Intellectual property rights in a borderless environment

Nº 27, May - June 2006 Intellectual property rights in a borderless environment Viviane Reding Editorial ................................ EU Commissioner for Information Society and Media 1 IP & RTD: Articles ................................ 2 IP & RTD in practice ................................ 6 Patent of the month ............................ 6 Since the first Venice Patent Statute of 1474 and Council of Ten decree of 1545 prohibiting the publication of an author's work without permission, Europe has been at the forefront of protecting and rewarding creators and inventors. Over the centuries, intellectual property rights have been an essential instrument to enrich Europe's innovative and creative basis. They will be even more crucial in today's knowledge society, in a digital environment that has brought new issues and new challenges. These challenges have a central place within the i2010 initiative, the Commission's strategy for the information society. I will concentrate here on the distribution of content, although intellectual property rights are relevant for a broad range of other issues. Creators can now easily deliver their content around the world through the Internet, and new services have emerged and are still emerging. This leads to economic activity and the type of highly qualified jobs that Europe is looking for. Let us not forget that the content industries account for 5% of Europe's GDP and are growing 5-7% a year. The digital environment brings new and better services to the users, who can access the content where and when they want. The full potential of the online environment can only be realised in an environment where both producers and consumers of content feel comfortable. This requires respect of intellectual property rights in the first place. Producers and distributors of content will only bring their material online if they can be reasonably sure that they will be rewarded and not subject to piracy. At the same time, consumers have expectations as to what they can do with content they have legitimately acquired. Consumers also expect that they can buy online digital content from different countries without being hampered by artificial market segmentations. This is especially true within the European Union, where barriers to the physical circulation of goods have disappeared over the years. At present, there are still territorial constraints that stand in the way of new, pan-European services and products. You can see this for example in the area of licenses for the exploitation of music services. On 18th May 2005 the Commission adopted a Recommendation with the aim to bring licensing policies for the exploitation of music services more in line with the crossborder nature of the Internet. The Internet has created new business opportunities, but also new possibilities to share our common cultural and scientific heritage. I have recently launched the Digital Libraries initiative that will make Europe's cultural and scientific record available to all Europeans through the Internet. It will allow Estonians to easily find and use digital books and images from libraries in Spain or a Dutchman to find film material from Hungary. Bringing this type of material online poses a number of copyright questions which we will tackle together with cultural institutions and right holders. Within the Digital libraries initiative, the Commission will pay particular attention to the accessibility of scientific content and information. A rapid flow of this content is essential to maximise its use for innovation and for educational purposes throughout Europe. The Internet revolution has given rise to enormous opportunities, but also to a set of challenges that by their nature have a crossborder character. These challenges call for a constant scrutiny of the intellectual property framework and for innovative licensing solutions, in order to arrive at a borderless environment that benefits authors, industry and consumers alike. In such an environment, intellectual property rights can continue to play their role as a key driver of creativity and innovation for our continent. esp@cenet Quiz ............................ 6 IP eModules ............................ 7 RTD eModules ............................ 8 Editorial Board ................................ 10 The IPR-Helpdesk is funded by the European Commission, DG Enterprises and Industry, under the 6th RTD Framework Programme of the European Union IP & RTD: Articles IPR for Research and Development Prof. Jerzy Buzek Member of the European Parliament Rapporteur on the 7 Framework Programme Nº 27, May - June 2006 The Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Development (FP7) is a core element for re-launching the Lisbon process and creating a knowledge-based society. The policy-makers at the European level must find adequate instruments to reinforce this shift. While the European policy in the field of research is smoothly consolidating the creation of the European Research Area, perhaps the time has come to think about the benefits the EU could reap from a European Research and Innovation Area? Today, Europe faces important challenges from global competition, not only with US and Japan, but also with countries like China and India. In this context, the objectives imposed by the Lisbon strategy are more significant: Europe must invest more in research, and a much stronger effort is needed to achieve the objective of investing 3% of its GDP in research by 2010. Both the private and public sectors are lagging in this commitment. To pave the way toward obtaining these goals, the 7th Framework Programme (FP7) for the years 2007-2013 was originally proposed with a budget of almost 73 billion euros. Even though subsequent agreements within the Council caused a slight reduction in funding for R&D, it is a fact that European policy-makers perceive research and development as key elements for sustainable and dynamic growth. In order to reinforce this strategy, multiple synergies between FP7 and the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme, as well as structural funds, should be established. Thus, from one side we bridge the gap between research and the commer- cialisation phase and from the other we use the cohesion funds to spur the technological progress of the regions that are lagging behind. Creating an innovative economy also means paying more attention to the Triangle of Knowledge: education-research-innovation. It means strengthening the cooperation between universities and the industrial and commercial sectors in order to ensure better communication, dissemination and application of the outcomes of research. A knowledge-based economy - where Europe can really be competitive - requires a foundation of robust education and training. Life-long learning is crucial in order to continually adapt the labour market to a rapidly changing technological society. Taking into account the model for Europe's desirable future development, intellectual property rights (IPR) will continue to play a role as the important drivers for many sectors and for all modern industry. I made this clear in my Report on FP7 published at the end of last year, the first amendment of which already called for adequate protection of IPR at an early stage in the research process. These measures could effectively attract private investment and contribute to enhancing European competitiveness. This is essential if we want to give knowledge an economic dimension. As for the industrial sector, raising the awareness of the IPR dimension is necessary - IPR principles should be included in management training and should play a substantial part in business plans. There are several flaws in the current IPR legislation. Even though projects such as adaptation to new technologies - which seems to be lacking for the time being should not be forgotten, the most important factor seems to be the cost of patents which is approximately four times higher in the EU than in the USA. Also, the complexity and time required for patent procedures are seen as major obstacles. It is quite clear to me that initiatives such as the Community Patent, which would make it possible to obtain a single patent valid throughout the EU, must be preceded by a serious and deep consultation process in order to gain a widespread public support. Its introduction would have a profound impact on researchers and industry. Special attention should be paid to SMEs which could find themselves in a particularly vulnerable position. Moreover, it is essential that knowledge dissemination not be hindered by over-protectionism. If serious thought is given to our future development and competitiveness, as well as further European integration, it is clear that a harmonised IP law is necessary. We should be aware of the fact that introducing a common IP law could significantly boost the growth of our knowledge-based economy, providing greater incentives for inventors. European patent policy - Companies' perspective Vincent Tilman Adviser - European affairs, EUROCHAMBRES The field of intellectual property rights is part of the seven cross-sectoral initiatives in favour of EU industrial policy, according to a statement by the European Commission on 5th October 2005. Therefore, in order to boost growth, innovation, competitiveness and jobs, it is absolutely necessary to implement an effective intellectual property rights system. It is in this respect that, on 9th January 2006, the Commission launched a public consultation on how to improve the current patent system in Europe, the opportunity for the Community patent and the fields in which harmonisation would be necessary. Indeed, even if the Community patent which is currently blocked at the Council remains the top objective, short-term mea- sures may be taken in order to improve the European patent policy. Considering the major stakes for companies, the Association of European Chambers of Commerce and Industry, EUROCHAMBRES, was keen to answer the survey provided by the Commission. In this regard, EUROCHAMBRES could rely 2 Nº 27, May - June 2006 on the contributions of many Chambers of Commerce and Industry all over Europe. fit from the internal market too. Today, there are almost as many patent systems as there are European countries. For that reason, EUROCHAMBRES insists on the need to make progress as quickly as possible on the Community patent with a value of unit title. However, in this regard, EUROCHAMBRES is opposed to any compromise which would indirectly cause a cost increase. An efficient patent policy To conclude, EUROCHAMBRES highlights the importance of developing an efficient and ambitious European patent policy. European companies are innovative and should be able to protect their inventions. In particular, it is necessary to show a European unit against emerging countries where counterfeiting is common and where national authorities are very reluctant at the moment to enforce patent protection. Patent accessibility Patent accessibility is the main concern for enterprises, as regards both the European patent and the future Community patent. The cost of obtaining a patent is a key factor for SME. The total cost of obtaining a European patent includes the all costs to the applicant, from the filing to the granting of the patent, as well as its validation in the different countries mentioned in the application. It also includes internal costs (personnel costs, typically incurred by the Patent Department, when it exists) and external costs (translation services, Offices' fees, Intellectual Property Councils). Once validated in the different countries, to be effective, a patent must be upheld through the payment of annual fees to the national Offices which - since they are patents obtained through Europe - give back 50% to the European Patent Office. The payment of maintenance fees is mostly carried out through intermediaries who charge for this service. The maintenance cost for the patent charged to the company is too high and has no direct relation to the actual cost. As a result, the European Chambers advocate a strong policy decision from the European Union, in order to minimize the patent translation costs1, optimise the use of information technologies and promote a more appropriate dispute resolution procedure. Appropriate methods for resolving disputes- Mediation European companies denounce the lack of efficiency in patent dispute resolution systems, as well as the judicial system's difficulty in compensating for damages suffered by patent holders. Until the implementation of the Community patent and a Community jurisdictional system, in the event of litigation, it is necessary to bring actions in the courts of several countries, which decide according national legislations. Costs are disproportionate with respect to the financing capacity of many SME. It is clear that an effort has to be made to harmonise the applicable legislation and simplify the system, as well as the procedure projected for the Community trade mark2. Furthermore, EUROCHAMBRES stresses that there are alternative procedures for dispute resolution which offer many advantages, such as mediation. This has proved to be very effective for intellectual property dispute resolution. Its flexibility and low cost make it an efficient tool. Alas, this solution is not yet familiar enough to companies and deserves to be the subject of awareness programmes3. 1 It is necessary to translate the whole patent into all languages of the countries where protection is claimed (about 2,500 euros per language and up to 5,000 euros for less common languages). This obligation may account for up to 50% of the total cost of a European patent filing. 2 Regarding the Community trade mark, in the event of counterfeiting, the company owning the trade mark only has to bring a judicial action before one court. The court decision is valid in every EU Member State. 3 For example, the United Kingdom Patent Office has just launched a mediation system for patent litigation. A simplified patent system An effective patent system is a simple one. Companies want to use this to bene- From Additional to Full Costs: The Challenge of FP7 Richard Tomlin, Bluebell Research1 Introduction In late December 2005, the European Commission published its Proposal for the Rules of Participation (RoP) for FP72. The RoP together with the Framework Programme itself3, which defines the scientific priorities and budgets for FP7, establish the legal basis under which the European Commission will implement FP7. Since then, various consultations have taken place. The Commission Proposal has been studied by a Working Group of the Council of Ministers, by the Court of Auditors and by a Committee of the European Parliament. At the same time, the Commission has held bi-lateral discussions with various stakeholders, including the European Universities Association. At the time of writing (end of April 2006) this process is ongoing. Following the formal conclusion of the present round of consultations, revisions will be made to the draft RoP before they are formally adopted by the Council and the Parliament, possibly in late 2006 or early 2007. Cost Model The major change proposed in the RoP is to have a single Cost Model for FP7. This means the abolition of the Additional Cost Model used by most universities and research institutes from FP4 onwards. The Commission is also proposing wider use of various flat-rate and lump-sum alternatives to mitigate the heavy audit requirements of establishing eligible costs. In place of the AC model, which currently provides 100% reimbursement for a lim- 3 Nº 27, May - June 2006 ited range of costs, universities will receive 75% of all eligible costs. SMEs will also benefit from the 75% rate while other participants will continue to receive 50% funding as at present. There will be an exception for 'frontier' projects financed through the European Research Council which will be funded at 100%. There are two major changes involved in moving from AC to a full-cost method. First, the hours worked by all staff involved in the project can be charged to the project; and secondly, a 'true' rate of indirect costs can be charged. Up to now, most universities have been unable to charge the hours worked by senior academic staff because of their resistance to time recording. The Commission has estimated that if the number of hours charged to a project increases by 30% as a result of senior staff being included, then universities will be able to recover the same proportion of their costs as under the AC system. The Commission has also pointed out that ERC projects will be funded more generously than was allowed under any previous scheme. This presents universities with major challenges which we have explored in the course of an ongoing series of Workshops4. · Universities will have to implement time recording for senior staff working on EU projects, otherwise the revenue from an EU project will fall by 25% and the costs of participating in EU projects will become unsustainable. Universities will have to develop methods for recording and recovering a greater proportion of the other direct costs of EU projects. Under the AC model there was an implied cost-sharing. Now all costs must be recorded in order to receive a partial reimbursement. Universities will have to plan carefully to ensure that the ratio of senior staff to research assistants engaged on an EU project will make the project financially viable. This may well place a limit on the capacity of some departments with strong research portfolios to participate in FP7. It will also be important to ensure that the matching effort is phased over the project to ensure maximum cost recovery. Under these new arrangements, universities will be able to charge a 'true' rate of indirect costs, which will also qualify for 75% reimbursement. However, in the immediate future, very few universities will be able to meet the accounting requirements of the Commission - it was for this reason that the AC model was introduced in the first place - and will therefore have to rely on a fixed rate proposed by the Commission. At the time of writing, the Commission has made no proposal for what that rate should be. In the absence of a specific provision in the RoP, the maximum rate allowable under the Commission's Financial Regulation would be 7%. The European Universities Association estimates that a minimum realistic rate would be 60%. Independent research organisations typically have rates in excess of 100%. The European Parliament has proposed a fixed rate of 30%. It is important to remember that whatever rate is agreed, participants will only receive 75% of their eligible costs. Thus the European Parliament proposal would result in an actual reimbursement of 22.5% of indirect costs. The Workshops have highlighted that it is imperative that universities should · Prepare immediately to record and recover all direct costs, in particular by recording the time of senior staff working on EU projects. Exert maximum pressure through national associations, the European Parliament and any other means to secure a realistic fixed rate of indirect costs. · · · Project 1 uses a typical proportion of permanent staff Project 2 makes only light use of permanent staff Project 3 uses a high proportion of permanent staff Finally, we have assumed a fixed rate of indirect costs of 20% of direct costs (as in FP6). The financial outcomes are in the table below, shown as a % change on what would have been recovered using the AC model in FP6 for the same project. Univ A Project 1 Project 2 Project 3 +22 +97 +13 Univ B -15 +37 -19 Univ C -25 -25 -25 1 The author acknowledges the contribution of Lotte Jaspers and Mette Skraastad of Yellow Research. 2 · · Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the rules for the participation of undertakings, research centres and universities in actions under the Seventh Framework Programme and for the dissemination of research results (2007-2013). COM(2005) 705 final 3 We have tried to quantify the financial impact on universities. These figures have been generated using a spreadsheet which can be downloaded from www.bluebell-res.co.uk/resources. We have assumed three stages of development: · University A has implemented a fullcost accounting system and recovers all direct and indirect costs. University B records and recovers the costs of permanent staff, but relies on a fixed rate for indirect costs. University C continues as at present, recovering costs as under the AC model. · Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the seventh framework programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007 to 2013). COM(2005) 119 final 4 Further workshops will be held in London on 12th and 13th of June. · · And three projects: 4 Nº 27, May - June 2006 Public Interest Intellectual Property Advisors Steven C. Price, Ph.D. CEO/President Public Interest Intellectual Property Advisors (PIIPA) Public Interest Intellectual Property Advisors is a non-profit corporation whose primary goal is to improve the ability of developing countries to manage, protect, or challenge intellectual property in the public interest. To this end, PIIPA was formed to help governments, government agencies and non-government public service organizations acquire intellectual property expertise on a pro bono basis, in order to meet the health, agricultural, environmental and cultural needs of developing countries. PIIPA seeks to promote volunteerism among intellectual property professionals worldwide to serve developing countries' public interest needs. PIIPA serves as a mechanism for networking between intellectual property legal professionals in different countries, and as outreach to such professionals. PIIPA offers services to those who need assistance from a broad range of sources, including: intergovernmental organizations (e.g., WHO, UNAIDS, FAO, South Centre); non-industrialized country governments and government agencies; certain research institutions (e.g., universities and government funded public laboratories in developing countries); international research consortia (e.g., CGIAR centers, disease specific public-private partnerships); non-governmental organizations and non-profit entities (e.g., MIHR, PIPRA, Oxfam); and certain qualifying smallto-medium enterprises and individual innovators. For these applicants, PIIPA seeks to arrange professional representation for a wide range of intellectual property services. These include: patent prosecution, counseling, licensing and litigation; trademark prosecution, counseling, licensing and litigation; copyright counseling, licensing and litigation; trade secret protection, counseling, licensing and litigation; legislative counseling (e.g., drafting legislation and regulations in relation to intellectual property matters); and national, international and multinational dispute resolution. PIIPA has developed a worldwide corps of IP professionals ("IP Corps") able and willing to provide pro bono representation to developing country clients. At the present time our members number 200 and represent countries around the world. Members of the IP corps are solicited via professional associations, direct solicitations, and professional firm networking. PIIPA is funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, the Sigrid Rausing Trust, and the U.K. Department for International Development. PIIPA is recognized by the United Nations as a Partner in Sustainable Development, and we were recently awarded Observer Status by the World Intellectual Property Organization. PIIPA has 60 projects completed or in progress around the world. Examples of these programs include the following: the assistance of law school clinics. Law clinics are excellent for these types of projects-the faculty supervisors are wellversed in the international and domestic complexities involved, and there are sufficient numbers of law students who are motivated by this type of "real life" project. Two projects which demonstrate PIIPA's leadership in bringing legal capacity to developing countries include: · PIIPA was approached by the Vietnamese Patent Office to review its patent laws. The Intellectual Property and Business Formation Legal Clinic at Washington University School of Law accepted this as a project and has completed several iterations of its legal analysis. Prof. Charles McManis is director of the clinic and leader of the project. Sierra Leone. PIIPA arranged for the Glushko-Samuelson Intellectual Property Law Clinic of the Washington College of Law, American University to provide advice to the Government of Sierra Leone in its efforts to draft TRIPS-compliant intellectual property legislation. The Department for International Development of the United Kingdom pro-vided additional assistance, and Sierra Leone has begun a consultative process to evaluate options and to develop the legislation. Prof. Joshua Sarnoff is director of the clinic and leader of the project. Biodiversity Access and Benefit Sharing Agreements PIIPA has been involved in helping to negotiate a number of Access and Benefit Sharing Agreements around the world. These include: Madagascar- University of Antananarivo, University of Fianarantsoa Vietnam- Vietnamese Academy of Science and Technology, Cuc Phong National Park Laos- Traditional Medicine Research Center Panama- Smithsonian Tropical Research Center Jamaica- University of West Indies, University of Mississippi & Jamaica National Environment & Planning Agency Commonwealth of Dominica- Archbold Tropical Research and Education Center · PIIPA has recently completed a world wide survey on the need for pro bono intellectual property assistance, funded by the U.K. Department for International Development. A report is presently in preparation, and preliminary results have been given at various forums. Assisting with Intellectual Property Laws: PIIPA has been approached by several countries interested in obtaining assistance in reviewing their intellectual property laws. Since these projects can be large undertakings, we decided to enlist 5 IP & RTD in practice Patent of the month Turn on the traffic lights! Dorset inventor Peter Hughes, a former United Nations adviser on renewable energy, has spent 12 years and more than 1 million British pounds to develop an innovative traffic solution called the Electro-Kinetic Road Ramp. The main idea of the invention is to generate free electricity thanks to the kinetic energy of traffic movement. As cars pass the Electro-Kinetic Road Ramp it generates about 10 kW of energy, which is enough to power road signs, traffic lights and even street lighting. The energy can be also stored in batteries and used when needed. The invention operates thanks to a number of metal plates placed in the road. When a vehicle passes over the ramp, the plates are moved up and down and, by means of specially constructed mechanism, a generator is driven. The amount of energy produced depends on the weight of the vehicle. The mechanism operates silently, causes no discomfort for car passengers and operates safely. The Ramp is designed as a heavy-duty mechanism and it requires minimal maintenance costs. As of now, more than 200 local authorities in Great Britain have expressed their interest in ordering Electro-Kinetic Ramps to power their traffic lights and road signs. Hughes Research Ltd., founded in 2002 to develop the invention, is now preparing to create more than 300 job positions and to produce a target of 2,000 Ramps, which will be produced this year. Hughes Research Ltd. BBC press note Patent for Electro-Kinetic Road Ramp Nº 27, May - June 2006 A chip under your skin replacing your wallet Some European night clubs have adopted a new payment method. Visitors can have a microchip implanted in their arm to save them carrying cash. This chip is the size of a grain of rice and is inserted by a medical professional and then scanned for its unique ID number, which corresponds to the customer. As you can imagine, this chip could be used for many other identification purposes. Try to find patents covering similar identification chips inserted under the skin. Press coverage Copyright Verichip Solution to the last quiz: ultrasound teen repellent An A British inventor recently made headlines with his invention: an ultrasound emitter that repels youths who can hear the annoying sound while adults cannot. He has successfully tested his product and already installed it near shops where unruly teenagers hung around and caused trouble. Try to find patents covering ultrasound repellent devices using esp@cenet® and possibly information on the patent covering this product. An Internet search engine is the best tool for the last question. Step one: To find similar patents, identify the most pertinent aspects of the invention - common technical features that may be found in patents relating to the subject - and for each aspect, 6 Nº 27, May - June 2006 define a comprehensive set of synonyms. This set of synonyms can then be combined as keywords in the patent database. In our case, the following concepts groups of synonyms covering the different aspects of the invention - can be defined: · · · · · · repel* noise, sound ultrasound* Teens, teenagers, youngsters, youths shop* neighbourhood trouble We are searching for a human repellent. Adding teen* as a keyword yields no results. The search can be broadened using classification symbols. · · shop* neighbourhood trouble yields no results. This search clearly indicates that a patent covering this product has not been issued yet. In order to check the possible existence of any type of protection, an Internet search should be carried out. In the article referred to in the question, the inventor's name was Howard Stapleton. Entering this name and "patent" in Google produces a list of Web pages from which you can retrieve this document which says at the bottom that the product is covered by a pending patent: Patent Pending No. P502601 0602284.2 A search for the name of the inventor, Stapleton, provides no additional results. All these elements make it clear that the patent covering this product has not yet been issued. Step two: continue the search using the classification symbols assigned to the relevant documents found Various classification symbols have been assigned to the relevant patents. The best classification symbols to use are the ones covering devices scaring "animals" using the emission of sounds and ultrasonic signals: A01M29/02B and those relating to scaring "animals" using the emission of sounds and ultrasonic signals: A01M29/02 It is safe to assume that if a relevant patent has been issued, it will be classified under this symbol. This does not mean a "keyword only" search should not be performed to avoid missing a document classified elsewhere. Combining A01M29/02B and A01M29/02 with all possible keywords related to the aspects defined earlier: · Teens, teenagers, youngsters, youths The combination "repel* ultrasound" yields an interesting list of documents . By browsing through the list of results, one can find patents relating to insect and pest repellent: WO2004093537 Ultrasonic pest repeller FR2833139 Portable mosquito repeller with battery-powered ultrasound emitter mounted on a bracelet DE3823092 Device for repelling small mammals IP eModules Building an IP fortress around your invention1 When marketed, an invention often takes the form of a product that can not only be protected against imitation by patents but also by other IP rights, such as trademarks, designs and copyright. This module will help you quickly understand what can be covered by those titles and some of their characteristics. The well-known example of the Lego brick will be used. the patent filing or the invention date are issued taking into consideration all information disclosed to the public prior to the patent filing date or the invention date (in the USA). The protection lasts for a maximum of 20 years. For Lego the following patent , among others, covers the famous brick Some excerpts from the patent give an idea of the scope of protection offered by this title: A toy building block or like element of hollow form with a plurality of bosses or like projections on the face opposite the open face has said bosses disposed so as to engage within the inner surfaces of the lateral walls of a superimposed block and so prevent lateral movement. In the embodiment shown, a hollow cube 1 conveniently moulded from synthetic resin or other plastic has an open base and four circular bosses 4 on its upper face, so that the walls of a superimposed block will contact the bosses tangentially so preventing lateral movement. In modifications, the building elements may be of cylindrical or other shape and the bosses may be round, square or of other cross- section. Patent Patent protection covers products or processes that possess or contain new functional or technical aspects. Main features: a patent must be applied for, the invention must be new and not obvious to a person skilled in the art. These judgements are made on all what has been disclosed to the public prior to Trademark A trademark is a distinctive sign which 7 Nº 27, May - June 2006 identifies certain goods or services as those produced or provided by a specific person or enterprise. Main features: you must apply for a trademark, it must meet certain criteria like distinctiveness, and it cannot be similar to another trademark used for similar products or services, it can be renewed indefinitely. Lego has several trademarks, such as its logo and other distinctive names and symbols. Main features: you must apply for this title, the design must be new and original, the period of protection is limited. on copyright. Examples of Lego's registered copyright in the US can be retrieved using this database . Further reading A detailed explanation of the various IP rights: 1. Overview of the various IPRs 2. Trademark 3. Copyright 4. Design 5. Trade Secret One of the many Designs held by Lego. Entering Lego as a search term on this search screen produces additional examples . An extensive thesis on the Lego IPR approach: all IP rights held by Lego are covered extensively An attorney compares the value of the different IP rights Copyright Copyright is a legal term describing rights granted to creators for literary and artistic works. There are many kinds of works covered by copyright, including: literary works, computer programs, databases, films, musical compositions, choreography, artistic works such as paintings, drawings, photographs and sculpture, architecture, advertisements, maps and technical drawings. Main features: you do not need to apply for this right, but some countries offer this possibility. Registration can serve as prima facie evidence in a court of law in disputes over copyrights. The period of protection is limited. In Europe, if the author of the work is known, it is valid until 70 years after the author's death. Lego has sued a Chinese infringer based 1 One of the multiple trademarks covering Lego products. Entering Lego as a search term on this search screen produces additional examples . This section aims to provide our target users with a small web module to enhance their IP knowledge. It is meant for researchers or persons who need basic IP knowledge at work. Each module will tackle a specific subject using material and examples available from the Web. Design An industrial design is the ornamental or aesthetic aspect of an article. The design may consist of three-dimensional features, such as the shape or surface of an article, or of two-dimensional features, such as patterns, lines or colour. RTD eModules Supporting Regional Innovation and Networking with the Balkans recent EU announcements, such as 'International Cooperation with the Western Balkan countries' and 'Call for proposals for participation of third countries in FP6 projects', the EU is placing increasing emphasis on the Western Balkan region and the Candidate Countries. This focus will further intensify and will help prepare these countries for future EU membership. The mission of RIBN is to act as an interface between the various levels and types of stakeholders along the value chain of the economies of Central and Southeast Europe. The Network would like to encourage and facilitate interaction between its members and related bodies at the local, regional, national, cross-border and pan-European levels, as well as to mobilize and combine dispersed efforts RIB Network After a successful 6-month pilot phase in 2005, the Research, Innovation and Business Network (RIBN) for Central and South Eastern Europe has commenced its first full year of operations. As is clear from 8 Nº 27, May - June 2006 and support synergies of expertise and resources, particularly from economic actors and research bodies in the region. In order to provide continued quality service and to expand the list of services to take into account the new possibilities in the region, the RIB Network is introducing formal membership. This will cover an array of services, such as a quarterly bulletin, a member-area portal, an extensive member directory, a directory of European networks, a European programme directory, partner search capabilities and annual events. RIBN members will maximize their networking capabilities and receive up-to-date, practical information on current EU affairs, EU projects and partner searches. ble support with relevant regional and/or national authorities and banks. support for FDIs in the Balkan region. It will end with a match-making event, where companies from EU25 will have a chance to meet companies from the Western Balkans and Candidate Countries. The following regions are scheduled to present at EREF-2006: Bosnia & Herzegovina, Emilia Romagna (IT), Flanders (BE), Friuli Venezia Giulia (IT), FYROM, Lapland-Oulu (FI), Lombardia (IT), Podgorica (Serbia & Montenegro), Scotland (UK), Slovenia, Steiermark (AT), Stockholm (SE), Šumadija (Serbia & Montenegro), Turkey, Valencia (ES), Varaždin (Croatia), Wallonia (BE) and West Pannonia (HU). EREF-2006 Forum In addition, the Slovenian Business and Research Association (SBRA) and the Municipality of Nova Gorica (Slovenia), are organising the 2nd EREF-2006 forum, which will be held from 14th-15th June 2006, also in Nova Gorica. This event will follow the RIBN Business Forum. The theme of this year's event is 'Building the Knowledge Society through Regional Innovation Support'. Mr. Esko Aho, former Prime Minister of Finland, will present the report 'Creating an Innovative Europe' by the Independent Expert Group on R&D and Innovation, which was appointed following the Hampton Court Summit1. Moreover, the Forum will include regional presentations on how to implement the Lisbon Agenda through regional/national innovation support schemes, panel discussions on how Lisbon-type reforms are preparing regions in Candidate and Western Balkan countries for integration into the EU and on the role of regions in the National Reform Programmes. Events RIBN Business Forum The RIBN Business Forum will be held this year on 13th June 2006 in Nova Gorica, Slovenia. The aim of the event is to introduce the Innovating Regions in Europe network and discuss the investment climate and support for FDIs in the Balkan region with the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD). In addition, various bilateral development assistance programmes that will assist both Western and Balkan companies in identifying available funding through various national and regional bilateral programmes will be presented. The RIBN Business Forum will conclude with a match-making event, where companies from EU25 will have a chance to meet companies from the Western Balkans and Candidate Countries, and will also have an opportunity to discuss possi- For further information please contact Bojan Tercon bojan.tercon@sbra.be . 1 European Council (October 2005) The aim of this event will be to introduce the Innovating Regions in Europe network and to discuss the investment climate and 9 Editorial Board Coordinator Lucía Sirera, IPR-Helpdesk, Alicante Nº 27, May - June 2006 Collaborators Paul Schwander, EPO (European Patent Office), The Hague Alicia Blaya, IPR-Helpdesk, Alicante Digital Edition Francisco Gallego, IPR-Helpdesk, Alicante Elena Diego, IPR-Helpdesk, Alicante Inmaculada Caturla, IPR-Helpdesk, Alicante Urska Lupinc, IPR-Helpdesk, Alicante Translation Kate Brumback, English Nadia Hamdini/Théodoros Stamatiadis, French Patrizia A.J. Selzer, German Stefano Merico, Italian Mª Carmen Torres, Spanish Leszek Bajkowski, Polish IPR Bulletin Free Subscription Form: First name: ............................................. E-mail: ............................................. Language: ENGLISH FRENCH GERMAN ITALIAN SPANISH POLISH Last name: ............................................. Postal address: .................................................................................................................................... Zip code: ............................................. Country: ............................................. Organization: ............................................. Are you employed in a profession directly related to IPR? Are you employed in a profession directly related to RTD? Which of the following sectors best describes your core business? SMEs Legal Information service provider Manufacturing University Research institution Government Other, please specify: .................................................. Position: ............................................. Yes Yes No No City: ............................................. To subscribe to IPR Bulletin, fill in the coupon and send to: IPR-Helpdesk. Edificio Germán Bernácer. Universidad de Alicante. P.O. Box 99 - 03080 Alicante (Spain). Fax: +34 965 90 97 15. E-mail: ipr-helpdesk@ua.es. Web: www.ipr-helpdesk.org IPR Bulletin may be reproduced and distributed in full, without any edits or changes, free of charge The editors' consent must be obtained before posting the IPR Bulletin on a web site 10