In order to look into the recent developments in the field of intellectual property in relation with international trade, a small flashback is very useful. In 1975, Mansfield had pointed out as follows:

“One of the fundamental processes that influence the economic performance of nations and firms is technology transfer. Economists have long recognized that the transfer of technology is at the heart of the process of economic growth, and that the progress of both developed and developing countries depends on the extent and efficiency of such transfer.”

Transfer of technology plays a vital role in economic development. However, planning and managing a technology transfer project, especially an international technology transfer (ITT) project, is not easy[1]. The productive entities that have been most affected by these problems are small and medium enterprises (SMEs). In order to help the member countries in Asia-Pacific region develop this significant mass of skills, APCTT (Asian and Pacific Centre for Transfer of Technology Transfer) is currently in the process of seeking funds to commence a technology transfer capacity building programme in SMEs.[2]

Apart from just technology transfer, even trade secrets are a significant part of international; economic advancement. Several employers have been continuously demanding control over IP rights after a particular employment activity is over. In order to augment this control over the flow of information and skill, employers frequently demand that employees sign covenants not-to-compete and agreements to assign inventions to the company in order to secure trade secret.[3] The California judiciary has stated that California’s strong public policy against restrictive covenants aims to ‘ensure’ that every citizen shall retain the right to pursue any lawful employment and enterprise of their choice ‘protecting the important legal right of persons to engage in businesses and occupations of their choosing’[4].

In the latest decision by the UK High Court of Justice (Patents) in Unwired Planet v. Huawei[5], Mister Justice Colin Birss has issued a detailed and illuminating opinion regarding the assessment of royalties on standards-essential patents (SEPs) that are subject to FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory) licensing commitments.

In the year 1995,after a detailed survey, it was found that certain firms that are engaged in exporting, mostly discriminate in their sales decisions across the markets, taking into consideration the local patent laws and other the same of other developing countries that run lateral across the range of import and export. Hence, changes in international patent laws influence international trade depending on the sector and development level.

Along with the above-mentioned fields of intellectual property, trademarks also put a foot forward when it comes to the protection of global markets. The importance of trademarks in the international marketplace is established by the wide-ranging commercial counterfeiting of an extensive variation of goods. While precise estimates are impossible to make, billions of dollars of counterfeit goods are sold each year in US.[6] Counterfeiting of trademarks is a widespread problem which covers the major part of IP infringement and hence, affects market competition by taking away a major chunk of the target market for a particular protected trademark. IP Lawyers are a very vital part of this system where such counterfeiting could stop globally.

Similarly, in the case of patents, global infringement happens in the form of parallel imports and exports. In the importing country, such goods may create havoc particularly for entrepreneurs who sell the same goods, obtained via different distribution channels and perhaps more expensively. This was observed in the case of Roussel Uclaf v. Hockley International.[7]

In this case, it was held, “Where a patentee supplied a product and at the time of supply informed the person supplied that there were limitations as to what might be done with the product then, provided those terms were brought home first to the person originally supplied and secondly to subsequent dealers in the product, no licence to carry out or do any act outside the licence ran with the product.”

[1] Dr. K. Ramanathan, Head of APCTT, ‘An Overview of Technology Transfer and Technology Transfer Models’, available at <http://tto.boun.edu.tr/files/1383812118_An%20overview%20of%20TT%20and%20TT%20Models.pdf>

[2] ibid

[3] Jeffrey B. Oberman, ‘Hiring an Employee with a Non-Compete Agreement – Including the Latest Cases, Trends, Traps and Strategies’, 25th May, 2012.

[4] Advanced Bionics Corp. v. Medtronic, Inc. 2002

[5] [2017] EWHC 711 (Pat), 5 Apr. 2017

[6] In April, 2017, Dior has filed a lawsuit against a “network” of online counterfeit sellers, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, a federal court in Chicago, alleging that the defendants “unlawfully used its registered trademarks in connection with the advertisement, distribution, and sale of infringing and counterfeiting Dior products, which caused confusion among customers and irreparably harmed Christian Dior.

[7] [1996] R.P.C. 441