Friday, May 17
10:00 - 13:00
Lecture hall, General Staff Building (6-8, Dvortsovaya sq.)
Most modern market economies build their intellectual property regulation system based on the priority of protecting public interests (protecting competition) over private interests of rights holders.
Such regulation is based on the provisions of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).
In the Russian Federation, the situation is different.
Currently, the provisions of the Law on Protection of Competition stipulate that the requirements of antimonopoly laws do not apply to actions to exercise exclusive rights to the results of intellectual activity and to agreements to grant or alienate the right to use the result of intellectual activity.
Such actions and agreements on the use of exclusive rights to intellectual property objects, which lead to the prevention, restriction or elimination of competition in commodity markets, can not be stopped by existing antimonopoly measures. This creates unjustified advantages to right holders (mostly foreign companies) to the detriment of the development of competition in commodity markets.
No less important in this regard is the proper regulation of compulsory licensing tools in cases where the abuse of rights by the right holder can lead to a violation of public interests: defense and security of the state, life and health of citizens. The relevant provisions are also contained in international agreements and have a place in the practice of other states.
Regulatory consolidation of these provisions in the Russian legislation will allow to exclude unreasonable fears of investors, but to ensure the effectiveness of state regulation in cases where the private interests of the right holder conflict with public constitutional interests
Protecting public economic interests is also impossible without resolving the conflict created by current legislation regarding parallel imports, and should also be based on the TRIPS provisions on the priority of protecting public interests over the private interests of the right holder.
Thus, the provisions of antimonopoly laws can not be interpreted and applied as leading to the conflict of interests of rights holders from the mechanisms of ensuring the balance of constitutionally significant values.
Questions to be discussed:
Deputy Head, Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Russian Federation
Head of the Legal Department, Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Russian Federation
Head of the Department for Control over Social Sphere and Trade, Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Russian Federation
Deputy Chairman, Intellectual Property Court
Director of HSE-Skolkovo Institute for Law and Development, Director of the BRICS Competition Law and Policy Center
Counsel, Egorov Puginsky Afanasiev & Partners
Professor of Stockholm University, Leading Researcher of the Institute of Law and Development at HSE-Skolkovo
Professor, University of Essex
Associate Professor of Law Faculty, Lomonosov Moscow State University
Professor of the Department of Competition Law, Kutafin Moscow State Law University (MSAL)
Managing partner, Kamenskaya & Partners Law firm
Minister, Federal Court of Accounts, Brazil
Stats-Secretary – Deputy Chairman, International Union of Lawyers
* The Programme may be subject to change
© “CC “SPBILF” Ltd 2011-2020.
The use of Web site materials for commercial purposes is strictly prohibited without the express written permission of “CC “SPBILF” Ltd.