One Worldwide Patent System: what's in it for developing countries?

2010 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 277-293 ◽  
Author(s):  
Morten Wall⊘e Tvedt
2008 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ana Celia Castro ◽  
Maria Beatriz Amorim Bohrer

TRIPS as it stands is against the interests of developing countries, and needsreform. In developing their own patent law, developing countries need to recognizethat there is now near consensus among informed observers that patentlaw and practice have, in some cases, overshot, and need to be reformed. Thatis the burden of the recent NAS/NRC report on “A Patent System for the 21stCentury.


Author(s):  
Cheng Thomas K

This chapter focuses on the interface between intellectual property and competition laws. The interface is the most complex between competition law on the one hand and patent law on the other hand. Developing countries only engage in what can be called laggard innovation, which includes acquisition of tacit knowledge, imitation, and process innovation. This may call for a reconsideration of the appropriate approach to the patent–competition interface in developing countries because laggard innovations, with the exception of process innovation, are not the subject of protection of the patent system. If laggard innovations are not the subject matter of protection of the patent system, the patent-competition rules should have little relevance for the quest for innovations in developing countries. In fact, one can argue that the patent system is an impediment to one of the main sources of laggard innovation, imitation, and that the patent-competition rules should be adjusted in a way to facilitate it if one were serious about adopting a pro-growth approach to competition law enforcement in developing countries. This implies that for developing countries that do not produce patentable innovations, there is no need to balance between patent and competition policies. There is in fact no conflict between these two policy objectives. Intellectual property rights and Market-sharing and customer allocation Enforcement and procedure


2008 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Carlos Correa

Despite the internationalization of the patent system that started morethan one century ago and, particularly, the establishment of minimum standardsof protection under the Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual PropertyRights (TRIPS), States still enjoy a certain degree of discretion to determinekey substantive aspects relating to the grant of patents. Initiatives for furtherharmonization of the system have not materialized yet. Recent trends in somedeveloped countries point to a drastic relaxation of the standards of patentability,particularly in connection with the inventive step. Developing countries neednot follow the same approach; they may apply strict standards of patentabilitycompatible with their innovation systems and reward incremental innovationsby means of utility models rather than patents. They may also develop rules todeal with the specificities of traditional knowledge.


Author(s):  
Zarina Iqbal ◽  
Saima Sadaf

Driven by increasing instances of successful ‘at-risk’ launch of patented drugs in America and Europe, the strategy of using ‘proactive infringement’ as a legal tool is now getting-in, in developing countries. The rationale behind launch-at-risk is to counterbalance the innovator companies’ strategies of getting the patented product life extended through protecting improvement innovations and maintain market exclusivity even after the expiration of the compound patent. The battle for market and drive for higher profits between generics and innovator drug companies has extended the application of at-risk launch of the generic drugs even when compound patent is still running. Sitagliptin (Januvia) may be ranked at top of the drugs that have been fiercely litigated in the developing countries during their patent term. This article reviews the outcome of sitagliptin patent litigation and impact on the market exclusivity in some developing countries. This takes the position that the existing conflict between the innovators and generics can be resolved by diluting the misconception that patents on improvement innovations are misuse of patent system or inappropriate extension of patented product life on the part of innovator companies. Whether trivial, simplified or complex, if novel and non-obvious, further improvements in the precursor drugs are patentable within the legal framework of the patent system. The real issue is the scope of monopoly granted to the secondary or follow-on patents. Once the compound patent has expired, follow-on patents on improvements relating to the same compound should not be allowed to use as legal-barrier for the generic medicines entry to the market.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document