Global Intellectual Property Law: Patent, Copyright, and Trademark Laws

Global Intellectual Property Law
Name
Institutional Affiliation
Global Intellectual Property Law
1 Arya and Morph Inc’s Case
TRIP Agreements
In a knowledge economy, control and knowledge are key elements that have become important policy agendas in modern society. The creativity and inventiveness of workers have become important factors for the success of organizations globally. For this reason, there is a need to have a system that can foster innovation and profit companies where such innovations take place. Inventions and patents are covered under the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Trade-related aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPs) (Dutfield & Suthersanen, 2010). Since the WTO Agreement on TRIPs incorporates or supersedes any previous international conventions on Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs), TRIPs provide a general framework for enforcement and protection of those rights (de Carvalho, 2010). Unlike IPs, patents are more regulated, and laws governing patents tend to differ from country to country, even within the United States or the European Union. Cardwell and Ghazalian (2012) have investigated the effectiveness of TRIPs Agreements in evoking sweeping changes to IPR. TRIPs provide for state parties to adopt minimum and uniform IP protection standards.
However, critics such as Joseph E. Stiglitz have condemned TRIPs claiming that it fails to consider developing countries and the industrialized world as separate cases since the regulations make it difficult for people in developing nations to afford cheap generic drugs (Suthersanen, 2009). However, there is a lacuna within the WTO’s TRIPs regarding patent ownership while employees are inactive contracts. Inventions made by employees during the normal working time will automatically belong to the employer, and many inventors would expect recognition for their efforts. Arya’s invention of the MALARIA23 vaccine is a typical example of such works resulting from using resources, funding, and employees at Morph Inc. Regarding the hindrance of the access of the novel MALARIA3 vaccine in developing nations, the rules under TRIPs strike a balance between the public and pharmaceutical companies’ interests through flexible conditions that define the accessibility of patented products such as essential medicines to the public (Adeyele, 2018). Therefore, under TRIPs, Arya will be allowed to patent her invention based on the classification of her vaccine to balance the interests of the public and the pharmaceutical industry.
US Law
It is a tradition for employees to sign confidentiality and invention assignment agreements in the United States context. Nevertheless, other states such as Washington and California have some statutory restrictions on employees that require them to assign discoveries employees have made entirely independently without using the employer’s resources and are largely unrelated to the employee’s business. In this case, Arya’s work on the new vaccine may be eligible for a patent in other states except for Washington and California. The two states will prohibit patenting the vaccine as Arya relied on her employers, Morph Inc. resources, to research and develop the novel MALARIA23 vaccine.
Having used materials, laboratory equipment and involved the research staff at Morph Inc., Arya’s invention will not be patentable in the two states but may be accepted in other states in the United States based on their regulations. However, the U.S. copyright law also recognizes the doctrine of “work for hire,” where employers will own authorship works developed by employees within the scope of the contract (Diaz, 2010). These works of authorship exclude patents or inventions. Under federal law, Arya will own her vaccine invention and absent her employer from the patent. According to US patent law, “shop right” is an implied license that permits the employer to use an employee’s invention within the scope of the contract. Since Arya used Morph Inc.’s resources, including funding, laboratory equipment, materials, and the research staff, the implied license may not be transferable except if the business is sold. However, she will still be eligible for patenting her discovery under the “work for hire” doctrine.
In another requirement, the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) requires that all the agreements in workers’ inventions that are executed or updated starting May 12, 2016, have notice of some form of immunities provided under the law (Sandeen & Seaman, 2017). The federal and state law affords an employee some immunity over criminal and civil liability for disclosing a trade secret on condition the disclosure is made to investigate or report any form of legal violation and if the new law demands that companies include a notice of such immunity in agreements with workers that define the use of confidential information or trade secrets. If a company fails to provide such a notice, it will not be able to recover attorney’s fees or damages from the employee in a situation where Morph Inc was to sue Arya for trade secrets misappropriation.
2 Suing Boris over Infringement under Copyright Law
The case of Boris using Arya’s research data to write an academic paper outlining the research behind the new MALARIA3 vaccine is likely to amount to copyright infringement. Arya discovers that Boris, a rival colleague working at the same company, has stolen her laboratory notebooks and research. Arya may sue Boris over the use of her research work depending on whether she has published her work and owns its copyright that will restrict the use and transmission of research data in various formats. While it is not clear if Arya had completed such a process upon collecting the research data and whether Boris had sought permission from Arya to publish the work, the legal definition of “tangible medium” offers protection of such works (Keele, 2018).
In American Geophysical Union v. Texaco Inc. -60 F.3d 913 (2d Cir. 1995), Texaco was made to pay out more than a million dollars to six different publishers in 1995. A company researcher at Texaco had produced copies of scientific articles using a single subscription without seeking permission from the publisher. Since the copies were made for commercial gain and the court found out that Texaco had not bought multiple copies of the journal articles, the court ruled as unfair use of the publishers’ work by Texaco. According to Title 17 of the United States Code, copyright law protects original work that is fixed in a tangible medium of expression for a specified limited time. Such protection may include the legal right to publish or sell works of literature, music, or art and provide immunity to authors, producers, publishers, and the public. Based on the legal definition of “tangible medium of expression,” Arya should sue Boris since her ideas, research data, and invention had already been reduced to some concrete form, such as when such is recorded on a...