Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
05BRATISLAVA161
2005-03-01 14:30:00
UNCLASSIFIED
Embassy Bratislava
Cable title:  

2004 SPECIAL 301 REVIEW FOR SLOVAKIA

Tags:  KIPR ETRD ECON XG LO 
pdf how-to read a cable
This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.
UNCLAS BRATISLAVA 000161 

SIPDIS


DEPARTMENT FOR EB/IPE:WILSON
DEPT PLEASE PASS TO USTR JCHOE-GROVES
USDOC FOR JBOGER
USPTO FOR JURBAN
LOC FOR STEPP

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: KIPR ETRD ECON XG LO
SUBJECT: 2004 SPECIAL 301 REVIEW FOR SLOVAKIA

REF: STATE 23950

UNCLAS BRATISLAVA 000161

SIPDIS


DEPARTMENT FOR EB/IPE:WILSON
DEPT PLEASE PASS TO USTR JCHOE-GROVES
USDOC FOR JBOGER
USPTO FOR JURBAN
LOC FOR STEPP

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: KIPR ETRD ECON XG LO
SUBJECT: 2004 SPECIAL 301 REVIEW FOR SLOVAKIA

REF: STATE 23950


1. Slovakia has enacted nearly all of the intellectual
property legislation required by TRIPS, and the overall IPR
situation has improved from a historical perspective.
Piracy of optical and other visual medias remains minimal,
but home "burning" of CDs has likely increased. The
Ministry of Interior and the police have an independent
office dedicated to computer-related crime. Although GOS
offices and large companies predominantly use licensed
software, experts say entrepreneurs and small- and medium-
size enterprises continue to use pirated software. The sale
of counterfeit trademarked goods is insignificant and we do
not believe piracy is a major problem in Slovakia.
Authorities have been generally cooperative with aggressive
private sector efforts to combat piracy of various products
protected by IPR legislation. Only the pharmaceutical
sector remains a considerable problem (see paragraphs 3-7).


2. Obligations from WIPO's Copyright Treaty (WCT) and
WIPO's Performance and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT) were
implemented into the Slovak Copyright Act in 2000. Slovakia
became party to WCT and WPPT in 2002. In addition, a new
Copyright Law (618/2003) came into effect in 2004 and
complies with Directive 2001/29/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the
harmonization of certain aspects of copyright and related
rights in the information society.


3. Unfortunately, the pharmaceutical sector continues to be
problematic for Slovakia. Of greatest concern is weakness
in the field of patent protection. An American company
suffered patent infringement by generic drug producers. The
American company was granted ten years of patent protection
by the GOS at the time it made the decision to enter the
product into the Slovak market. (Note: The start date for
the ten years began on the date the product was first
approved in an EU member country, not in Slovakia.
Therefore, approximately six years of patent protection had
already expired by the time the product was approved for
sale in Slovakia). Subsequently, the GOS changed the period
of patent protection to six years, then back to ten (the
product qualified as a "high tech" drug),and finally back
to six years again. During the first six-year protection
period, the patent protection expired and the GOS made
sensitive data available to generic competitors. Then,
during the time when the patent protection period was
returned to ten years, a generic producer was granted
approval to enter the Slovak market. Reportedly, the
Ministry of Health (MOH) felt this was acceptable because
the patent protection period would revert to six years in
the near future anyway.


4. Numerous other pharmaceutical firms that are innovators
of new drugs contend that, according to Slovak law, once a
patent right has been given it cannot be changed
retroactively. Therefore, the aforementioned American
company's patent protection period should be valid for ten
years. Because the GOS is solely responsible for approving
pharmaceutical products for sale in Slovakia, it must take
the lead in patent protection. Unfortunately, it is still
unclear which branch of the GOS accepts this responsibility
for the pharmaceutical sector.


5. As in previous years, data exclusivity protection is a
point of contention. The GOS has stored sensitive
registration data on the premises of a generic drug producer
for years. Reportedly, it managed to move some of the data
to a neutral storage facility, but some of it still remains
under the care of the generic drug competitor. Although the
name on the title of the storage facility was changed, the
people involved remain the same.


6. American pharmaceutical companies also contend that the
GOS violates the EU Transparency Directive by not justifying
its decisions regarding the licensing of drugs for sale in
Slovakia. Finally, these same companies claim the GOS
violates its own laws regarding the maximum allowable time
for decision making by various approval committees.


7. American pharmaceutical producers report that the
situation in Slovakia has improved from previous years. In
addition, post is encouraged by new interest on the part of
the Slovak Embassy in Washington to make needed changes to
be removed from the 301 Watch List. Slovakia's Ambassador
has requested, and received, from the Department of Commerce
a road map for correcting violations related to the Watch
List. However, insufficient progress has been made so far,
and post recommends that Slovakia remain on the 301 Watch

List until further improvements are made.
THAYER


NNNN