Professor Dana Beldiman is a partner with the San Francisco law firm of Carroll, Burdick & McDonough LLP and specializes in international intellectual property law and international transactions. She has taught at the Santa Clara University School of Law and is currently a visiting professor at the Bucerius Law School, Hamburg, Germany and the Riga Graduate School of Law, Riga, Latvia.
Professor Beldiman holds an M.A. from the University of Bucharest, Romania, a J.D. from UC Hastings, an L.L.M. in Intellectual Property from Santa Clara University School of Law and a doctorate in law magna cum laude from the University of Bremen, Germany.
Areas of Expertise (6)
Intellectual Property Law
Intellectual Property Licensing
International and Comparative Intellectual Property
Trademark and Unfair Competition
Intellectual Property and Human Rights
Universitaet Bremen, Germany: Doctorate, Law
Santa Clara University School of Law: LL.M., Master of Laws
UC Hastings College of the Law: J.D., Law
University of Bucharest, Romania: M.A., Graduate Studies
- Carroll, Burdick & McDonough : Partner
- Bucerius Law School : Founder and Academic Director, Center for Transnational IP, Media and Technology Law
- Honorary Consulate of Romania : Honorary Consul General
Selected Articles (5)
This paper illustrates the fact that when biological materials are used for development of pharmaceuticals, the patent system may function sub-optimally and may give rise to patent “thickets” and “anti-commons” which prevent commercialization of adequate amounts of product. The circumstances causing these conditions include the fact that multiple inventions are based on the same biological resource, patents largely cover similar functionalities and the patents are narrow and fragmented. As a result, in order to obtain freedom to operate, drug developers must license-in multiple patents, often from competitors. This situation gives rise to uncertainty and is prone to hold-outs. The number of players actually developing drugs is narrowed to a point of a “single player” or a “no player” scenario.
As we advance in information society, more and more of the wealth created consists of information. Personal data are an important subset of information and are rapidly becoming a premium commodity. Industry and government collect and use these data for purposes such as marketing, statistics and law enforcement. Many believe that personal information is well on its way to becoming one of the most valuable forms of information in our society. The advent of the global communications network raises treatment of personal information to a level of acute significance. Technology provides tools that allow processing of unprecedented masses of information; terabytes of digital data can be stored in hundreds of thousands of databases around the world.They can be replicated instantaneously in unlimited numbers and transmitted worldwide at the press of a button. One of the principal areas of concern is that technology has facilitated aggregation of personal data, i.e. data collected by one source for a certain purpose can be combined with data collected by a different source for a different purpose. All of these developments pose a serious risk to personal privacy. Protection of personal data has emerged as a cutting-edge issue in the new millennium. Most developed countries have passed comprehensive, often quite stringent, legislation to protect privacy of personal data. In the United States, however, no such legislation has been passed. The existing laws are limited to individual sectors of the economy. Consequently, some form of comprehensive legislation in the area of personal information is inevitable. This paper proposes a combined legal and technological solution to protect privacy in the context of increasing proliferation of personal information. By harnessing the technological capabilities which lie at the root of the problem, greater privacy protection is afforded to the individual, and the value of personal data is maximized for the benefit of both consumer and user.
Plant and microbial genetic resources exist in natural habitats and culture collections worldwide. Their scientific and economic value is rapidly gaining in importance, even though the laws governing them do not support ease of use. Genetic resources are subject to the overlapping jurisdiction of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS). Neither of these regimes operates in a particularly access-friendly manner with respect to biological resources with imminent commercial potential. The CBD entitles countries to share benefits arising out of the use of resources originating in their territories. The scope, nature and duration of CBD obligations, and consequently of potential claims, are however often vague. Patent laws enacted under TRIPS, in a context of a strong growth market, fragmented patents and expensive product development, tend to function sub-optimally and allow formation of blocking patents and patent thickets. In combination, these regimes encourage a race to extract value by the beneficiaries of the entitlements created, which tends to diminish the ability to exploit high-value biological resources.
Digital technology and the Internet have profoundly changed the manner in which copyrighted content can be distributed. Copyright owners, who in the pre-digital age controlled the market, were faced with the spectrum of uncontrolled dissemination of copyrighted content on the Internet. This threat prompted them to introduce massive legal and technological protection measures to secure their position in the digital environment. These measures, in turn, disturbed the balance of interests built into copyright law and impacted other stakeholders, in particular, the computer technology industry and the public at large. This chapter examines the main legal and technological measures devised to contain unauthorized dissemination of copyrighted content on the Internet, and the impact of these measures on each of the stakeholders in the digital copyright debate. It concludes by discussing possible future scenarios for distribution and consumption of digital content.
One of the areas of intellectual property whose rapid expansion in recent years risks producing negative collateral effects is protection of product design. Pressured by systemic demands for stronger protection mechanisms, judicial decisions have broadened the scope of protection, in particular in the area of trade dress law. Many of these decisions, however, are rendered in an immature doctrinal environment, characterized by the use of imprecisely defined concepts and doctrines that are incongruous with the needs of the intellectual property to be protected. This incongruity between problem and solution can create precedents that threaten the balance between free competition and protection. That balance can be restored, however, by limiting trade dress protection and implementing specialized design protection mechanisms. Legislative models for more closely tailored protection mechanisms exist, and should be considered.