Negotiating the Intellectual Property Protocol under the Agreement Establishing the African Continental Free Trade Area: Priorities and Opportunities for Nigeria

2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Adebambo Adewopo ◽  
Desmond Oriakhogba ◽  
Chijioke Okorie

Abstract Early March 2021, following its ratification of the Agreement Establishing the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA agreement), Nigeria’s National Office of Trade launched a consultative process into issues constituting the country’s priorities as it prepares to participate in the negotiation of the AfCFTA agreement’s protocol on intellectual property rights (IPRs). We contributed a position paper to that process, with a focus on key policy considerations that should form Nigeria’s negotiation priorities on IPRs. This article describes some of the most important points of our submission and concludes by stressing that the broad policy focus should be to champion initiatives that promote Nigeria’s national interest and, at the same time, recognize and accommodate the ideals of inclusiveness, openness, and collaboration within the context of the AfCFTA. In this regard, the paper recommends that Nigeria should prioritize negotiations in recognition of her strongest economic assets in copyright-related sectors and focus on institutional capacity-building for its patent and technology transfer offices so that Nigeria can effectively take advantage of the relevant Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights flexibilities locally. Nigeria can learn from South Africa in domesticating the appropriate legal framework for benefit sharing and the general protection of traditional knowledge and genetic resources. The Swakopmund Protocol on the Protection of Traditional Knowledge and Expressions of Folklore 2010, the Arusha Protocol for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants 2015, and the African Union model law for the protection of the rights of local communities, farmers, breeders, and for the regulation of access to biological resources offer relevant guidance.

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 49-65
Author(s):  
Trias Palupi Kurnianingrum

Patent as a branch of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) serves to protect inventions on the field of technology, one of them being medicine. The rise on the number of cases on the theft of genetic resources and traditional knowledge on the field of medicine for commercialization purposes shows that the protection of patent rights on traditional medicine knowledge is still not optimal. This article is the result of a normative juridical research which is supported by an empirical data, examines the protection of patent rights on traditional medicine knowledge and the implementation of Article 26 of Law No. 13 of 2016 on Patents (Patent Law year 2016). In the research results, it was mentioned that even though the TRIPs Agreement did not accommodate the traditional knowledge, the presence of Patent Law year 2016 complemented the Indonesian government's efforts to save the knowledge of traditional medicines from biopiracy and misappropriation. It is necessary to regulate the disclosure obligation in TRIPs agreement and further mechanism regarding benefit sharing and granting access to traditional medicines knowledge. AbstrakPaten merupakan salah satu cabang Hak Kekayaan Intelektual yang berfungsi untuk melindungi invensi di bidang teknologi, salah satunya obat-obatan. Maraknya kasus pencurian sumber daya genetik dan pengetahuan tradisional di bidang obat-obatan untuk tujuan komersialisasi menunjukkan bahwa pelindungan hak paten atas pengetahuan obat tradisional masih belum maksimal. Artikel ini merupakan hasil penelitian yuridis normatif yang didukung dengan data empiris, membahas mengenai pelindungan hak paten atas pengetahuan obat tradisional dan implementasi Pasal 26 Undang-Undang Nomor 13 Tahun 2016 tentang Paten (UU Paten 2016). Di dalam hasil penelitian, disebutkan meskipun Perjanjian Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) belum mengakomodasi pengetahuan tradisional namun hadirnya UU Paten 2016 melengkapi usaha pemerintah Indonesia dalam menyelamatkan pengetahuan obat tradisional dari biopiracy dan misappropriation. Perlu pengaturan kewajiban disclosure di dalam Perjanjian TRIPs dan mekanisme lebih lanjut mengenai benefit sharing dan pemberian akses atas pengetahuan obat tradisional.


2014 ◽  
Vol 158 ◽  
pp. 58-65 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rodrigo Cámara-Leret ◽  
Narel Paniagua-Zambrana ◽  
Jens-Christian Svenning ◽  
Henrik Balslev ◽  
Manuel J. Macía

2005 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. 237-256 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joel Lexchin

Patent protection for prescription drugs has a long and contentious history in Canada. Bills C-22 and C-91, passed as part of Canada's commitment to various trade deals, first weakened and then abolished compulsory licensing. In order to decide on a future course of action that Canada should take on intellectual property rights (IPRs), it is useful to review downstream effects that resulted from C-22 and C-91. This article examines changes to employment, Canada's balance of trade in pharmaceuticals, investment in research and development, and drug expenditures. The author then reviews the arguments advanced by the pharmaceutical industry in favor of stronger protection for IPRs, the recent complaints made against Canada at the World Trade Organization regarding pharmaceutical IPRs, and the continuing argument about the “evergreening” of patents. Also discussed are the second-draft text agreement of the Free Trade Area of the Americas, which will, if implemented, have significant repercussions for pharmaceutical IPRs in Canada, and some ways in which patents distort the marketplace for drugs. The article concludes with some alternative recommendations on the future of IPRs.


2013 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 319-339 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caroline Joan S. Picart ◽  
Caroline Joan S. Picart ◽  
Marlowe Fox

Abstract This article is the first part of a two-part piece, which considers the intellectual property rights of indigenous peoples. After establishing pragmatic working definitions of who “indigenous peoples” are and what folklore (or “traditional cultural expression”) is, as compared with, but dialectically related to, “traditional knowledge,” this article does the following: 1) explains why western assumptions built into intellectual property law make this area of law a problematic tool for protecting traditional knowledge (TK) and expressions of folklore (EoF) or traditional cultural expressions (TCE) of indigenous peoples; and 2) creates a general sketch of human rights related legal instruments that could be and have been harnessed, with varying degrees of success, in the protection of the intellectual property of indigenous peoples.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document