Taking Advantage of IP Protection to Advance Russian Biotech

1. April 25, 2008 ITSSD, Inc. 1 Taking Advantage of IP Protection to Advance Russian Biotech© By Lawrence A. Kogan, Esq.

2. April 25, 2008 ITSSD, Inc. 2 Presented atthe First EurasiaBIOYu.A. Ovchinnikov Russian Society of BiotechnologistsNational Biofuel Association FIRST INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS FOR BIOTECHNOLOGY, BIOENERGY AND BIOECONOMY 24-25 APRIL, 2008 , MOSCOW, RUSSIA

3. April 25, 2008 ITSSD, Inc. 3 [Taking Advantage of IP Protection to Advance Russian Biotech] I. While Science & Technology Skills Are Essential to Invent & Innovate, the Consistent Protection of Private IP Rights is Necessary to Exploit That Know-How in the Marketplace Certain regions within the Russian Federation and their citizens, including small and medium-sized enterprises, possess the S&T knowledge, technical skills, existing plant and equipment, and a well-educated workforce – a competitive advantage in biotechnology and other areas of hi-technology - to provide them with a unique opportunity to embrace changes brought to Russia and the region by globalization. Yet, generating inventions is almost never the main objective of basic research. Rather, it is the researcher’s ability to see some special relationship between his or her scholarly work product and the public need which can convert a discovery or invention into a valuable market innovation. Hence, famous American inventor Thomas Edison’s invaluable insight: “The value of an idea lies in the using of it”.

4. April 25, 2008 ITSSD, Inc. 4 [Taking Advantage of IP Protection to Advance Russian Biotech] How to realize this value?? What is the BEST MECHANISM? Experience has shown that private property-based patents, government-university partnerships and patent & product commercial licensing have together enabled humankind to realize the greatest science & technological advances, and social and economic benefits the world has ever witnessed during the shortest period of time. New products and processes do not spring fully formed from the basic research performed at universities. They require not only good ideas, but further development, capital, creative marketing, and manufacturing capability.

5. April 25, 2008 ITSSD, Inc. 5 [Taking Advantage of IP Protection to Advance Russian Biotech] Patents (and other forms of private IP), technology transfer arrangements and commercial licensing contracts provide enterprising individuals and companies with the indispensable economic incentive to seize the markets for both the private and public good. Because patents & other forms of IP ultimately help nations to attain sustainable economic and social development, and improve their competitiveness, it is necessary to create a business ‘enabling’ environment that provides protection to such economic investments. Usually, when private property rights, including IP and contract rights are protected and enforced, it is a sure sign that ‘rule of law’, NOT ‘rule by law’ prevails. Private property right enforcement reduces the transaction costs of exchange and ensures competitive markets. Private intellectual property (e.g., a patent) is important precisely because knowledge is an intangible good that is not readily susceptible to valuation.

6. April 25, 2008 ITSSD, Inc. 6 [Taking Advantage of IP Protection to Advance Russian Biotech] The U.S. federal government (USG) has long held an interest in securing the constant transference of innovation from energy, space, information technology, biotechnology and defense to that of the private sector, and moreover, this process is periodically being updated. Prior to 1980, however, a vast portion of taxpayer funded USG research and patented knowledge that had been developed with the assistance of private industry and academia for primarily military use, during and after World War II, remained locked up and unutilized, and thus, did not benefit society. Similarly, in Russia, the benefits of Russian taxpayer-funded military know-how have not yet been, but are capable of being, exploited for the private as well as public good.

7. April 25, 2008 ITSSD, Inc. 7 [Taking Advantage of IP Protection to Advance Russian Biotech] II. The American Experience in Innovation and Private ‘Negative’ Intellectual Property Rights May Be Advantageous to Use in Russia Since the early 1980s, the USG has focused on encouraging the transfer from the government of publicly-funded research and development (R&D) into private hands within universities and companies that can most capably commercialize such know-how into market-relevant end-user products and processes that benefit society as a whole. The USG has also recognized and enforced exclusive private property rights in inventions and commercial innovations, and maintained free & competitive markets based on ‘methodological individualism’ (MI). MI = the individual as the unit of analysis. Governments, think tanks, universities and other organizations do not make decisions; only individuals can. Individuals conceive ideas, invest time and effort in formulating them and persuade others to accept them . MI is reflected in the concept of individual property ownership and the rule of law. “Properly considered to be a key guarantor of NEGATIVE rights, the rule of law protects the rights of individuals from potential predators including majority rule, decision makers in governments, labor unions, and other rent-seekers. (Svetozar Pejovich, Ph.D)

8. April 25, 2008 ITSSD, Inc. 8 [Taking Advantage of IP Protection to Advance Russian Biotech] ‘NEGATIVE’ (Anglo-American) vs. ‘POSITIVE’ (EU Continental) property rights – The concept of ‘negative’ rights reflects a skepticism about rulers’ foresight and goodwill. Outcomes are deemed fair & just if they emerge from the process of voluntary interactions. The concept of ‘positive’ rights believes in rulers’ foresight and goodwill. It does not reflect the view of government as a predator requiring the rule of law to tame it. Rather, it wants government to be an active factor in running the economy. It is also more concerned with the desired outcome of economic activities than with the process of voluntary interactions leading to unanticipated results. Economic activities are justified only if they serve the public interest and social justice.

9. April 25, 2008 ITSSD, Inc. 9 [Taking Advantage of IP Protection to Advance Russian Biotech] NEGATIVE (Anglo-American) vs. POSITIVE (EU Continental) property rights (cont’d) German law protects property rights only to the extent that they serve “human dignity” and the German welfare state. Property rights in Italy are also attenuated; the Italian Constitution allows protection of private property insofar as it serves a social function. Thus, property rights in Germany and Italy neither protect the subjective preferences of their owners nor block legislative and regulatory redistributive measures. The attenuation of private property rights enables the government to interfere with the right of individuals to seek the best use for the goods they own. Rule of law (‘negative’ property rights) vs. rule by law (‘positive’ property rights): Rule of law requires a well-defined, stable and credible process by which formal rules can be changed. Rule by law allows changes in formal rules to serve as a vehicle through which the ruling group seeks its ends. (Svetozar Pejovich, Ph.D).

10. April 25, 2008 ITSSD, Inc. 10 [Taking Advantage of IP Protection to Advance Russian Biotech] “One purpose of the American Revolution...was to strengthen and protect the people’s fundamental rights...[which]...‘could from the very beginning be ‘negative rights’ that served primarily to protect individuals from the government” ...In contrast...the inclusion of positive rights in German law can be traced to the fact that European constitutions, unlike the U.S. Constitution, did not establish an entirely new political entity because the nation-state existed before the constitutions emerged...[‘T]hey never changed the tradition of the state,’ and part of this saved tradition, especially in Germany, was that ‘the state always retained the role of being the representative of the higher aspirations of society.’” (Dieter Grimm, Ph.D). “European citizens are deemed to enjoy only an implied conditional right to private property that is highly subject to ‘collective power’ and the ‘public interest’ i.e., the ‘general will’. (Dieter Grimm Ph.D) RULE BY LAW . “[A] liberal [U.S. constitutional – 5th Amendment/Bill of Rights] conception of property puts private interests in opposition to collective power and the public interest. ‘Collective forces [are considered]... clearly external to the protection that property, as an entity, affords.’” (Tom Allen, Ph.D; Laurence Tribe, Ph.D). “The protection of...the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate...is the first object of government” (emphasis added). (Federalist Paper No. 10) (James Madison). RULE OF LAW In addition, in, Madison wrote that “Government is instituted no less for protection of the property, than of the persons, of individuals.” (Federalist Paper No. 54) (James Madison). RULE OF LAW “In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights” (emphasis added). (March 29, 1792 issue of the National Gazette) (James Madison). - RULE OF LAW

11. April 25, 2008 ITSSD, Inc. 11 [Taking Advantage of IP Protection to Advance Russian Biotech] Important U.S. Private Property & Technology Transfer Legislation Giving Rise to American Market-Based Innovations Small Business Act (SBA) of 1958 (Public Law 85-536) (as amended) to Provide Small & Medium-Sized Domestic Businesses (SMEs) with Market Access to Federal Contracts SBA assisted domestic small businesses in competing for Federal procurements. SBA’s purpose was to promote a high level of entrepreneurship, free markets and open competition. “It is the declared policy of the Congress that the Government should aid, counsel, assist, and protect, insofar as is possible, the interests of small business concerns in order to: Preserve free competitive enterprise; Ensure that a fair proportion of the total purchases and contracts or subcontracts for property and services for the Government (including but not limited to contracts or subcontracts for maintenance, repair, and construction) be placed with small business enterprises; Ensure that a fair proportion of the total sales of Government property be made to such enterprises; AND Maintain and strengthen the overall economy of the Nation.”

12. April 25, 2008 ITSSD, Inc. 12 [Taking Advantage of IP Protection to Advance Russian Biotech] Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (as amended) to Further Ease Business’ Regulatory Burden – (5 U.S.C. § 601-612, amended in 1996 [P.L. 104-121] & 2007 [P.L. 110-28) The Act “establish[ed] as a [general] principle of regulatory issuance”. Federal agencies, “consistent with the objectives of the rule and applicable statute [in question, must] fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the businesses...subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals [were] given serious consideration.”

13. April 25, 2008 ITSSD, Inc. 13 [Taking Advantage of IP Protection to Advance Russian Biotech] Funding Small Business Innovation - The Small Business Innovation Development Act of 1982 (SBIDA) (, as amended in 2000 [P.L.106-554] & 2002 [SBIR PD 2002]) (SBIDA) encouraged, facilitated and harnessed governmental funding of small company R&D and innovation through establishment of the Small Business Innovation Research Program (SBIR). SBIR “encourages small business to explore their technological potential and provides the incentive to profit from its commercialization. By including qualified small businesses in the nation’s R&D arena, high-tech innovation is stimulated and the United States gains entrepreneurial spirit as it meets its specific research and development needs.” SBIDA/ SBIR goals - to “...use small businesses to meet federal R&D needs, foster and encourage participation in technological innovation by minority and disadvantaged persons, and to increase private sector commercialization of innovations derived from federal R&D.” (Charles W. Niessner, former USDOT).

14. April 25, 2008 ITSSD, Inc. 14 [Taking Advantage of IP Protection to Advance Russian Biotech] Facilitating Technology Transfer From Government Laboratories to Small Businesses - The Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act (1980) (P.L. 96-480) The Act provided the foundation for enhanced information dissemination and technology transfer from the USG to private industry. It required Federal laboratories to take a more active role in cooperation with potential users of Federally-developed technology. The Act directed Federal laboratories to establish Offices of Research and Technology Applications (ORTA) through which to conduct technology transfer activities. The US Congress believed that “technology and industrial innovation [was] central to the economic, environmental, and social well-being of the citizens of the United States.” The Act directed the executive branch to satisfy four specific objectives: 1) To promote technology development through establishment of cooperative research centers; stimulate better use of federally-funded technologies by state and local governments and the private sector; 2) To encourage technological development through greater recognition of inventors (both individuals and companies); 3) To encourage the exchange of scientific and technical personnel among academia, industry and federal laboratories; and 4) To secure the protection of IP rights in laboratory innovations with commercial promise and the management of such innovations to benefit the competitiveness of U.S. industry.

15. April 25, 2008 ITSSD, Inc. 15 [Taking Advantage of IP Protection to Advance Russian Biotech] Promote Technology Transfer to SMEs - The Bayh-Dole Act (1980) (P.L. 96-517 - Patent and Trademark Act Amendments of 1980 The Act established a uniform government patent policy AND allowed universities and other nonprofit organizations to retain title to federally-funded inventions and to work with companies in bringing them to market. It provided USG agencies with the means to shift (transfer) legal title (ownership) of federally funded ideas and patents from the government to the private sector – namely, to those private hands (approved universities, small businesses and nonprofits) most capable of securing the monies and expertise needed to commercialize them. Through enabling the negotiation of exclusive licenses (private contracts - a form of private property) for promising technologies (R&D assets), the Act: Created economic incentives for university researchers to consider the practical applications of their discoveries; Encouraged universities and non-profits to become directly involved in the commercialization process by searching out potential companies to develop them. Encouraged corporations to invest in the additional research, development, and manufacturing capabilities needed to bring new products to market. Stimulated the economy to the extent those businesses then manufactured and distributed the resulting products in America (This justification has been subject to questioning where USG-funded R&D & manufacturing are ‘outsourced’).

16. April 25, 2008 ITSSD, Inc. 16 [Taking Advantage of IP Protection to Advance Russian Biotech] Promote Technology Transfer to SMEs - The Bayh-Dole Act (1980) (P.L. 96-517 - Patent and Trademark Act Amendments of 1980 (cont’d) The overwhelming success of the Bayh-Dole Act was acknowledged by the 109th U.S. Congress. On December 14, 2005, the U.S. House of Representatives, in concurrence with the U.S. Senate, issued a “Sense of the Congress Resolution”, recognizing the invaluable contribution that the Bayh-Dole Act has made to U.S. innovation and technological advancement during the twenty-five years since its enactment. These pieces of U.S. legislation largely succeeded in fulfilling their policy objectives because they reflected the USG’s recognition, via Rule of Law of the fundamental exclusive ‘negative’ right to private property. Without the prospect for private IP ownership, there would have been little incentive for small businesses / innovative companies, universities and nonprofits, university researchers and small independent inventors, to participate in the R&D commercialization process.

17. April 25, 2008 ITSSD, Inc. 17 [Taking Advantage of IP Protection to Advance Russian Biotech] III. European Technology Transfer Mechanism Can Use Improvement The EU still struggles to improve its R&D framework: To ensure both greater community investments in science & technology AND To ensure that university laboratory discoveries eventually make their way to the markets and generate economic value. On April 11, 2008, the European Commission nominated a high-level advisory group on research and science, “to provide independent and authoritative advice to the European Commission on European research and science policy, whose objective is to realise a European Research Area.” According to the EU, “there is strong need and support for making research in Europe more European. This can only be done in partnership with Member States, the research community, business and many other stakeholders. The advisory group is said to have provided recommendations on: Research and societal engagement; Research management in the European Research Area; Open access scientific publication; international research cooperation; social sciences and humanities in 7th EU Framework; stimulating regional research & innovation. WHERE IS THE DISCUSSION OF COMMERCIALIZATION????

18. April 25, 2008 ITSSD, Inc. 18 [Taking Advantage of IP Protection to Advance Russian Biotech] Unfortunately, ideological resistance among some regulators and scientists to commercialization (licensing), has prevented research of British and European universities from being translated into profitable market products that disseminate technology to society. Unlike in the U.S. and Canada, where universities have generated a six-fold ROI, few if any technology transfer offices have been established at European universities. Perhaps this discrepancy results from the limited ‘positive’ property rights environment in the EU which reflects the priority of European Community social interests over the exercise of exclusive private patent rights. Even the EU cannot ignore how technology transfer offices in the U.S. & Canada have served an indispensable role – they have enabled many North American academicians, inventors, companies and venture capital investors to license laboratory know-how for commercialization purposes, which has thus, brought economic value to S&T discoveries. The Anglo-American common law legal model of ‘negative’ exclusive private property rights which protects investments in patents, trade secrets, licensing contracts, etc., has also persuaded many European companies to move R&D departments to the U.S.

19. April 25, 2008 ITSSD, Inc. 19 [Taking Advantage of IP Protection to Advance Russian Biotech] IV. Russia’s Intellectual Property Laws & IP Enforcement Are Moving in the Right Direction; But Will This Continue? The main body of intellectual property law in Russia consists of: The Russian Citizens’ Code of 1964 The Patent Law of Russia (1992) and The Law for the Rights of Innovators. Russia has recognized that these laws are outdated and no longer serve the interests of the Russian people or its economy. The Russian government has canceled 54 older laws, and has committed itself to the preparation of a new intellectual property legal regime which would include four laws and sixteen governmental decrees.

20. April 25, 2008 ITSSD, Inc. 20 [Taking Advantage of IP Protection to Advance Russian Biotech] During July 2001, the Duma passed a package of laws that brought about major deregulation of small and medium-sized enterprises, by simplifying their registration, licensing, inspection and certification. (emphasis added). A new registration law reduced the number of government agencies from which business registration approvals must be obtained. A businessman need register with only one government agency, which sharply reduced the period for registration. A new licensing law came into effect in February 2002. It extended the period of a license from a maximum of three years to a minimum of five years. It also reduced the cost of a license and the number of business activities subject to licensing. A new inspections law restricted the number of planned government inspections to which a firm could be subject, to no more than one every two years, although this did not limit the number of different types of inspections. It excluded law enforcement agencies. A fourth important law on deregulation tried to simplify standardization and technical regulation.

21. April 25, 2008 ITSSD, Inc. 21 [Taking Advantage of IP Protection to Advance Russian Biotech] “This broad effort at deregulation...has proved sustainable, although...the amelioration...has been greater in more developed and pluralist regions. Small enterprises have grown steadily. The number of officially registered enterprises has steadily increased by more than 7 percent a year, and by 2006 the total number of registered enterprises in Russia had reached almost 5 million...Still, the patriarch surveillance system remains in place, and more radical deregulation is needed.” (Anders Aslund). A new chapter in the Russian Civil Code provided the legal basis for private transactions of land, and after a prolonged legislative battle, a new land code was adopted on October 25, 2001, but it excluded farmland. On July 24, 2002, the Duma finally legalized the sale of agricultural land as well. It was a compromise requiring each region to adopt a law to make the federal law effective. As a consequence, communist regions could withhold agricultural land from sale, while more liberal regions were allowed to sell land. In practice, the private ownership of agricultural land developed only gradually, and good connections with regional governors were vital for land purchases. During October 2002, a new bankruptcy law was added to the Russian Civil Code because the old law had become a tool of corporate raiding of companies merely in a liquidity squeeze.

22. April 25, 2008 ITSSD, Inc. 22 [Taking Advantage of IP Protection to Advance Russian Biotech] Russia has tried to send more positive signals concerning its recognition and protection/enforcement of IP rights. “Little progress has been made in the area of IPR. As in many instances throughout the economy, it is a matter not so much of laws on the books but of implementation and enforcement.” (US-Russia Business Council 2005) . “[A] mixed bag of successes and failures in the Russian Government's efforts to improve protection and enforcement of trademarks, copyrights and patents’[.] The baseline CIPR survey of 102 rightsholders was conducted during the first quarter of 2006 prior to the... announcement of the RF Presidential Administration's proposed new comprehensive IP law commonly known as Part Four of the Civil Code. (Coalition for Intellectual Property Rights, May 2006). During November 2006, the Duma passed into law new Part Four to the Russia Civil Code. As proposed, it contained a provision dealing with invention, design or utility. Indeed, as one group noted, that provision contained “the term ‘exclusive right’, [which] is understood to refer only to the right of the patent owner to use the invention, design or utility model.” But, it did not contain any more specific “right to forbid others to use the invention, etc. It is not even stated that nobody can use an invention, design or utility model without the permission of the patent owner”. (The Coalition for Intellectual Property Rights Press Release (May 24, 2006).

23. April 25, 2008 ITSSD, Inc. 23 [Taking Advantage of IP Protection to Advance Russian Biotech] Some legal commentators believe new Part 4 of the Russian Civil Code intentionally refers to the notion of IP rights as ‘the products of intellectual activity that give rise to commercial value’, not merely to some abstract ‘bundle of (limited) positive rights’ (or entitlements). “[A] new term ‘intellectual rights’ has been introduced which means the total of exclusive (property), personal non-property and open list of some other rights ??? (the article only mentions the right of resale and right of access). An important change is the opportunity to conclude a contract on irrevocable assignment of all author’s exclusive rights, according to which the author may forfeit all his/her author’s exclusive rights forever...[T]he protected result of intellectual activity is the secret of production (know-how). According to the Code, the secret of production (know-how) is any data (production, technical, economic, administrative and other), including data about the results of intellectual activity in scientific and technical sphere, as well as data about methods of performing professional activities having actual or potential commercial value by reason of their being unknown to third persons, to which third persons have no free legal access, and which are officially considered as a commercial secret by the holder of such data.” (emphasis added). (Norman DL Associates Law Firm (2008) .

24. April 25, 2008 ITSSD, Inc. 24 [Taking Advantage of IP Protection to Advance Russian Biotech] New Part 4 of the RF Civil Code was largely intended to implement Russia’s obligations under the WTO TRIPS Agreement as concerns patents and trade secrets, and to strengthen IP protection against piracy & counterfeiting, especially of optical media. The changes brought by new Part 4 of the RF Civil Code were hailed by “US industry groups concerned with intellectual property rights, including film, music, pharmaceuticals, and manufacturing.” (Intellectual Property Watch (Nov. 24, 2006) . The new Part 4 provisions were scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2008. However, this was made impossible by the law’s unanticipated [??] impact on accompanying regulations: The new law “abrogated all regulations governing [the] activities” of Russia’s Federal Service for Intellectual Property, Patents and Trademarks (Rospatent). Without working regulations in place, the Federal Service for Intellectual Property, Patents and Trademarks (Rospatent) has been unable to do its job, i.e., it “could no longer examine patent claims, trademarks, or industrial models and make the relevant decisions, and...was also unable to schedule meetings of the Chamber of Patent Disputes...” (Young & Wasserman (2007);Kommersant - Jan. 11, 1008). Consequently, the government...will prove unable to fight piracy, an important pre-condition of Russia's accession to the World Trade Organization.” (Novosti – April 14, 2008) .

25. April 25, 2008 ITSSD, Inc. 25 [Taking Advantage of IP Protection to Advance Russian Biotech] During July 2007, the Draft Law on “Procedures for Making Foreign Investment in Russian Commercial Organizations of Strategic Importance for the National Security of the Russian Federation” (#455248-4) was submitted to the Duma for review. The second reading took place on March 21, 2008, and included many new amendments proposed by the Presidential administration. The bill with amendments was approved by the Duman after 6 minutes of deliberation. According to one Duma representative, the Presidential administration did not want foreign investments to “get where we don’t need them”. Legal experts believe this newest draft imposes additional regulatory restrictions on foreigners’ ability to purchase Russian private enterprises in ‘strategic’ sectors or industries which, in effect, would substantially impair the exercise/legal alienation of their stock/equity rights. (Akin Gump) The draft law adds seven new ‘strategic’ sectors or industries to the existing eight. In addition to defense, energy, aircraft and aerospace industries and critical infrastructure, the law would cover also certain natural resource deposits ( and thus geological research, exploration & extraction of natural resources), radio, television, publishing, printing, & telecommunications. Foreigners may organize more joint ventures w/ state-controlled companies.

26. April 25, 2008 ITSSD, Inc. 26 [Taking Advantage of IP Protection to Advance Russian Biotech] The new law will prevent foreign investors from gaining control of lucrative assets, whether these assets are privately owned or not. It may also result in forced divestment of certain investors in properties that will now be considered ‘federal properties’. This triggers memories of prior instances of renationalization of private enterprises by the Presidential administration. For example, the new draft law would subject investments in the entire Russian fishing industry and its use of water biological resources to greater regulation and control. Russia’s Minister of Agriculture has argued that “since Russia’s ocean/sea resources are federal property and subject to licensing, fishing enterprises in Russia should be fully owned by Russian companies. Under the proposed amendment, foreign investors would be forced to sell their shares if the Russian government refused to grant them fishing quotas. (Akin Gump) Russian business owners, university scientists, academicians, inventors, and even the Russian Government, must now ask how this new foreign investment law will affect Russia’s ability to exploit their bioscience technologies through use of BOTH domestic and foreign investment funding. Can this really be characterized as a positive step forward??

27. April 25, 2008 ITSSD, Inc. 27 [Taking Advantage of IP Protection to Advance Russian Biotech] Despite Some Important Improvements, More Can Still Be Done: The World Bank and International Finance Corporation (IFC) Doing Business Index (2006) ranks Russia as 96th among 175 countries...Russia receive[d] its best rankings for enforcing contracts (25), starting a business (33), and registering property (44), which all concern property rights. Yet, Russia’s regulatory environment is still considered bad. The World Bank and IFC Doing Business Index (2008) index ranks Russia 106th among 178 countries. Russia slipped from certain of these 2006 rankings and rose in others: starting a business (50), enforcing contracts (19), and registering property (45). The 2007 International Property Rights Index ranks Russia 63rd out of 70 countries overall, with a 3.2/10 on a 0-10 scale, with the Average 2007 IPRI Rank being 5.7. This was further broken down into three elements: legal and political environment (LP), physical property rights (PPR) and intellectual property rights (IPR). Russia ranked 62nd out of 70 countries or 1.9/10 (LP); 4.2/10 (PPR); and 3.7/10 (IPR). In the 2008 International Property Rights Index Russia’s relative overall ranking dropped to 93rd out of 115 countries, though it achieved an overall higher IPRI ranking of 4.0/10. Similarly, Russia’s rankings in the elemental indices also improved: 3.2/10 or 102nd out of 115 countries (LP); 4.9/10 or 92nd out of 115 countries (PPR); and 3.9/10 or 83rd out of 115 countries (IPR). The Average IPRI for 2008 was 5.5.

28. April 25, 2008 ITSSD, Inc. 28