International Trade law Part 21

THE BYRD AMENDMENT BATTLE: AMERICAN TRADE POLITICS AT THE WTO
Claire Hervey
Hastings International and Comparative Law Review
Volume 27, Number 1, Fall 2003 p.131

The Byrd Amendment has been controversial in both domestic U.S. politics and in International trade law since its enactment. In the international sphere, the controversy surrounds its validity under the WTO, the world’s strongest supranational legal regime. In the largest joint dispute resolution action in the history of the WTO, thirty countries challenged the Byrd Amendment as a violation of the ban on governmental subsidies, and won. The U.S. Congress failed to comply with this ruling by its implementation deadline (December 27, 2003) as well as with several other decisions of the WTO, deepening the rift between America and its largest trading partners, and threatening the U.S. economy by creating the specter of authorized economic retaliation in the billions of dollars. America’s non-compliance with WTO decisions, based on domestic political considerations, threatens the international trading system and the legitimacy of its crowning achievement-the Dispute Settlement Understanding. Creative use of authorized sanctions, however, will allow aggrieved trading partners to beat the U.S. at their own political game.

THE UNITED NATIONS COMMISSION ON International trade law ‘S TRANSPORT LAW PROJECT: AN INTERIM VIEW OF A WORK IN PROGRESS
Michael F. Sturley
Texas International Law Journal
Volume 39, Number 1, Fall 2003 p.65

Special and Differential Treatment in International Trade law : A Concept in Search of Content
Uché Ewelukwa
North Dakota Law Review
Volume 79, Number 4, 2003 p.831

LIABILITY FOR THE “THREAT OF A SALE”: ASSESSING PATENT INFRINGEMENT FOR OFFERING TO SELL AN INVENTION AND IMPLICATIONS FOR THE ON-SALE PATENTABILITY BAR AND OTHER FORMS OF INFRINGEMENT
Timothy R. Holbrook
Santa Clara Law Review
Volume 43, Number 3, 2003 p.751

The class of conduct that constitutes patent infringement has evolved since the Patent Act was adopted in 1952. In 1994, Congress amended 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) to include an offer to sell a patented invention as a form of infringement pursuant to our obligations under the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property agreement (TRIPS). This article addresses this new form of infringement and reaches two conclusions: that commercialization, and not merely a formal commercial offer, should constitute an infringing “offer,”and that an enabling disclosure, rather than a physical embodiment of the accused device, should be sufficient for infringement. With regard to assessing what constitutes an infringing “offer,”the article evaluates three sources. First, the article compares infringement by offers to sell with the on-sale bar to patentability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), which precludes patentability if the invention was on sale more than one year prior to the filing of a patent application. Second, since the purpose of this amendment was to harmonize U.S. law with the international standards adopted in TRIPS, the article compares the international and domestic standards for sales and offers to sell. Third, the article evaluates the economic consequences of an infringing “offer to sell”to determine the threshold of infringement necessary to cause the patent holder injury sufficient to require redress. Weighing these three sources, the article concludes that the present standards for both infringement for offers to sell and the on-sale bar are insufficient; a broader “commercialization”standard should be used in lieu of the present requirement for a formal commercial offer. In addressing the article’s second conclusion-that a physical embodiment of a device is not required for infringement-the article reviews the traditional standard that required a complete, tangible embodiment of the invention for a finding of infringment. The addition of “offers to sell”as a form of infringement suggests that this requirement is antiquated. The article posits that, for infringing offers to sell and sales, a physical embodiment is not required; a disclosure sufficient to enable one of ordinary skill in the technological field to make the invention should suffice.

A DIGITAL FREE TRADE ?ONE AND NECESSARILY-REGULATED SELF-GOVERNANCE FOR ELECTRONIC COMMERCE: THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION, INTERNATIONAL LAW, AND CLASSICAL LIBERALISM IN CYBERSPACE
Kristi L. Bergemann
John Marshall Journal of Computer & Information Law
Volume 21, Number 4, Summer 2003 p.595

Author: international

Mentioned in these Entries

International trade law, Trade law Part 21, Trade law.