Global Spread of Pharmaceutical Patent Protection: Micro Evidence from the International Equivalents of Drug Patents in Japan

2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 26-47
Author(s):  
Yoshimi Okada ◽  
Sadao Nagaoka
Keyword(s):  
Patent Protection ◽  
Substantial Effect ◽  
Chemical Substance ◽  
European Patent ◽  
Patent Laws ◽  
Pharmaceutical Patent ◽  
Global Spread ◽  
Year 2000 ◽  
Substantial Heterogeneity ◽  
Drug Patents

We investigate the global spread of pharmaceutical patent protection as acquired by firms, based on a novel global patent database for all significant medical drugs, including biologics, introduced in Japan. It gives us the propensity of filing and grant rate for each country for patents granted in Japan. The major findings of the study are as following. Both the filing propensity to and the grant rate of major Asian countries approached those of the OECD economies by the early 2000s for chemical substance inventions. However, substantial heterogeneity with respect to other drug inventions still exists, specifically, crystal, use, formulation or combination, suggesting significant future room for international harmonization of patent granting standards. We found clear evidence of policy impact on the spread of protection for the two largest non-OECD economies. The amendments to Patent Laws in China in 1993 had an immediate and significant impact on patent filing propensity to China (30 percentage points increase), before accession to the WTO in late 2001. Furthermore, India’s ‘mailbox application system’ had a substantial effect as filing propensity reached 80 per cent of the number of corresponding European patent applications around year 2000, prior to implementing the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights for drug patents in 2005. Subject classification codes: O34, O38, K29

scholarly journals R&D Investments, EPO Patent Applications and the Economic Heterogeneity within the EU

2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 177-191
Author(s):  
Zuzana Potužáková ◽  
Jan Öhm
Keyword(s):  
International Trade ◽  
Patent Protection ◽  
European Patent ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
National Patent ◽  
Patent Applications ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Year 2000 ◽  
The Eu

Abstract In addition to internationalization and growing volumes of international trade in goods, the importance of expenditure on research and development (R&D) has grown significantly. National patent protection has become rather insufficient with increased international trade in goods, which has resulted in the importance of the international patent protection. The main aim of the article is to analyse the relation between R&D investment and the number of patent applications filed with the European Patent Office (EPO) after the year 2000, when the EU‘s Lisbon Strategy was launched. The authors have focused primarily on the differences among the EU macro-regions, which are based on the socioeconomic models. Conclusions imply that one percentage point of R&D expenditure generates roughly 100 EPO applications and the findings also show that individual macro-regions have the identical scattered data. However, dispersions in the individual groups of the EU Member States after the year 2000 differ. The EU Member States are starting to vary significantly in the intensity of R&D support also within each macro-region, thus disparities increase within the EU. Therefore, the attitude to GERD is considered to be an important factor contributing to the greater economic disparities within the EU.

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 User Interfaces

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Noam Shemtov
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
User Interfaces ◽  
Patent Protection ◽  
The United States ◽  
Graphical User Interfaces ◽  
Unfair Competition ◽  
European Patent ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights Protection

This chapter examines the scope of protection to which graphical user interfaces may be eligible under various intellectual property rights: namely, trade marks, unfair-competition laws, design rights, copyright, and patents. It first considers the extent of copyright protection over a software product’s ‘look-and-feel’ elements, with particular emphasis on graphical user interfaces protection under US and EU laws. It then discusses trade-mark, trade-dress, and unfair-competition protection for graphical user interfaces, along with intellectual property rights protection for design patents and registered designs. Finally, it describes the patent protection for graphical user interfaces in the United States and at the European Patent Office.

Powers of the Court concerning decisions of the European Patent Office

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Markus Kuczera
Keyword(s):  
Patent Protection ◽  
European Patent Office ◽  
European Patent ◽  
Patent Office ◽  
Article 9 ◽  
Unitary Patent

In actions brought under Article 32(1)(i), the Court may exercise any power entrusted on the European Patent Office in accordance with Article 9 of Regulation (EU) No 1257/2012, including the rectification of the Register for unitary patent protection.

Administrative tasks in the framework of the European Patent Organisation

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Winfried Tilmann
Keyword(s):  
Patent Protection ◽  
European Patent ◽  
Member States ◽  
Administrative Tasks ◽  
Unitary Patent

The EPUE Reg is a ‘special agreement’ within the meaning of Art 142(1) EPC (Recital 6; → Introduction to this Commentary, mn 125–34). The participating Member States, as a ‘group of Contracting States’ to the EPC, may therefore ‘give additional tasks’ to the EPO (Art 143(1) EPC). Art 9(1) EPUE Reg sets out which tasks these are and provides that they are to be given to the EPO. They have been given to the EPO by the Rules relating to Unitary Patent Protection (RUPR) (→ Annex following mn 45).

8. Patent Protection and Exploitation

2019 ◽  
pp. 178-198
Author(s):  
Justine Pila ◽  
Paul L.C. Torremans
Keyword(s):  
Subject Matter ◽  
Patent Protection ◽  
European Patent ◽  
Central Importance ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Third ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Law ◽  
Patent Grant

Once a European patent has been granted the nature and scope of the protection it confers must be determined. In considering such protection this chapter focuses on four issues of central importance to that end. The first is the effects of a patent, namely, the territories in and term for which it is valid. The second is the object of protection, namely, the subject matter that the public is excluded from using during the term of its protection. The third is the nature of protection, namely, the uses of the subject matter from which the public is excluded. And the fourth is the limitations to protection, namely, the uses of an invention that the law permits notwithstanding its protection by patent grant.

“Conjoint Gas and Mechanical Action as Applied to Flight”

1884 ◽  
Vol 19 ◽  
pp. 96-100
Author(s):  
Fred. W. Brearey
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Patent Protection ◽  
The United States ◽  
Mechanical Action ◽  
United States Patent ◽  
Model Form ◽  
Patent Laws ◽  
States Patent ◽  
Mechanical Arrangement ◽  
Made In

The remarks made in this paper are due to the action of the United States Patent Laws, as interpreted by one of the examiners, whose duty it was to adjudicate upon the practicability of an invention submitted to him, and whose decision was adverse to the granting of a patent. Protection was solicited for an improvement upon a previously patented mechanical aërial machine, the success of which had been proved by the inventor through the action of a model. The patent was refused on account of the alleged impracticability of the invention owing to the absence of gas as a supporting, or partly supporting, medium. Total misapprehension of the principles of flight is displayed whenever the balloon is recommended to take off part of the weight of any mechanical arrangement. However successfully the pure mechanical action may have proved itself in the conveyance of weights in the air whilst in the model form, the principle seems to be distrusted by some when proposed for extreme weight. But it fortunately happens that the resistance of the air to a body in motion, upon which we depend for success, bears a greatly increasing ratio to the extent of surface which that body assumes.

Towards a Pro-active Approach Concerning the Intersections between the Jordan Patents of Invention Law, United States Patent Law and European Patent Convention

2011 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 71-87
Author(s):  
Zein J. Razem ◽  
Qais Ali Mahafzah
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
European Patent ◽  
United States Patent ◽  
European Patent Convention ◽  
Active Approach ◽  
Patent Laws ◽  
The World ◽  
States Patent

AbstractAttempts to harmonize patent laws worldwide have increased, leaving bits of argumentative issues untouched in the patent systems under scrutiny. However, diversity can sometimes prove desirable since majority rule is not always right and the minority wrong. Sometimes a part is more righteous than the whole. This research focuses on areas where the Jordan Patents of Invention Law, United States Patent Law, and the European Patent Convention intersect. It concludes that although most countries, including Jordan, follow a different path than that taken by the United States, it may be unnecessary for the United States to change its system in order to be in sync with the rest of the world. Thus, it may prove advantageous to have two separate systems that can provide different patent protections where humanity achieves progression and development.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document