ENFORCEMENT

Recommendations

Info

Joint Strategic Plan on Intellectual Property Enforcement SECTION 4 The USPTO leads a global strategy to assist industrial designers by promoting and furthering the development of highly-efficient and interoperable industrial design protection systems around the world. Through multi-lateral efforts at the Industrial Design Forum, or “ID5”, the USPTO looks to build mutual understanding and collaboration with the other four largest design offices on initiatives aimed at promoting awareness of, and improving the work efficiency, quality and user-friendliness of industrial design systems globally. These initiatives include encouraging a twelvemonth grace period for design applicants, ensuring protection is available for designs that are embodied in only a portion of an article/product (so called “partial designs”), mitigating inefficiencies and costs associated with filing design applications in multiple jurisdictions by implementing enhanced priority document exchange systems, and initiating consideration internationally of new and emerging technological designs (graphical user interface (GUI) and icon designs, etc.). The recent U.S. membership in the Hague System provides significant and immediate cost savings as well as increased competitiveness abroad for U.S. designers. The Hague System is an international design application registration system, similar to the PCT System for utility patents and the Madrid System for trademarks. Despite the Hague System only taking effect in May of 2015 with respect to the U.S., the U.S. has already moved into second position behind the European Union as the most frequently designated jurisdiction in international design applications. 41 As more countries become members, the Hague System will continue to increase the benefits and the improved efficiencies it provides to design innovators. ACTION NO. 4.16: Promote strong and effective design protection worldwide. USPTO will continue to advocate for and advance strong, effective and user-friendly industrial design protection systems at the Industrial Design 5 Forum (ID5) and through other multilateral or bilateral initiatives. ACTION NO. 4.17: Support Hague System for the International Registration of Industrial Designs. USPTO will continue to support the improvement and expansion of the Hague System, thereby enhancing a global mechanism for industrial design applicants to efficiently pursue protection for industrial design innovation across the globe. E. BROADER RECOGNITION OF THE ESSENTIAL ROLE UNIVERSITIES PLAY IN INNOVATION In addition to their essential role as centers of knowledge, learning, and scholarship, universities around the world are engines for innovation. Universities are often the first step in the innovation lifecycle, but too often the big idea does not make it to the marketplace. The promise of innovation that is first conceived by professors, researchers, and students in university laboratories frequently goes unrealized. Universities play an essential role in the innovation life cycle. Universities mobilize their research resources and IP assets to foster the pursuit of learning and develop partnerships to drive innovation, and catalyze and fund further research and innovation. IPRs, including most notably, patents, facilitate the commercialization of innovations by enabling the innovators to attract investors. Examples of U.S. policies that encourage and incentivize university innovation in partnership with industry include the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act, the Bayh-Dole Act, and the America Invents Act. With a patent, the invention becomes a tradable commodity, a product that can be licensed or sold. Technology partnerships leverage technology transfer by providing universities with additional researchers to find solutions to problems, manufacturing knowledge, knowledge of adaptations required for marketing to comply with local laws and regulations. Universities have therefore become not only laboratories of ideas, but also incubators of start-ups and spin-offs. Where public sector funding can be scarce and grants can be highly-competitive to secure, the IP-revenue generated from university technology partnerships can be critical to the sustainability of continued university research. As just one example, the first modern three-point seatbelt that is found in most vehicles today was developed by Roger Griswold and Hugh DeHaven at the Aviation Safety and Research Facility at Cornell University in New York and was the result of intensive 140
Office of the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator crash injury research. The device would later be perfected by Nils Bohlin at Volvo. Other seatbelt research would be conducted at the University of Minnesota by James “Crash” Ryan in 1963, further pushing forward the science of safety. But this kind of success story does not exist in isolation and cannot survive without the proper regulatory framework. ACTION NO. 4.18: Foster broader recognition of the promise of university-led research and development as a driver of innovation. The Federal Government will work with other countries, bilaterally and through appropriate multilateral fora, to advocate for IP systems that help enable university-led research to drive innovation. F. SUPPORT STRATEGIES THAT MITIGATE THE THEFT OF U.S. TRADE SECRETS. U.S. companies face a growing and persistent threat by individuals, rival companies, and foreign governments that seek to steal some of their most valuable intangible assets—their trade secrets. 42 Trade secrets consist of non-public, commercially valuable information, including confidential formulae, programs, devices, processes or techniques for manufacturing a product. 43 “Protecting the trade secrets of American businesses sustains the integrity and competitiveness of the American economy, and encourages the development of new products, including advanced technologies.” 44 As reported in the U.S. “Strategy on Mitigating the Theft of U.S. Trade Secrets,” issued in February 2013, “[e]merging trends indicate that the pace of economic espionage and trade secret theft against U.S. corporations is escalating.” 46 However, the exact cost of trade secret theft has gone largely unknown due to the difficulty in measuring such losses. 47 Advancements in technology, increased mobility, globalization, and the anonymous nature of the Internet together contribute to growing challenges in protecting trade secrets. Bad actors acquire trade secrets in a variety of ways. In addition to taking photos, making sketches, or asking detailed technical questions about technologies on display at conferences, conventions and trade shows—methods that have been exploited for years—rogue actors are increasingly targeting the electronic information databases of U.S. companies, law firms, academia and financial institutions. Indeed, hacking is emerging as the preferred method of trade secret theft, given that, through a single breach, one person can steal FIG. 62: Economic Impact of a Trade Secret Theft Event. 45 Total impact of a TST event in dollar terms Decrease in financial performance Decrease in customer trust & loyalty Decrease in innovation Decrease in stakeholder perception Market competitiveness Cost of direct impact mitigation Product and service quality Personal data protection Customer security risk Direct impacts Indirect impacts Note: this chart is illustrative Innovation speed Attracting and keeping talented engineers Investors Regulators & government NGOs Traditional and social media Business partners SECTION 4 Source: The Center for Responsible Enterprise and Trade and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. 141
Page 1:
U.S. JOINT STRATEGIC PLAN ON INTELL
Page 6 and 7:
B. In Furtherance of a Healthy Doma
Page 9:
PREAMBLE A Reflection on Creativity
Page 12 and 13:
Senior Advisory Committee Establish
Page 14 and 15:
INTRODUCTION IP-intensive industrie
Page 16 and 17:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Services, the Dep
Page 18 and 19:
While seeking to be thorough, the S
Page 20 and 21:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • Advertising B
Page 23 and 24:
1 THE GLOBAL SCALE OF INTELLECTUAL
Page 25 and 26:
INTRODUCTION The story of intellect
Page 27 and 28:
Office of the Intellectual Property
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
« Office of the Intellectual Prope
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65:
Page 68 and 69:
SECTION 2 CONTENTS HELPING TO PROMO
Page 70 and 71:
Joint Strategic Plan on Intellectua
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 99 and 100: 3 SECURE AND FACILITATE LEGITIMATE
Page 101 and 102: INTRODUCTION U.S. and international
Page 103 and 104: Office of the Intellectual Property
Page 121 and 122: ENDNOTES Office of the Intellectual
Page 125: Office of the Intellectual Property
Page 128 and 129: SECTION 4 CONTENTS PROMOTE FRAMEWOR
Page 130 and 131: Joint Strategic Plan on Intellectua
Page 162 and 163: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS With thanks to, an
show all

ENFORCEMENT

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?