Trump to abandon TPP deal
US president-elect Donald Trump will withdraw the US from the Trans-Pacific Partnership on his first day in the White House.
In a video message, Trump said that the partnership was a “potential disaster” for the country.
He added that instead, the US will negotiate “fair, bilateral trade deals that bring jobs and industry back onto American shores”.
The TPP deal covers 12 nations—Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the US and Vietnam.
A final agreement of the deal was reached in October last year, but it has not yet been ratified by the countries.
The intellectual property chapter, number 18 of 30, contains several provisions including a requirement for each participating nation to provide a copyright protection term of ‘life plus 70 years’.
Another provision, which reportedly contributed to delays in reaching the agreement, was the rule on the length of protection afforded to data exclusivity rights for biological drugs.
Under the deal, the minimum term of data protection for biologics is five years, although there is an option for countries to provide protection for eight years.
A safe harbour provision for internet service providers (ISPs) is required, but this is not conditional on the ISP actively monitoring for infringing content.
But now it is unclear whether the TPP deal will go ahead without the US and what implications Trump’s statement may have on IP.
Richard Gough, partner at Baker & McKenzie in Sydney, told WIPR: "It’s much too early to tell what will happen. If the US dumps the TPP, it may affect the willingness of other countries to adopt higher levels of IP protection than are currently required by TRIPS. Ironically, many of the proposed higher level protections mirror US laws.
"They range from trademarks (eg, allowing marks that are not visually perceptible) through to copyright (eg, terms extended from life of the author plus 50 to 70 years), patent (eg, making it easier to obtain a patent) and enforcement (eg, mandating statutory damages and deterrent levels of damages)."
Kevin Noonan, partner at McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff, said: "The real loss here is that this treaty would have been good for US exports, which would have reduced the costs of imported goods in the US."
He said that it would have made goods more affordable in the US while providing employment opportunities for US workers making goods for export.
Noonan added: "The TPP might have been a paradigm for a broader treaty, because countries who were not part of the negotiations had inquired about joining."
Richard Gough is a WIPR Leader for 2016. His profile is available here.
