the following rights: sale, transfer of ownership, rental, lease or lending. There is a U.S. District Court split on whether § 106(3) includes a “making available” right absent actual transfer of the work (e.g. hosting a music video). The “making available” right has been advocated by the RIAA in cases like Elektra v. Baker, Atlantic v. Howell, and Capitol v. Thomas. In all three cases, the court either declined to address the argument or found that § 106(3) was not violated unless the alleged infringer actually distributed the work. The Commercial Felony Streaming Act (S.978) criminalize streaming for financial benefit, arguably establishing at least a narrow "making available" right.
Article 8: Patents
Definition: Article 8.1 sets forth the availability of patents, and provides that “patents shall be available for any new forms, uses, or methods of using a known product; and [these] may satisfy the criteria for patentability, even if such invention does not result in the enhancement of the known efficacy of the product.”
TRIPS, on the other hand, specifies that patents are available “provided that [the invention] [is] new, involve[s] an inventive step and [is] capable of industrial application.” Flynn et al. note that Art. 8.1 is inconsistent with the laws of many TPP member countries, and may also directly target India.
Disclosure: Article 8.10 provides disclosure of claimed invention requirements. It does not include, however, a requirement that the inventor indicate the “best mode” for carrying out the invention. The “best mode” requirement is included in both U.S. law and TRIPS (Art. 29). The purpose of the “best mode” requirement is to ensure full disclosure, such that the inventor may not “disclose only what he knows to be his second-best embodiment, retaining the best for himself.”
Article 12: Civil Enforcement
Damages: Article 12.4 mandates the creation of a system of statutory damages and specifies that damages shall be “sufficiently high to constitute a deterrent to future infringements.”
ACTA does not require that a member use statutory damages, but allows it as an enforcement option. TRIPS allows statutory damages to be used where they exist, but does not require their creation. US law does not include a deterrence requirement, and only allows increased damages for willful violations.
Destruction: Article 12.7 sets destruction of pirated or counterfeit goods as the norm. It also specifies that “materials and implements that have been used in the manufacture or creation of such pirated or counterfeit goods be…promptly destroyed”. This expands upon both U.S. law and TRIPS: U.S. law provides a specific list of implements that may be destroyed (molds, matrices, etc.) and TRIPS narrows the materials that may be destroyed to those the “predominant use of which has been in the creation of the infringing goods.” In addition, TRIPS does not establish destruction of goods as the norm, but provides for destruction or disposing the good outside the channels of commerce.
Article 13: Provisional Measures
Preliminary Injunctions: Article 13 sets forth procedures for granting a preliminary injunctions. Article 13.1 provides that preliminary injunctions should be granted “expeditiously” and “except in exceptional cases” requests should be executed “within ten days”. This differs from U.S. law, TRIPS and ACTA, none of which have explicit time requirements. ACTA, for example, provides that authorities should have the authority to “make decision without undue delay”. Additionally, TRIPS and ACTA both specify that preliminary injunctions are appropriate in cases where “delay is likely to cause irreparable harm to the right holder”. Art. 13.1, on the other hand, does not seem to require irreparable harm to the holder.
Article 13.2 sets out the standards an applicant for a preliminary injunction must satisfy, stating that applicants may be required to provide “any reasonably available evidence in order to satisfy [the authorities] with a sufficient degree of certainty that the applicant’s right is being infringed.” U.S. law, on the other hand, has much more stringent requirements for preliminary injunctions, requiring a showing that irreparable harm will be likely, balancing the harms of an injunction, and considering the public interest. As noted above, both ACTA and TRIPS contain identical “irreparable harm” language, which corresponds to the U.S. “irreparable injury” requirement.
Article 15: Criminal Enforcement
Willful: Article 15.1 provides for criminal penalties in cases of willful copyright infringement on a commercial scale. It notes that willful copyright infringement on a commercial scale includes “significant willful copyright or related rights infringements that have no direct or indirect motivation of financial gain” in addition to infringement with financial gain as the motive.
This differs from ACTA, TRIPS and U.S. law. ACTA specifies that willful infringement on a commercial scale includes that motivated by financial gain, but says nothing about infringement lacking such financial motives. TRIPS does not specify what qualifies as willful copyright on a commercial scale, but the US-China WTO case decided in 2010 determines commercial scale by looking at the typical or usual commercial activity with respect to the product and specific market involved. U.S. law contains a financial gain motivation requirement and also may find infringement without financial gain, but where the goods distributed or reproduced would retail for $1,000 or more.
Comparison with existing free trade agreements
The United States has entered into 14 free trade agreements (FTAs) -- including three trade promotion agreements (TPAs) -- with a total of 19 countries. The 14 agreements include the Israel–United States Free Trade Agreement (1985); the North American Free Trade Agreement (1994); the Jordan–United States Free Trade Agreement (2001); the Australia–United States Free Trade Agreement (2004); the Chile–United States Free Trade Agreement (2004); the Singapore–United States Free Trade Agreement (2004); the Dominican Republic–Central America Free Trade Agreement; the Bahrain–United States Free Trade Agreement(2006); the Morocco–United States Free Trade Agreement (2006); the Oman–United States Free Trade Agreement (2006); the Peru–United States Trade Promotion Agreement (2007); the Panama–United States Trade Promotion Agreement (2011); the United States – South Korea Free Trade Agreement and the United States–Colombia Free Trade Agreement(2011). All 14 of those agreements include articles regarding intellectual property.
Signatories to U.S.-negotiated Free Trade Agreements agree that the content of the agreement establishes a minimum standard for domestic law. The TPP requires that “Each party shall, at a minimum, give effect to this chapter,” and that “A Party may provide more extensive protection for, and enforcement of, intellectual property rights under its law than this Chapter requires, provided that the more extensive protection does not contravene this Chapter.”
All of the US-negotiated FTAs except the Israel–United States Free Trade Agreement include the “each party shall, at a minimum, give effect to” language. The additional language in the TPP duplicates the language found in the Australia–United States Free Trade Agreement.
The Chile–United States Free Trade Agreement and the 2005 Dominican Republic–Central America Free Trade Agreement intellectual property chapters include slightly different language, providing that signatories shall “give effect shall give effect to the provisions of this Chapter and may, but shall not be obliged to, implement in its domestic law more extensive protection than is required by this Chapter, provided that such protection does not contravene the provisions of this Chapter.”
The TPP requires signatories to affirm that “No Party may require, as a condition of registration, that a sign be visually perceptible, nor may a Party deny registration of a trademark solely on the grounds that the sign of which it is composed is a sound or a scent.” 
13 of the 14 agreements include articles on Trademarks (the exception is the Israel-US FTA). The TPP language prohibiting limitation to “visually perceptible” marks or denying trademark protection solely on the basis of sound or scent is found in the following FTAs: the Australia-US FTA, the Morocco-US FTA, the Oman-US FTA, the Bahrain-US FTA, the Korea-US FTA and the Columbia-US FTA.
More limited language is found in the Singapore-US FTA, the CAFTA-DR and the Chile-US FTA. Both the Singapore-US FTA and the CAFTA-DR include the prohibition against requiring “visually perceptible” marks. The Singapore-US FTA requires only that “each party shall make best efforts to register scent marks” (sound marks are not mentioned). The CAFTA-DR and Chile-US FTA require recognition of “sound marks” but has more limited language (parties “may approve”) regarding geographic and scent marks.
With regard to copyright, the TPP requires that signatories establish “term of protection of a work (including a photographic work), performance, or phonogram” of: 70 years following the death of a natural person; for a non-natural person the term is “not less than 95 years from the end of the calendar year of the first authorized publication of the work, performance of phonogram.” “Failing such authorized publication within 25 years from the creation of the work, performance, or phonogram, not less than 120 years from the end of the calendar year of creation.” This language is duplicated only in the Oman-US FTA (2006).
Other than NAFTA, which provides a copyright protection term of 50 years under all circumstances, all of the US Free Trade Agreements (except for the Israel-US FTA and the Jordan-US FTA which include no relevant provisions) establish a copyright term of protection of 70 years following the death of the author, 70 years following the first authorized publication by a non-human or, failing such authorized publication within 50 years, 70 years from the creation.
The TPP provides that “authors, performers and producers of phonograms have the right to authorize or prohibit all reproductions of their work...in any manner or form, permanent or temporary (including temporary storage in electronic form).” This formulation is duplicated in the Singapore-US FTA, the Morocco-US FTA, the CAFTA-DR, the Oman-US FTA, the Bahrain-US FTA, the Panama-US PTA and the Korea-US FTA. The Chile-US FTA and Peru-US PTA grant the same rights to authorize and prohibit permanent or temporary reproductions (including temporary electronic storage) to “authors of literary and artistic works.” The Australia-US FTA grants the same rights to “(a) authors, in respect of their works; (b) performers, in respect of their performances; and (c) producers of phonograms, in respect of their phonograms).
The TPP requires signatories to provide authors the exclusive right to authorize or prohibit the communication to the public of their works, “by wire or wireless means, including the making available to the public of their works in such a way that members of the public may access these works from a place and at a time individually chosen by them.” This formulation is duplicated in nine of the US FTAs. The Australia-US FTA and Morocco-US FTA provide a slightly different formulation, allowing authors to “authorise or prohibit the making available to the public of the original and copies of their works, performances, and phonograms through sale or other transfer of ownership” [no mention of wire or wireless means or public access location and timing]. The only FTAs excluding the term “making available” are the US-Israel FTA (1985), NAFTA (1994), and the US-Jordan FTA (2001).
The TPP provides that rights holders may authorize or prohibit parallel imports. The Australia-US FTA, the Singapore-US FTA, and the Morocco-US FTA also disallow parallel importing of patented products. “Subsequent U.S. negotiated FTAs have not included this provision, due to language included in the Science, State, Justice, and Commerce, and Related Agencies, Appropriations Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-108), which prohibited the use of such provisions.”
The TPP provides that patents shall be available “for any invention, whether a product or process, in all fields of technology, provided that the invention is new, involves an inventive step, and is capable of industrial application.” Further, the TPP affirms for signatory parties that “patents shall be available for any new forms, uses, or methods of using a known product... even if such invention does not result in the enhancement of the known efficacy of that product.” Finally, the TPP includes a requirement that patents be made available for “plants and animals” and “diagnostic, therapeutic, and surgical methods for the treatment of humans or animals.”
The phrase “even if such invention does not result in the enhancement of the known efficacy of that product,” is not found in any previous FTA.
The language including a requirement to patent all “new forms, uses, or methods of using a known product,” is found in the 2004 Australia-US FTA (“new uses or methods of a known product"), the 2006 Oman-US FTA (“for any new uses for, or new methods of using a known product”), and the Korea-US FTA (“for any new uses or methods of using a known product”). Ten of the past FTAs have included the same language making patents available for “for any invention, whether a product or process, in all fields of technology, provided that the invention is new, involves an inventive step, and is capable of industrial application.” The two exceptions to this formulation are the Oman-US FTA and Bahrain-US FTA.
The TPP extends patentability of inventions to “plants and animals” and to “diagnostic, therapeutic, and surgical methods for the treatment of humans or animals.” No other FTA explicitly extends coverage to both categories. Coverage for both “plants and animals” and treatment methods is explicitly permitted to be excluded in NAFTA and the Oman-US FTA. These two categories are permitted to be excluded by TRIPS and the Singapore-US FTA, the CAFTA-DR, the Peru-US PTA and the Panama-US PTA all incorporate this allowance to exclude plants and animals and treatment methods via reference to TRIPS. Notably, the CAFTA, Peru and Panama agreements indicate that “Notwithstanding the foregoing, a Party that does not provide patent protection for plants by the date of entry into force of this Agreement shall undertake all reasonable efforts to make such patent protection available.”
The Morocco-US FTA explicitly includes patents for plants and animals, but makes no mention of diagnostic, therapeutic and surgical methods.
The Jordan-US FTA, the Australia-US FTA, the Bahrain-US FTA and the Korea-US FTA explicitly allow for exclusion of “diagnostic, therapeutic, and surgical procedures for the treatment of humans or animals.”
The TPP requires that signatories hold civilly liable any person who “circumvents without authority any effective technological measure that controls access to a protected work,” or otherwise makes available devices or products or service that are intended to circumvent or have only limited commercial purpose other than to circumvent or are primarily designed to circumvent. There is no requirement that the infringing party be aware of their infringement in order to be held civilly liable (no knowledge requirement). The TPP requires that signatories provide for criminal penalties for persons who engage in these activities and are found “to have engaged willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain.”
The TPP allows for a variety of limited exceptions to criminal and civil liability, including: “achieving interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs”; “research consisting of identifying and analyzing flaws and vulnerabilities of technologies for scrambling and descrambling of information;” “preventing the access of minors to inappropriate online content;” testing the security of a computer of network; “disabling a capability to carry out undisclosed collection or dissemination of personally identifying information,” governmental purpose; access by a library or educational institution for making acquisition decisions; adverse impact as demonstrated in a legislative or administrative proceeding.
Seven of the post-2001 FTAs – Morocco-US; CAFTA-DR; Oman-US; Bahrain-US; Peru-US; Panama-US; and Columbia-US – mirror the TPP in not including a knowledge requirement for civil liability. Four of the U.S.-negotiated FTAs (Singapore, Chile, Australia, Korea) limit civil liability to persons who circumvent “knowingly or having reasonable grounds to know” (the Chile-US language includes a limit only for “knowingly”).
All of the post-2001 FTAs, except for the Chile-US FTA, require that signatories provide for criminal penalties in the case of willful engagement for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain. The Chile-US FTA that infringing persons “shall be civilly liable and, in appropriate circumstances, shall be criminally liable.”
The exceptions to civil liability found in the TPP are the same as those found in the Chile-US FTA, the Australia-US FTA, the Morocco-US FTA, the CAFTA-DR, the Oman-US FTA, the Bahrain-US FTA, the Peru-US FTA, the Panama-US FTA, and the Korea-US FTA.
Rights management information
The TPP establishes civil liability for persons knowingly removing or altering rights management information (RMI); distributing or importing for distribution RMI; or distributing, broadcasting, communicating or making available works with knowledge that RMI has been removed. Criminal liability is applied for these acts when done “willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain.” The construction found in the TPP duplicates that found in each U.S.-negotiated FTA and PTA after 2001.
The TPP provides that “Each party shall act on requests for provisional relief inaudita altera parte expeditiously, and shall, except in exceptional cases, generally execute such requests within ten days.” Furthermore parties must allow their judicial authorities to require “any reasonably available evidence in order to satisfy themselves with a sufficient degree of certainty that the applicant’s right is being infringed or that such infringement is imminent, and to order the applicant to provide a reasonable security or equivalent assurance set at a level sufficient to protect the defendant and to prevent abuse, and so as not to unreasonably deter recourse to such procedures.”
Twelve of the fourteen free trade agreements have articles that deal with provisional measures. The ten day execution deadline is found only in the Morocco-US FTA and the Oman-US FTA. The Bahrain-US FTA refers to a general 10-day requirement that can be avoided "in exceptional cases."
Nine of the FTAs do not refer to a ten day execution deadline, but instead only refer to parties acting “expeditiously” on requests for provisional relief. For example, the US-Singapore agreement refers to acting “expeditiously” on requests for provisional relief, but lacks the ten day guideline of the TPP.
NAFTA is the only agreement with provisional measures provisions that differ notably from the TPP. NAFTA explicitly mentions the trafficking of infringing goods - one of the purposes of provisional measures is “in particular to prevent the entry into the channels of commerce in their jurisdiction of allegedly infringing goods.” NAFTA's requirements for taking provisional measures are somewhat stricter than those of the TPP, requiring a showing that a “delay in the issuance of such measures is likely to cause irreparable to the right holder.” This requirement is notably absent from the TPP and the other free trade agreements that provide for provisional relief.
The TPP requires that signatories pre-establish damages for infringement of trademarks and copyrights “in an amount sufficiently high to constitute a deterrent to future infringements and to compensate fully the right holder.” For patents, the TPP requires that signatories provide judicial authority to “increase damages to an amount that is up to three times the amount of the injury found or assessed.”
All of the FTAs except for NAFTA and the US-Chile FTA include requirements for signatory judiciaries to establish or maintain pre-established damages sufficient to compensate right holders and deter future infringers. The authority to issue treble damages in the case of patents appears in the Morocco-US FTA, and the Oman-US FTA.
NAFTA provides only that parties provide judicial authority to order damages “adequate to compensate for the injury the right holder has suffered” and the US-Chile FTA authorizes signatory judiciaries only to order “damages adequate to compensate for the injury the right holder has suffered because of an infringement of that person’s intellectual property right.”
Alterations to US laws
Many of the TPP’s IP sections reflect current US law; however, some sections preclude judicial resolution of court splits and in other instances expand beyond current US law. In trademarks the TPP does very little to change existing US law. However, the TPP could change US copyright law in several areas. For example, the TPP extends rights to copyright holders over temporary copies, whereas US law specifies that copies must be “fixed”; this may also impact the ISP safe harbor for cached copies of infringing works. The TPP also contains language that would “resolve” court splits in favor of copyright holders on the issues of: parallel imports, whether circumvention liability requires an underlying copyright infringement, and whether authors have a “making available” right. The TPP’s “standards” for preliminary injunctions are quite different from US law, including a 10-day window in which a court must grant the injunction, and no requirement that the right holder show likely irreparable harm. The TPP patent provision has been criticized primarily for its impacts on pharmaceuticals and medical devices, but will likely also impact software and other technology. In particular, the TPP removes the requirement that an inventor disclose the “best mode” of the invention, thus creating the possibility of inventors “retaining the best for [themselves].”
Perhaps the primary criticism of the TPP is that it sets US intellectual property laws as the “norm” for all members. TRIPS established the minimum intellectual property rights and enforcement provisions for WTO members. ACTA has not been ratified, but provides an example of the most recent multinational intellectual property agreement (for trademarks and copyright only) upon which many TPP provisions are based or expand.
- Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)
- Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA)
- Copyright infringement
- Digital rights
- Generic drugs
- Protect IP Act (PIPA)
- Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA)
- Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership
- "Advanced Intellectual Property Chapter for All 12 Nations with Negotiating Positions (August 30, 2013 consolidated bracketed negotiating text)".
- "Issa Releases the TPP IP Section". Darrell Issa. Retrieved 5 December 2012.
- "TPP - US IP Proposal (Feb 2011)". Retrieved 5 December 2012.
- "TPP - US IP Proposal(Sep 2011)". Retrieved 5 December 2012.
- "EFF TPP Page". EFF. Retrieved 5 December 2012.
- "The US and the TPP". USTR. Retrieved 5 December 2012.
- "Testimony of Susan Schwab before USHR". Subcomm on Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Trade. p. 3. Retrieved 5 December 2012.
- Sager, Carrie Ellen. "TPP vs. ACTA - Line by Line". infojustice. Retrieved 7 December 2012.
- Flynn, Sean. "Public Interest Analysis of the US TPP Proposal for IP Chapter". Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property. Retrieved 6 December 2012.
- "TRIPS Trademark Section". Retrieved 6 December 2012.
- "Paris Convention - Art 6bis". Retrieved 6 December 2012.
- "Board Resolution: Well-Known Mark Protection". International Trademark Association. Retrieved 6 December 2012.
- 15 USC § 1054
- 17 USC § 101
- Griffin, Jodie. "Comparing TPP to US Law". Public Knowledge. Retrieved 6 December 2012.
- Band, Jonathan; Jeny Marcinko (2005). "A New Perspective on Temporary Copies: The Fourth Circuit's Opinion in Costar v. Loopnet". Stanford Technology Law Review.
- Sutton, Maira. "Temporary Copies: A TPP Provision Disconnected from Reality". EFF. Retrieved 6 December 2012.
- "Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved 20 November 2013.
- Cerda, Alberto. "USTR New Exclusive Right for Copyright Holders: Importation Provision in the TPPA". Knowledge Ecology International. Retrieved 6 December 2012.
- "TRIPS". Article 6. Retrieved 6 December 2012.
- "ACTA". Article 27.6(a)(i). Retrieved 6 December 2012.
- Unless one is manufacturing, importing or distributing a device that enables circumvention (ACTA Article 27(b), KORUS 18.4.7(a)(ii))
- 17 USC § 1201
- 17 USC § 1201(a)(2)
- ACTA Art. 5; Art. 27.6(b)(i)
- MDY v. Blizzard, 629 F.3d 928 (9th Cir. 2010)
- Chamberlain Group v. Skylink Tech., 381 F.3d 1178 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
- 17 USC § 1202(b)(3)
- 17 USC § 106(3)
- Sterk, Diana (2011). "P2P File-Sharing and the Making Available War". Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property 9 (7): 495. Retrieved 6 December 2012.
- 551 F. Supp. 2d 234, 243 (SDNY 2008)
- 554 F. Supp. 2d 976, 983 (D. Ariz. 2008)
- 692 F.3d 899 (8th Cir. 2012)
- Capitol, 692 F.3d 899
- Elektra at 243; Atlantic at 983
- "Free Bieber". Retrieved 6 December 2012.
- Pallante, Maria. "Promoting Investment and Protecting Commerce Online: The ART Act, the NET Act and Illegal Streaming". Statement Before the Subcommittee on Intellectual Property. US Copyright Office. Retrieved 6 December 2012.
- TRIPS Art. 27.1
- Supra FN11 at 20
- 35 USC § 112(a)
- In re Nelson, 280 F.2d 172, 184 (CCPA 1960)
- ACTA Art. 9.3
- TRIPS Art. 45.2
- 17 USC § 504(c)
- 17 USC § 503(b)
- TRIPS Art. 46
- <ACTA Art. 12.2
- TRIPS Article 50.2 and ACTA 12.2
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7, 12 (2008) (clarifying that a plaintiff must show that “irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an injunction”)
- ACTA Art. 23
- "Summary of 2010 US-China IP Dispute". WTO. Retrieved 6 December 2012.
- 17 USC § 506(a)(1)(A) & (B)
- "Free Trade Agreements". USTR. Retrieved 7 December 2012.
- TPP Article 1.1
- TPP Article 1.6
- For NAFTA 1701.2; For Jordan-US: Article 4.1 For Singapore-US, Art. 16.1; For Australia-US, Art. 17.1.1; For Morocco-US, Art. 15.1; for CAFTA-DR, Art. 15.1; for Oman-US, Art. 15.1; for Bahrain-US, Art. 14.1; for Korea-US, Art. 18.1; For Columbia-US, Art. 16.1
- Australia-US FTA Art. 17.1
- Chile-US Art. 17.1; CAFTA-DR Art. 15.1
- TPP Art. 2.1
- Morocco-US FTA Art. 15.2.1
- Oman-US FTA Art. 15.2.1
- Bahrain-US FTA Art. 14.2.1
- Korea-US FTA Art. 18.2
- Columbia-US FTA Art. 16.7.1
- Singapore-US FTA Art. 16.2.1; CAFTA-DR Art. 15.2
- Singapore-US Art. 16.2.1
- CAFTA-DR Art. 15.2; Chile-US Art. 17.2.1
- TPP 4.5(b)(i)
- TPP 4.5(b)(ii)
- Oman-US Art. 15.4.4
- NAFTA Art. 4
- TPP Art. 4.1
- Singapore-US FTA Art. 16.4.1
- Morocco-US FTA Art. 15.5.1
- CAFTA DR Art. 15.5.1
- Oman-US FTA Art. 15.5.1
- Bahrain-US FTA Art. 14.4.1
- Panama-US PTA Art. 15.5.1
- Korea-US FTA Art. 18.4.1
- Chile-US FTA Art. 17.5.1
- Peru-US PTA Art. 16.5.2
- Australia-US FTA Art. 17.4.1(a), 17.4.1(b), 17.4.1(c)
- TPP, Art. 4.3
- Singapore-US FTA Art. 16.4.2; Chile-US FTA Art. 17.5.2; CAFTA-DR Art. 15.6; Oman-US FTA Art. 15.5; Bahrain-US FTA Art. 14.5; Peru-US TPA Art. 16.5.4; Panama-US PTA Art. 15.6; Korea-US FTA Art. 18.5; Columbia-US FTA Art. 16.5.4.
- Australia-US FTA Art. 17.4.2; Morocco-US FTA Art. 15.5.3
- Australia-US FTA Art. 17.9.4
- Singapore-US FTA Art. 16.7.2
- Morocco-US FTA Art. 15.5.2
- Shayerah Ilias, Ian Fergusson, “Intellectual Property Rights and International Trade,” Congressional research Service, February 17, 2011
- TPP, Art. 8.1
- TPP, Art. 8.1(a)
- TPP, Art. 8.1(b)
- Australia-US FTA Art. 17.9.1
- Oman-US FTA Art. 15.8(b)
- Korea-US FTA Art. 18.8.1
- NAFTA Art. 1709.1; Jordan-US FTA Art. 4.17.1, Singapore-US FTA Art. 16.7.1; Chile-US FTA Art. 17.9.1; Australia-US Art. 17.9.1; CAFTA-DR Art. 15.9.1; Peru-US PTA Art. 16.9.1; Panama-US PTA Art. 15.9.1; Korea-US FTA Art. 18.8.1; Columbia-US Art. 16.9
- Art. 15.8(a)
- Art. 14.8.1
- TPP Art. 8.1(a)
- TPP Art. 8.1(b)
- NAFTA Art. 1709.3(a) and 1709.3(b)
- Oman-US FTA Art. 15.8.2(b) and 15.8.2(c)
- TRIPS Sec. 5, Art. 21.1
- Singapore-US FTA Art. 16.7.1
- CAFTA-DR Art. 15.9.2
- Peru-US PTA Art. 16.9.2
- Panama-US PTA Art. 15.9.2
- CAFTA Art. 15.9.2; Peru TPA Art. 16.9.2; Panama TPA Art. 15.9.2
- Morocco-US FTA Art. 15.9.2(a) and 15.9.2(b)
- Jordan-US FTA Art. 4.18(b)
- Australia-US FTA Art. 17.9.2(b)
- Bahrain-US FTA Art. 14.8.1
- Korea-US FTA Art. 18.8.1(b)
- TPP Art. 4.9(i)
- TPP Art. 4.9(ii)(A)
- TPP Art. 4.9(ii)(B)
- TPP Art. 4.9(ii)(C)
- TPP Art. 4.9
- TPP Art. 4.9(d)(i)
- TPP Art. 4.9(d)(ii)
- TPP Art. 4.9(d)(iii)
- TPP Art. 4.9(d)(iv)
- TPP Art. 4.9 (d)(v)
- TPP Art. 4.9(d)(vi)
- TPP Art. 4.9(d)(vii)
- Morocco-US FTA Art. 15.5.8
- CAFTA-DR Art. 15.5.7
- Oman-US FTA Art. 15.4.7
- Bahrain-US FTA Art. 14.4.7
- Peru-US TPA Art. 16.7.4
- Panama-US TPA Art. 15.5.7
- Columbia-US FTA Art. 16.7.4
- Singapore-US FTA Art. 16.4.7(i)
- Chile-US FTA Art. 17.7.5(a)
- Australia-US FTA Art. 17.4.7(a)
- Korea-US FTA Art. 18.4.7(i)
- Singapore-US FTA Art. 16.4.7; Australia-US FTA Art. 17.4.7; Morocco-US FTA Art. 15.5.8; CAFTA-DR Art. 15.5.7; Oman-US FTA Art. 15.4.7; Bahrain-US FTA Art. 14.4.7; Peru-US TPA Art. 16.7.4; Panama-US TPA Art. 15.5.7; Korea-US FTA Art. 18.4.7; Columbia-US FTA Art. 16.7.4.
- Australia-US FTA Art. 17.7.4(e)(i-viii)
- Morocco-US FTA Art. 15.5.8(d)(i-viii)
- CAFTA-DR Art. 15.5.7(d)(i-iv); Art. 15.5.7(e)(i-iii); Art. 15.5.7(f)
- Oman-US FTA Art. 15.4.7(d)(i-viii)
- Bahrain-US FTA Art. 14.4.7(e)(i-viii)
- Peru-US FTA Art. 16.7.4(e)(i-vi); Art. 16.7.4(f); Art. 16.7.4(h)
- Panama-US FTA Art. 15.5.7(d)(i-iv); Art. 15.5.7(e)(i-iii); Art. 15.5.7(f)
- Korea-US FTA Art. 18.4.7(d)(i-viii)
- TPP Art. 4.10(a)(i-iii)
- TPP Art. 4.10(a)
- Singapore-US FTA Art. 16.4.8(a)(i-iii); Chile-US FTA Art. 17.7.6(a)(i-iii); Australia-US FTA Art. 17.4.8(a)(i-iii); Morocco-US FTA Art. 15.5.9(i-iii); CAFTA-DR Art. 15.5.8(a)(i-iii); Oman-US FTA Art. 15.4.8(a)(i-iii); Bahrain-US FTA Art. 14.4.8(i-iii); Peru-US FTA TPA Art. 16.7.5(a)(i-iii); Panama-US TPA Art. 15.5.8(i-iii); Korea-US FTA Art. 18.4.8(i-iii); Columbia-US FTA Art. 16.7.5(i-iii)
- NAFTA 1716.1-2; Chile 17.11.15-16; Australia 17.11.16-17; Morocco 15.11.17-18; CAFTA-DR 18.10.17-18; Oman 15.10.17-18; Bahrain 14.10.17-18; Peru 16.11.18-19; Panama 15.11.17-18; Korea 18.10.17-18; Colombia Chapter 17.14-15; Singapore 16.9.15(a-b)
- Morocco-US FTA Art. 15.11.17
- Oman-US FTA Art. 15.10.17
- Bahrain-US FTA Art. 14.10.17
- Chile 17.11.15-16; Australia 17.11.16-17; CAFTA-DR 18.10.17-18; Peru 16.11.18-19; Panama 15.11.17-18; Korea 18.10.17-18; Colombia Chapter 17.14-15; Singapore 16.9.15(a-b)
- Singapore 16.9.15(a)
- NAFTA 1716.1
- NAFTA 1716.2(c)
- TPP Art. 12.4
- Singapore-US FTA Art. 16.6.9; Australia-US FTA Art. 17.11.17; Morocco-US FTA Art. 15.11.7; CAFTA-DR Art. 18.10.6; Oman-US FTA Art. 15.10.7; Bahrain-US FTA Art. 14.10.7; Peru-US TPA Art. 16.11.18; Panama-US TPA Art. 15.11.18; Korea-US FTA Art. 18.10.6; Columbia-US Art. 16.11.18.
- Morocco-US FTA Art. 15.11.7
- Oman-US FTA Art. 15.10.7
- NAFTA 1715.2(d)
- Chile-US FTA Art. 17.11.18(i)
- TPP Section 4.1
- 17 USC 101
- 17 USC 512(b)(1)
- TPP Section 4.9(c)
- TPP Article 13.1
- "Infojustice TPP Analysis".
- In re Nelson, 280 F.2d 172, 184 (CCPA 1960)
- "Stop the Trap".
- TRIPS Article 1.3
- "EU ACTA Rejection".