Linkedin-in Youtube X-twitter

Blog

Your blog category

Blog

WIPO Committees: background, next meetings and key issues to be considered

/

The summaries for the WIPO committees IGC, ACE, SCT, SCP, CDIP and SCCR are now available. These reports bring together background, next meeting dates, draft agendas and key issues to be considered, providing a structured overview of ongoing discussions across different areas of intellectual property. IGC (Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore) The IGC continues to work towards international legal instrument(s) ensuring balanced and effective protection of genetic resources (GRs), traditional knowledge (TK) and traditional cultural expressions (TCEs), following the adoption of the WIPO Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge (GRATK treaty). Current discussions remain centered on addressing the misappropriation of TK and TCEs through the IP system, and the recognition of rights grounded in customary law of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs). Additional issues include the creation of new or adapted IP protection mechanisms of a collective nature, possible disclosure requirements in patent applications, and the degree of flexibility and policy space for national implementation versus minimum binding standards.  Full report here. ACE (Advisory Committee on Enforcement) Key issues include the exchange of national experiences on public campaigns aimed at fostering respect for IP, consideration of national policies and enforcement mechanisms, and presentation of training programs supported by WIPO. Discussions also address legislative assistance, avoidance of misuse of enforcement procedures, experiences related to physical and digital forms of infringement, challenges faced by SMEs, application of AI tools, and collaborative approaches and information-sharing practices, alongside discussions related to biopiracy and the impact of intellectual property infringement in the biotechnology sector. Full report here. SCT (Standing Committee on the Law of Trademarks, Industrial Designs and Geographical Indications) Current discussions address trademark protection, including country names and geographical names of national significance in the domain name system, as well as industrial designs, including graphical user interfaces, icons and typefaces, and their potential impact on innovation. In the field of geographical indications, discussions consider developments related to existing systems and broader implications such as sustainability and rural development, while emerging digital issues include information sessions on trademarks in the metaverse and NFTs. Full report here. SCP (Standing Committee on the Law of Patents) Key issues include exceptions and limitations to patent rights, covering experimental use, prior use, regulatory approval, exhaustion of rights, and additional exceptions related to farmers, breeders and private and non-commercial use. Discussions on the quality of patents address patentability criteria, opposition systems and examination practices, including artificial intelligence, while patents and health discussions focus on patent information and flexibilities in facilitating access to medicines and related technologies. Additional topics include confidentiality of communications, transfer of technology and differing views on patent harmonization. Full report here CDIP (Committee on Development and Intellectual Property) Recent discussions include a project on the use of intellectual property to support sports development and proposals addressing cross-border counterfeit trade, cultural expression and climate resilience, raising questions related to flexibilities, safeguards and alignment with the Committee’s mandate. Broader discussions reflect divergences regarding the scope of the Committee’s work, including traditional knowledge, climate and cultural industries. Full report here. SCCR (Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights) Key issues include ongoing discussions on a potential broadcasting treaty, limitations and exceptions with differing views on possible international instruments, and proposals related to copyright in the digital environment, including artificial intelligence and remuneration for digital uses. Discussions also address the relationship between copyright and AI training, including permitted uses, the role of exceptions and conditions under which remuneration may be required. Full report here.

Blog

SCCR: Background, next meeting and key issues to be considered

/

STANDING COMMITTEE ON COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS (SCCR) Background “The Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) was set up in the 1998-1999 biennium to examine substantive law topics in the field of copyright and related rights. The Committee includes all member states of WIPO and/or of the Berne Union; and, as observers, certain member states of the United Nations (UN) that are non-members of WIPO and/or the Berne Union, as well as many intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations”. The Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) has traditionally focused on two standing agenda items: the protection of broadcasting organizations and limitations and exceptions. Discussions on broadcasting date back to 1998, while work on limitations and exceptions has been ongoing since 2004, addressing areas such as libraries, archives, museums, education, research, and persons with disabilities. In parallel, discussions on copyright in the digital environment have expanded, including issues related to artificial intelligence and remuneration for online uses.  Other topics, such as artist resale rights and the rights of theatre directors, remain on the agenda but receive limited attention. Next Meeting (Forty-Seventh Session): Date: December 1 to December 5, 2025 Website: https://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=88928 Agenda (SCCR/47/1): Key Issues: References: 

Blog

CDIP: Background, next meeting and key issues to be considered

/

COMMITTEE ON DEVELOPMENT AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY (CDIP) Background “The Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP) was established by the WIPO General Assembly in 2007 with a mandate to: develop a work-program for implementing the 45 adopted Development Agendarecommendations; monitor, assess, discuss and report on the implementation of all recommendations adopted; and for that purpose to coordinate with relevant WIPO bodies; and discuss IP- and development-related issues as agreed by the Committee, as well as those decided by the General Assembly.” The creation of the CDIP was strongly influenced by the Group of Friends of Development. Despite the number of projects developed under the CDIP, only a limited number have focused specifically on flexibilities, indicating an imbalance in the current scope of activities. The thirty-fifth session of the CDIP (November 17–21, 2025) reviewed progress on the Development Agenda, evaluated ongoing projects, and considered new proposals.  Developing countries emphasized the role of the CDIP as a central forum for development-related issues, including access, equity, and the protection of traditional knowledge, while other Members supported a more limited scope of activities. Next meeting (Thirty-Seventh Session): Date: November 16 to November 20, 2026 Website: https://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=89950 Agenda not yet available in the website. Key Issues References:

Blog

SCP: Background, next meeting and key issues to be considered

/

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LAW OF PATENTS (SCP) Background According to WIPO, “the SCP was created in 1998 to serve as a forum to discuss issues, facilitate coordination and provide guidance concerning the progressive international development of patent law.  By dealing with clusters of interlocking issues rather than working on single issues in isolation, the Committee provides member states with a forum for sharing information and working towards the development of the international patent system with an inclusive and coordinated approach. The Committee is composed of all member states of WIPO and/or the Paris Union. As observers, member states of the UN who are neither WIPO nor Paris Union members, as well as a number of accredited intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations may also attend the sessions of the SCP.” Next meeting (Thirty-Eighth Session) Date: November 2 to November 6, 2026 Website: https://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=89811 Draft Agenda (SCP/38/1 PROV.) Key Issues  Current discussions within the SCP address several thematic areas: References: 

Blog

SCT: Background, next meeting and key issues to be considered

/

WIPO STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LAW OF TRADEMARKS, INDUSTRIAL DESIGNS AND GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS (SCT) Background According to WIPO, “the SCT was created in 1998 to serve as a forum to discuss issues, facilitate coordination and provide guidance on the progressive development of international law on trademarks, industrial designs and geographical indications, including the harmonization of national laws and procedures”. The scope of the Committee’s work includes discussions on trademark protection, including issues related to the use of country names and their treatment in digital environments such as the domain name system. It also addresses questions related to industrial designs, including emerging forms of design such as graphical user interfaces, icons, and typefaces. In the field of geographical indications, the SCT considers developments related to existing systems (e.g. the Lisbon System) and their broader implications. In addition, the Committee engages in discussions related to technical assistance, including support provided to Member States in strengthening institutional capacities. Its work also reflects broader considerations related to the balance between the interests of right holders and public policy objectives, including development, access, and the use of flexibilities. Next meeting (Forty-ninth session) Date: March 30 to April 2, 2026 Website: https://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=89768  Draft Agenda (SCT/49/1 PROV.3) Key Issues  References:

Blog

ACE: Background, next meeting and key issues to be considered

/

ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON ENFORCEMENT (ACE) Background The Advisory Committee on Enforcement (ACE) was established by the WIPO General Assemblies in 2002 with a mandate focused on technical assistance and coordination in the field of intellectual property enforcement. Its mandate expressly excludes norm-setting activities. The Committee’s work centers on cooperation with public and private actors, the exchange of information, the promotion of awareness, and the organization of training activities at national and regional levels. “Within the framework of recommendation 45 of the WIPO Development Agenda, the ACE focuses on: coordinating with public and private organizations to combat counterfeiting and piracy; public education; assistance; coordination to undertake national and regional training programs for all relevant stakeholders and; exchange of information on enforcement issues.”  Next meeting (Eighteenth session) Date: June 2 to June 4, 2026 Website: https://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=90608  Draft Agenda (WIPO/ACE/18/1 PROV.) Key Issues The ACE agenda includes issues such as the following:  References:

Blog

IGC: Background, next meeting and key issues to be considered

/

INTERGOVERNMENTAL COMMITTEE ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND GENETIC RESOURCES, TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE AND FOLKLORE (IGC) Background The IGC is an ad hoc body with a renewable two-year mandate. Since its establishment in 2000, the IGC has worked towards international legal instrument(s) ensuring balanced and effective protection of genetic resources (GRs), traditional knowledge (TK) and traditional cultural expressions (TCEs). In 2024, the IGC led the adoption of the WIPO Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge (GRATK treaty), which establishes a mandatory disclosure requirement in patent applications concerning the origin or source of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge. It will enter into force three months after fifteen eligible ratifications or accessions.  Following this outcome, the IGC continues text-based negotiations on international legal instrument(s) for the protection of TK and TCEs, primarily based on documents WIPO/GRTKF/IC/49/4 and WIPO/GRTKF/IC/49/5. Developing Countries, Like-Minded (African Group, Asia-Pacific Group, GRULAC, Pacific Islands Group) support a legally binding international instrument(s) on TK and TCEs, advocate minimum binding elements applicable to all Parties, call for a diplomatic conference by 2027, emphasize the continued integration of GR issues to support GRATK ratification and implementation, and encourage ratification of the GRATK Treaty to deliver tangible benefits to IPLCs.  Developed countries (Group B, European Union, CEBS Group, United States, Japan, Switzerland, Republic of Korea) prefer further dialogue and evidence-based exchanges, support non-binding, measures-based outcomes with multiple national options, seek to preserve broad policy space and limit normative scope, favor non-normative treatment of GR issues, do not support committing to a timeline for a diplomatic conference. Next meeting (Fifty-second session) Date: March 4 to March 13, 2026 Website: https://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=89810  Draft Agenda (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/52/1 PROV.): Key issues to be considered:  Negotiations continue to address, inter alia: References:

Blog, WIPO, WIPO GA

WIPO’s Director General for the Next Six Years Nominated: The Process and the Implications 

/

Updated February 13, 2026 On February 12, an election took place for the position of Director General of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).  As expected, the incumbent – Daren Tang from Singapore – was re-elected and in April he will be formally appointed for a second term of six years, starting October 1, 2026. WIPO’s Director General appoints his Deputy Directors General (DDGs) and Assistant Directors General (ADGs). While Tang’s re-election was almost certain, the fate of his current DDGs and ADGs is less so. The choice of the organization’s chief executive and his most senior direct reports has tangible implications for WIPO’s governance, priorities, internal processes, program delivery, finances, accountability, oversight, staff morale and office culture. The nomination and appointment of the Director General: process and timeline The relevant constitutional provisions and procedural steps derive, respectively, from the Convention Establishing the World Intellectual Property Organization, 1967 (the WIPO Convention) and procedures last amended in 2019. In short, it is WIPO’s Coordination Committee (known as the CoCo) that nominates a candidate who is subsequently appointed by an extraordinary session of the WIPO General Assembly, the Paris Union Assembly and the Berne Union Assembly (collectively the ‘Assemblies’). The CoCo comprises 83 of WIPO’s 194 Member States.  It was the CoCo that met on February 12. It was originally scheduled to meet for two days but for the reasons I will explain below, the meeting was concluded on February 12. The Assemblies of the Member States to appoint the Director General will meet on April 21, 2026. How did the process begin? As a first step, in July 2025, the Chair of the CoCo, Australia’s Ambassador James Baxter, invited each Member State to propose a national as candidate by October 24, 2025. Only two nominations were received. As expected, one was Tang, nominated by the Government of Singapore. His nomination referred prominently to the adoption of two treaties in 2024 (the WIPO Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge and the Riyadh Design Law Treaty), describing their adoption under Tang’s leadership as an ‘unprecedented achievement’.  As the deadline neared there was a second nomination – Haiti nominated Mr. Johanny Stanley Joseph. Quoting from the nomination, ‘Mr. Joseph is a Haitian lawyer who holds a doctorate in private law with a specialization in intellectual property (IP). His career is distinguished by strong technical expertise, developed over many years of experience, particularly in the public administration of Haiti.’  On January 27 this year, the CoCo met informally to hear presentations by the two candidates. They answered questions for which they had been given prior notice as well as some spontaneous questions from the floor. Meetings of the CoCo are held behind closed doors and there is no written report of this meeting.  How did the CoCo go about nominating a Director General? The 2019 procedures guide how the nomination by the CoCo should take place. These recognize that voting will probably be necessary as a means of building consensus for the nomination of a candidate. In addition, the CoCo’s Chair, Baxter, had tabled detailed additional proposals for how voting in the February 2026 session should take place. The 83 members of the CoCo had one vote each. Voting was by secret ballot. The successful nominee was the candidate who received a simple majority of votes cast. The written reports of past CoCo meetings at which Directors General have been elected give a good idea of how the meeting proceeded, although in this case only one round of voting was needed because there were only two candidates. Tang won easily (81 votes to 2) and the meeting was over in a few hours.  The DDGs and ADGs: How are they appointed? There are currently four DDGs and four ADGs. Within the organization, they are referred to as ‘Sector Leads’ because each oversees a Sector which vary in size (number of programs, number of staff and budgets). The DDGs and ADGs are political appointees of the Director General and their terms are linked to that of the Director General. There is a subtle difference in how DDGs and ADGs are appointed. In the case of DDGs, the Director General must first seek the approval of his nominations by the CoCo. In the case of ADGs, he must simply take into account the CoCo’s advice. It is probably only once the Director General has been appointed on April 21, 2026, that countries will be invited to nominate candidates from among their nationals for DDG and ADG positions.   The Director General is expected to propose his nominations at the CoCo’s meeting during the July 2026 Assemblies. The DDGs and ADGs will then be able to take up their functions as from October 1, 2026, the same day as the Director General.  The Director General could in principle retain all the current DDGs and ADGs. However, this is unlikely. Some might wish to step down of their own accord. Some might not be retained because they no longer have the support of their governments. Others might be let go for any number of reasons, including that they have lost the trust and confidence of the Director General. The Director General might decide to replace the entire group. He may or may not stick with the current number of DDGs and ADGs, and he may configure the Sectors differently.  Quite a high number of the current DDGs and ADGs are nationals of industrialized countries. The Director General would also be aware of the need to have at least the same number of women across the DDG and ADG positions as he now has, if not more (there are currently three women among the eight DDGs and ADGs).  Rumours are rife, but at this point this is all they are.  Implications The Director General directs the work of the WIPO Secretariat and is the Secretariat’s executive head and representative. While his core responsibility is to report to and conform to the instructions of the WIPO General Assembly, in practice, the Director General can be highly influential. The Director

Blog

IP Meets AI: Disney’s Deal with OpenAI

/

Originally posted at Kluwer Copyright Blog and Andrés Izquierdo Lawyers Generative AI has triggered a wave of legal uncertainty in copyright law, with over 70 lawsuits worldwide challenging the unlicensed use of creative works in AI training. The recent deal betweenDisney and OpenAI could signal a turning point. Rather than fight in courts, Disney has licensed over 200 of its most valuable characters to OpenAI’s Sora platform in exchange for equity, transforming litigation into a possible strategic alliance. But this isn’t just a licensing play; it could suggest a new model for resolving the AI–IP standoff: collaborative frameworks where rights holders and tech companies co-design value-sharing mechanisms, governance standards, and licensing architectures for the AI era. What’s in the Deal? At its core, the agreement has several pillars: ●     A three-year licensing agreement allowing OpenAI’s Sora app to include more than 200 characters from Disney, Pixar, Marvel, and Star Wars in user-generated videos and images. ●     Integration of selected fan-generated AI content into Disney+, marking a rare crossover from AI-created works into a mainstream entertainment platform. ●     A $1 billion equity investment, plus stock warrants allowing Disney to increase its stake if OpenAI’s valuation grows, signaling a financial alignment between creative IP holders and AI platforms. ●     Internal deployment of OpenAI tools across Disney’s operations, spanning content workflows, product development, and audience engagement initiatives. Together, these pillars bring a new proposal for how intellectual property can operate within the AI economy. Notably, they sidestep the legal ambiguities around fair use and training data by using private contracts to define new rules of engagement. From Litigation to Licensing: A New IP Market Architecture The timing of this deal is no coincidence. Courts in the U.S., Europe, and Asia are grappling with lawsuits over whether AI training on copyrighted works constitutes infringement. The outcomes remain uncertain, and rights holders are increasingly anxious about how generative AI models extract and remix cultural capital without consent or compensation. Rather than waiting for legislative reform or judicial clarity, Disney and OpenAI are designing their own legal infrastructure. As explored in my earlier blog post, AI is testing the boundaries of copyright law, pushing stakeholders to negotiate new frameworks where innovation and rights protection can co-exist. This is part of a broader shift in the digital economy: “private ordering” through contracts and platform governance is stepping in where statutory law has lagged. The Disney–OpenAI deal effectively preempts the courtroom by creating a market-based system where IP access is negotiated, compensated, and controlled. However, this model is not without its critics. Private contracts, while expedient, often privilege large players with bargaining power, leaving independent creators and smaller rights holders with little leverage or visibility. These agreements do not necessarily resolve systemic questions about AI training data, derivative works, or fair remuneration across jurisdictions. Moreover, private licensing frameworks could entrench power asymmetries, replicating past inequities under the guise of innovation. It is also important to consider that licensing is not the only path forward. Regulatory reform, collective licensing regimes, or technical solutions like metadata tagging and rights registries could offer inclusive and transparent alternatives. As the legal terrain continues to evolve, a mix of models – public, private, and hybrid – may be necessary to safeguard rights while fostering innovation. The Creators’ Dilemma: Value, Labor, and Legal Gaps Not everyone is celebrating. The Writers Guild of America East has voiced concerns about how such licensing deals may sideline human creators and devalue creative labor. As the Guild stated, companies like OpenAI have “stolen vast libraries of works owned by the studios and created by WGA members and Hollywood labor to train their artificial intelligence systems,” raising urgent questions about creative compensation and control. While Disney’s structured licensing may offer legal clarity, it doesn’t resolve broader questions about authorship, attribution, or the economic displacement caused by generative AI. This highlights a deeper challenge: as private deals could become the new norm, creators operating outside major ecosystems may be left with limited bargaining power and few protections. Without systemic legal frameworks, the benefits of AI monetization could remain concentrated among tech giants and legacy IP holders. The emergence of a new class of synthetic media creators, trained on decades of human-generated content, also raises fundamental questions: Who gets to participate in this new economy? Who sets the terms? And what happens to the economic and cultural value of original works in the process? Why Equity Matters: From Fees to Future Value One of the most intriguing features of the deal, as reported by Bloomberg, is its financial structure. Disney opted not to receive traditional licensing fees upfront. Instead, most of the compensation is structured as  tied to OpenAI’s performance. This reflects a shift in how IP value is conceived in the age of AI. Rather than monetizing past works through one-time fees, rights holders like Disney are now betting on the future value of the platforms that use their content. Equity-based compensation aligns incentives between rights owners and tech companies, offering a shared stake in the success of AI-powered media ecosystems. Yet, this too raises questions. Equity stakes are normally inaccessible to smaller creators or rights holders, and they introduce speculative risk. As a model, it could reward institutional players while excluding those without the resources, the capacity, or the legal infrastructure to engage on such terms. What This Means for the Future of Media Law The Disney–OpenAI agreement could reshape how IP is governed in the AI era: ●     It may accelerate a shift from rights enforcement to platform-based licensing models. ●     It establishes financial structures where rights holders participate in AI platform growth. ●     It signals that legal innovation can emerge from private strategy, not just public regulation. But it also exposes the limitations of relying solely on private arrangements to govern public cultural and legal challenges. Lawmakers, courts, and multilateral bodies must still grapple with the foundational questions that private deals sidestep. Transparency, equity, and universal access remain unresolved. For legal professionals, the message is clear: the future of IP will be negotiated in boardrooms as much as in courtrooms. As generative AI

Blog, Health & IP

Legal tools that lower medicines prices have expanded access to medicines for over two decades, research reveals

/

Compulsory patent licenses effectively leveraged to enable access to medicines This article originally appeared on Medicines Law & Policy. LONDON, UK: Millions of people are priced out of access to life-saving medicines. Use of legal tools to reduce prices has been under-reported and misunderstood to be rare, but new research published in the British Medical Journal Global Health reveals wide use by both high and low-income countries. This has important policy implications at a time when rising medicines prices are a growing global policy concern. The legal tools, contained in the World Trade Organization Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement and known as ‘TRIPS flexibilities’, have been used hundreds of times to help governments combat health challenges ranging from pandemics like HIV and Covid-19, to rare diseases, to cancers and other non-communicable diseases. One of the key findings revealed in the research is how often wealthy countries employ TRIPS Flexibilities. The research was based on data from the TRIPS Flexibilities Database maintained by Medicines Law & Policy. “Over the last 25 years, the balance of which countries have made use of TRIPS Flexibilities has shifted: high-income countries appear to be simultaneously making use of these tools whilst actively trying to restrict the ability of low-income countries to do the same,” said Dr Montgomery Dunn, the study’s lead author. Titled “TRIPS flexibilities help change policy and practice to increase access to medicines: Evidence from 2001-2024” the research found that over half of the compulsory licences issued in the last decade have been by high-income country governments, in many cases responding to the urgent need for vaccines and treatments for Covid-19. With a compulsory licence, the government can authorise the production of a patented medicine without the patent holder’s consent, thereby opening the market to generic producers. “This underlines what a critical policy tool this flexibility is to treat pressing health challenges, everywhere in the world,” said Dunn. “Public push towards the use of these tools can itself be the stimulus for price reductions,” said co-author Ellen ‘t Hoen, Director of Medicines Law & Policy. Nearly half of the compulsory licences that were not executed were due to an offer from the company to increase access, including via a voluntary license, price reduction or donation, enabling access even with the mere threat of a compulsory licence. But countries seeking to use such measures face political pressure, and may need to overcome additional obstacles such as restrictions on use of data needed to register lower-cost generic medicines. “Use of TRIPS Flexibilities is effective, and when needed, countries must be free to use them to the full,” said ‘t Hoen. “To face current and future health challenges, governments around the world must not only enable the use of TRIPS Flexibilities but also support mechanisms for intellectual property, technology and know-how sharing, such as the Medicines Patent Pool.”

Scroll to Top