Trans Pacific Partnership

The Trans-Pacific-Partnership is now much closer to reality with substantive agreement between the 12 member nations that include the US, Canada, Mexico, Japan, Australia, et al. (but not China).  The new multilateral trade agreement has not been made public, but reportedly includes a number of intellectual property elements with special protections against copyright theft for the US entertainment industry and generic competition for the branded pharmaceuticals.  Congress will need to approve the agreement to make it effective in the US, but is likely to do so if Republicans get their act together.

A final version of the text should be available in November.

44 thoughts on “Trans Pacific Partnership

  1. 6

    The TPP IP chapter has leaked: link to

    The TPP has a standard for patentability. Software is clearly patentable. Business method patents may be back.

    Article QQ.E.1: {Patentable Subject matter}

    1. Subject to paragraphs 3 and 4, each Party shall make patents 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.

    There are also many specific provisions for the pharma industry, but I don’t follow that.

    1. 6.1

      John, business methods are now “technology?”

      Also, is them TPP self-executing? No prior deal involving patents has ever been self-executing.

      1. 6.1.1

        LOL – now look who is looking for the hook of not self-executing….

        And yes, Ned, business methods very much can be “technology.”

        At least as far as what Malcolm once ventured forth in his attempt at a definition.

        Funny. That dialogue did not last long. IN fact, as soon as I turned his “definition” to include the works of Deming et al, he (predictably) ran away.

  2. 5

    Dennis — you wrote ” Congress will need to approve the agreement, but is likely to do so.”
    Why does congress need to approve agreements??? Surely you jest — in 2015, they are just by executive order — why bother with Congress???

  3. 4

    Hi Denis, the New Zealand government has released the main changes that will be taking place to New Zealand IP legislation. If you contact me by email I can send you a copy.

  4. 3

    Speaking of important cases:

    SHERIDAN v. US link to

    Mr. Sheridan is the owner of U.S. Patent No.
    7,415,982. Naming him as the inventor, the patent describes
    and claims a “smokeless pipe,” which delivers to a
    “smoker” the active, volatile components of a substance
    like tobacco but does so without combustion, thereby
    avoiding delivery of dangerous byproducts of burning.
    Mr. Sheridan alleges that a large number of sellers of
    smokeless pipes are infringing his patent and that some
    search engines and other online sites hide his website and
    block his ads. See Sheridan, 120 Fed. Cl. at 129. In this
    suit, Mr. Sheridan asserts that the United States violated
    federal statutes by failing to “assist” him in recovering
    losses from the numerous infringers of his patent, and he
    seeks damages of between $30 billion and $496 billion.

    TIMOTHY SHERIDAN, Philadelphia, PA, pro se.

    1. 3.1


      Trying to take out the whole E-cig/ Portable Vape Market with narrow claims.

      If he was an attorney he would be sanctioned.

      1. 3.1.1

        You continue to make posts that no real attorney would make…

        Where did you get your JD, I will write them asking for a refund for you.


          “you continue to make posts that no real attorney would make…”

          Wait you are talking about ME?

          that’s funny


              Obviously Ned you have not been paying attention to our new friend and his repeatedly off-the-wall views on patent law.

              Too bad – he doesn’t like some of your views either.


                I have been reading, anon.

                It is just that my approach to T is to help him learn and to see the grey areas.

                He is new here. Let us welcome another voice, especially one from the patent office. What goes on there and how examiners think is of interest to all of us.

                1. How the H have you helped him with anything Ned?

                  Serious question.

                  The man seemingly know less than 6.

                  I don’t mind him – at all – speaking about things he knows – but his opinions on the law are groundless, and he seems actually proud of how disconnected he is.

                  Pleas, please,please, do not treat this as another “he-aligns-with-me-so-he-must-be-an-Einstein” – that only brings his disrepute into your sphere.

                2. Thank you Ned.

                  I am willing to change my views.

                  anon is just not convincing. Especially when it is all personal attacks.

                  I also have a different perspective. I may get the facts wrong due to my youth and ignorance. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t useful nuggets.

                  Also keep in mind that when I post nobody is forcing you to reply. So it appears that you are both policing the forum.

                  I don’t know what is to police here. Lots of insults and name calling that I would expect from high school students, not barred attorneys.

                3. Ironically, I actually have very pleasant relationships with most attorneys I deal with.

                  I am not sure this site is representative of the patent bar as a whole. If it is, g-d help us all.

                4. Your “youth and ig norance” is NO excuse.

                  Seriously, Topce – you really should understand the forum (and it is NOT “policing” to highlight your vast errors) before you venture forth with your vies on the law.

                  As to “convincing – I call B$, as you have clearly already made up your mind with your “philosophies” regardless of your lack of knowledge of the subject. You attempt to substitute “feelings” for knowledge and simply don’t know when you are talking to someone with knowledge. You are the one that launched into personal attacks against me when all I had done was speak the truth. A truth you may not have liked, but a truth nonetheless.

                  If you had a better approach, I might cut you some slack – but you get none and deserve none.

                5. “and he seems actually proud of how disconnected he is.”

                  I hate to be the breaker of bad news to you anon, but that’s how bureaucracy is brosef. You only have one option, to patiently address it over years. Someone cannot be “thrown into the law” if they never set out to study the law themselves, and have no real interest in learning anything about it.

                  If you’re in the office, knowledge about the law only avails you if you’re signing your own stuff or once you’re talking to the waaaaaay higher up people. If you’re in the trenches so to speak ain’t nobody give two shts about that, they’ve got counts too many counts to poop out to be concerned with it. And it will always be that way so long as the “count system” of doling out credit continues.

                6. The count system is your problem 6.

                  Be professional about it and don’t make it mine or my clients.

                7. We’ve official come full circle. I am interested in the law. And that is why I am here to learn. You aren’t helping anon.

                  The count system is no excuse. I love learning about the law.

                  But I learn by being convinced.

                8. Topce,

                  You have shown that you will not be convinced and that you are not here to learn, but rather to reinforce the philosophy that you glommed onto first, before learning anything about the law. You do not learn by being so wrong on so many aspects of patent law. You are not approaching this as to learn (asking questions), but instead, you voice “opinions” as if you know what the F you are talking about – and you clearly do not.

                  Further, conversations about the law and topics within the realm of patent law are NOT constrained to individual threads.

                  As such, “this thread” is a meaningless distinction as to who attacked whom first, and your meager protestations are – like the rest of your grasp of the law – extremely weak.

                  As to the count system, you are correct in that it is no excuse. My comment to 6 was in light of 6 attempting to make it an excuse. The reason why it is no excuse is that the count system is entirely controlled by the Office as an INTERNAL measuring system. As such, it is not meant to – nor should it ever – affect me or my clients. Also set up by the Office is the interface with me and my clients, and what we pay for: a FULL examination, dutifully done.

                  I am not Polly-Anna though, and I am very much aware of pragmatic effects of systems, while meant solely for internal control, having external effects.

                  Voicing displeasure about those external effects is one way to curb those effects.

                  Much like the RCE “count” gravy train, the current system – if allowed can and will affect those not meant to be affected.

                9. Ned states “It is just that my approach to T is to help him learn and to see the grey areas.

                  I call out that as serious B$.

                  Ned, your lack of objectivity and monologue drive-by windmill chasing, and refusal to actually engage in a dialogue with all the discussion points put on the table absolutely rules you out as anyone to be showing anyone else what the “grey areas” are.

                  If you were inte11ectually honest, then perhaps your “version” would be a suitable example of one view, but you pesisitently and flagrantly violate any sense of ethical treatment of those “grey areas” that you say you want to guide someone along.

                  You merely spread your propaganda and stick your fingers deep into your ears whenever Prof. Crouch, David Stein, myself or anyone else brings up points of fact and law that you find too inconvenient to acknowledge and incorporate into the discussion.

      1. 2.1.1

        I am sure that when you apply the law properly, you will find that we agree on a great number of things.

        It’s not as if you are constrained to a certain viewpoint, but rather, when you take liberties with the process of law and want to de facto import “modern philosophies” that you appear to find yourself deep in the weeds.


            Hey, you are the one that wants to disregard the historical context and go with your “modern philosophy”….

            You get to reap what you sow.


              So you just take issue with my jurisprudence. That’s fair.

              For the sake of clarity, I don’t want to ” disregard the historical context.” I just think other factors (equity, freedom of expression and innovation, equality of opportunity) are far more important than “historical context.”

              What value does “historical context” even have?


                Your “sense” of law is staggeringly off-kilter.

                Your statement of “being an attorney” appears to need some clarification. Are you a US attorney? If indeed so, which state(s) have you taken an oath for?

                1. Why would I answer that question?

                  You will probably try to figure out who I am and try to disbar me.

                  I’m guessing you are a bitter old man who hates change? How old are you? At least 50 right?

                  You are wrong about me but I bet I am right about you.

                2. Do you listen to the Mark Levin show too?

                  You seem to have his views on Con Law. I’m glad I discovered his lunacy before i turned 50.

                3. What “point” do you think I would be proving?

                  Your wading into law that you clearly do not know or understand is not a cause for disbarment.

                  You should know that.

                  How green are you?


          So was I.

          You need to have a bit more respect for the process of law and the place for “philosophies” within the law.

          As it is, you have your “view” and you seek to morph what the law it to that view, when you should be actually learning why the law is as it is, the intent of those passing the law when they passed it, the dangers of legislating from the bench and the true meaning of separation of powers with which that legislating from the bench endangers.

          You may “bristle” at the admonition I give to you, but sometimes the best “love” is tough “love.”

          So let me repeat again my observation of your new presence here:

          It’s not as if you are constrained to a certain viewpoint, but rather, when you take liberties with the process of law and want to de facto import “modern philosophies” that you appear to find yourself deep in the weeds.

  5. 1

    “The new multilateral trade agreement has not been made public, but reportedly includes a number of intellectual property elements with special protections against copyright theft for the US entertainment industry and generic competition for the branded pharmaceuticals”.

    Not having seen the agreement – none of us mere mortals has – I can only go by reports published elsewhere. Those reports say that the “breakthrough” was the US acceding to the Aussies’ demand that data protection for biologic drugs (i.e. the ability of competitors to rely on the innovator’s studies showing safety and efficacy) be limited to 5 years instead of the 12 years that the US wanted. Perhaps there are other provisions for the protection of small molecule drugs from generic competition, but the reported provisions for biologics hardly sounds like the affording of “special protection”.

      1. 1.1.1

        Clearly that’s the case, because protecting the next Iron Man movie or Windows 11 from copyists is more likely to lead to a cancer treatment than protecting the biotech industry. Sigh.

Comments are closed.