Harmonization of Patent Law

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip W. Grubb ◽  
Peter R. Thomsen ◽  
Tom Hoxie ◽  
Gordon Wright
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Patent Protection ◽  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
Convention On Biological Diversity ◽  
Nagoya Protocol ◽  
Patent Rights ◽  
Patent Laws ◽  
The World ◽  
Per Se

This chapter details developments in the harmonization of patent laws. The Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) Agreement has made significant strides in harmonizing levels of patent protection. TRIPs requires practically all countries of the world to have patent systems in which compounds, including pharmaceuticals, can be patented per se for a term of at least twenty years, with no local working requirements and no routine granting of compulsory licences; with importation of a product and sale of the product or a process being clearly defined as infringement; and with clear standards for the enforcement of patent rights. Other harmonization initiatives include the Patent Law Treaty, the Substantive Patent Law Treaty, the Trilateral Cooperation, the Convention on Biological Diversity, and the Nagoya Protocol.

Biotechnological Patents and Morality

2011 ◽  
pp. 141-151
Author(s):  
Jakkrit Kuanpoth
Keyword(s):  
Developing Countries ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
World Trade Organization ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
World Trade ◽  
Patent Protection ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
The World ◽  
Micro Organisms

The chapter deals with ethical aspects of patent law and how the global patent regime helps or hinders the development of a developing country such as Thailand. More specifically, it discusses Article 27.3 of the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), which states that countries may exclude methods of medical treatment, plants and animals (but not micro-organisms) from patent protection. It also provides legal analysis on the issue of whether developing countries can maximize benefits from the TRIPS morality exception (Article 27.2) in dealing with biotechnological patenting.

scholarly journals Comparing patent protection in Indonesia with that in Singapore and Hong Kong

2021 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 200-222
Author(s):  
Lu Sudirman ◽  
Hari Sutra Disemadi
Keyword(s):  
Hong Kong ◽  
Patent Protection ◽  
New Technologies ◽  
Scientific Literature ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
Patent Rights ◽  
The World ◽  
Huge Impact ◽  
Formal Requirements

The discovery of technology has a huge impact on the economy of a country, so many countries focus on developing technology and apply this technology in their respective countries. Technological inventions must register patent rights to obtain legal protection to avoid losses that will harm inventors, stimulate creativity in creating new technologies and create fair business competition among companies engaged in technology. This normative research aims to compare patent protection in Indonesia, Singapore, and Hong Kong. The benefit of this research is that it can contribute to scientific literature in the field of patent rights, can provide an overview of the form of patent rights arrangements in several countries outside Indonesia, so as to avoid disputes and/or misunderstandings with other countries. The participation of Indonesia, Singapore, and Hong Kong in ratifying the Convention on the World Trade Organization and the agreement on the Trade Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) obliges these countries to establish regulations on patents in their respective countries. Although the application of patent law in Indonesia, Singapore, and Hong Kong is based on the terms of the TRIPs agreement, the implementation and regulations must have differences. Patent registration in Indonesia, Singapore, and Hong Kong have the same procedure, namely fulfilling the formal requirements, substantive examination, then the announcement stage. The term of patent protection in Indonesia and Singapore is similar, which is 20 years from the date of filing. However, it is different from Hong Kong, namely from the date of filing. In patent disputes, there are two ways of settlement, namely litigation and non-litigation. Patents in Indonesia, Singapore, and Hong Kong have another similarity, namely that they are transferable and can be licensed. The focus of this research is only to compare the application of patent law and not to examine its strengths and weaknesses, so it is considered important to do further research on this matter.

scholarly journals The Patentability of Maori Traditional Medicine and the Morality Exclusion in the Patents Act 1953

2001 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 255 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan Young
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Traditional Medicine ◽  
Traditional Knowledge ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
Convention On Biological Diversity ◽  
International Obligations

Many indigenous peoples, including Maori, are offended by third parties 'appropriating' their traditional knowledge by means of intellectual property rights, such as patents. The author first surveys international debate about indigenous intellectual property rights in connection with the patenting of traditional indigenous medicine. The author examines the role of morality in New Zealand patent law and how this fits in with New Zealand's international obligations under the World Trade Organisation's TRIPs agreement and the Convention on Biological Diversity. The author examines whether the patenting of Maori traditional medicine can be prevented under the morality exclusion in the Patents Act 1953 and outlines five arguments which might be used to justify various levels of intervention in the patenting process in order to protect Maori control over their traditional knowledge.

Historical Developments

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip W. Grubb ◽  
Peter R. Thomsen ◽  
Tom Hoxie ◽  
Gordon Wright
Keyword(s):  
Patent Protection ◽  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
Patent System ◽  
Convention On Biological Diversity ◽  
European Patent ◽  
Industrialized Countries ◽  
System P ◽  
Historical Developments ◽  
The Uk

This chapter describes historical developments in patent systems and patent law. It highlights key developments in the UK from 1800–2014, in the US from 1790–2014, in other industrialized countries (Germany, France, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Japan), and in developing countries. The final section discusses international developments such as the Paris Convention, the European Patent Convention, the Unitary Patent system in Europe, the Patent Cooperation Treaty, the TRIPs Agreement, the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Patent Law Treaty, the London Agreement, and the Substantive Patent Law Treaty. These developments, which have generally acted to strengthen patent protection, did not simply happen of their own accord; political, diplomatic, and industry lobbying activities have played a larger role than any objective analysis of the economic and social benefits of the patent system.

Biotechnological Patents and Morality

2013 ◽  
pp. 1417-1427
Author(s):  
Jakkrit Kuanpoth
Keyword(s):  
Developing Countries ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
World Trade Organization ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
World Trade ◽  
Patent Protection ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
The World ◽  
Micro Organisms

The chapter deals with ethical aspects of patent law and how the global patent regime helps or hinders the development of a developing country such as Thailand. More specifically, it discusses Article 27.3 of the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), which states that countries may exclude methods of medical treatment, plants and animals (but not micro-organisms) from patent protection. It also provides legal analysis on the issue of whether developing countries can maximize benefits from the TRIPS morality exception (Article 27.2) in dealing with biotechnological patenting.

The Influence of TRIPS Compliant Patent Laws on Indian Pharmaceutical Industry

2014 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rupesh Rastogi ◽  
Virendra Kumar
Keyword(s):  
Pharmaceutical Industry ◽  
Patent Protection ◽  
Uruguay Round ◽  
Pharmaceutical Products ◽  
Trips Agreement ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
Patent Laws ◽  
The Impact ◽  
First Time ◽  
Indian Pharmaceutical Industry

The first legislation in India relating to patents was the Act VI of 1856. The Indian Patents and Design Act, 1911 (Act II of 1911) replaced all the previous Acts. The Act brought patent administration under the management of Controller of Patents for the first time. After Independence, it was felt that the Indian Patents & Designs Act, 1911 was not fulfilling its objective. Various comities were constituted to recommend, framing a patent law which can fulfill the requirement of Indian Industry and people. The Indian Patent Act of 1970 was enacted to achieve the above objectives. The major provisions of the act, provided for process, not the product patents in food, medicines, chemicals with a term of 14 years and 5-7 for chemicals and drugs. The Act enabled Indian citizens to access cheapest medicines in the world and paved a way for exponential growth of Indian Pharmaceutical Industry. TRIPS agreement, which is one of the important results of the Uruguay Round, mandated strong patent protection, especially for pharmaceutical products, thereby allowing the patenting of NCEs, compounds and processes. India is thereby required to meet the minimum standards under the TRIPS Agreement in relation to patents and the pharmaceutical industry. India’s patent legislation must now include provisions for availability of patents for both pharmaceutical products and processes inventions. The present paper examines the impact of change in Indian Patent law on Pharmaceutical Industry.

Protecting Traditional Knowledge Holders' Interests and Preventing Misappropriation—Traditional Knowledge Commons and Biocultural Protocols: Necessary but Not Sufficient?

2012 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 401-422 ◽  
Author(s):  
Krishna Ravi Srinivas
Keyword(s):  
Informed Consent ◽  
Traditional Knowledge ◽  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Indigenous Communities ◽  
Benefit Sharing ◽  
Convention On Biological Diversity ◽  
Access And Benefit Sharing ◽  
Nagoya Protocol ◽  
Prior Informed Consent ◽  
Knowledge Commons

AbstractThe experience of the indigenous communities regarding access and benefit sharing under the national regimes based on provisions of Convention on Biological Diversity and Bonn Guidelines has not been satisfactory. The communities expect that noncommercial values should be respected and misappropriation should be prevented. Some academics and civil society groups have suggested that traditional knowledge commons and biocultural protocols will be useful in ensuring that while noncommercial values are respected, access and benefit sharing takes place on conditions that are acceptable to the communities. This proposal is examined in this context in the larger context of access and benefit sharing under the Convention on Biological Diversity and implementing prior informed consent principles in access and benefit sharing. This article examines knowledge commons, provides examples from constructed commons in different sectors and situates traditional knowledge commons in the context of debates on commons and public domain. The major shortcomings of traditional commons and bicultural protocol are pointed out, and it is suggested that these are significant initiatives that can be combined with the Nagoya Protocol to fulfill the expectations of indigenous communities.

Beyond Unbridled Optimism and Fear: Indigenous Peoples, Intellectual Property, Human Rights and the Globalisation of Traditional Knowledge and Expressions of Folklore: Part II

2014 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-37
Author(s):  
Caroline Joan S. Picart ◽  
Caroline Joan S. Picart ◽  
Marlowe Fox
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Traditional Knowledge ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Convention On Biological Diversity ◽  
Nagoya Protocol ◽  
Trade Law ◽  
International Trade Law ◽  
Traditional Cultural Expressions

Abstract In Part I of this two-part article, we explained why western assumptions built into intellectual property law make this area of law a problematic tool, as a way of protecting traditional knowledge (tk) and expressions of folklore (EoF) or traditional cultural expressions (tce) of indigenous peoples. Part II of this article aims to: 1) provide a brief review of the Convention on Biological Diversity (cbd) and the Nagoya Protocol, and examine the evolution of the intellectual property rights of indigenous peoples from the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (trips Agreement) to the cbd to the Nagoya Protocol; and 2) examine possible core principles, inducted (rather than deduced) from actual practices already in place in the areas of patents, copyrights, and trademarks in relation to protecting tk and EoF. These explorations could allow for discussions regarding indigenous peoples, human rights and international trade law to become less adversarial.

scholarly journals ACCESS AND BENEFIT SHARING UNDER NAGOYA PROTOCOL AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS

2015 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 38-45
Author(s):  
STELLINA JOLLY
Keyword(s):  
Sustainable Development ◽  
Genetic Resources ◽  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Environmental Law ◽  
Developing Nations ◽  
Benefit Sharing ◽  
Convention On Biological Diversity ◽  
Access And Benefit Sharing ◽  
Nagoya Protocol ◽  
Equitable Sharing

The debate over control and ownership of natural and bio genetic resources has a chequered history in International environmental law. Historically genetic resources were considered and acknowledged as part of common heritage of mankind. But with the development of technologies and the heightened north south divide over the issue of sovereign right over natural resources the developing nations became extremely concerned with the exploitation of biological and Genetic resources. Access to benefit sharing (ABS) was considered as an answer to balance the interests of developed and developing nations and to conserve and protect bio diversity. Adopted on October 2010 in Nagoya, Japan by the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) of 1992, the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization (NP) has come into force after its 50th ratification on 2013. Nagoya protocol details on procedure for access and benefit sharing, disclosure mechanism, principles of transparency and democracy. The paper analyses the protection of access and benefit sharing envisaged under Nagoya protocol and its possible role in promoting sustainable development in the develoing nations. 

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document