scholarly journals TRIPS AGREEMENT AND MALAYSIAN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAWS: DATA EXCLUSIVITY v PATENT

2020 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 197-225
Author(s):  
Rahamatthunnisa Mohamed Nizamuddin
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Trips Agreement ◽  
Intellectual Property Protection ◽  
Primary Sources ◽  
Marketing Approval ◽  
Protection Mechanism ◽  
Secondary Sources ◽  
Data Exclusivity ◽  
Patent Rights ◽  
Protection Mechanisms

This study analyses the provisions of the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement with respect to the various intellectual property protection mechanisms. The main purpose of this study is to demonstrate that Malaysia is a TRIPS compliance country and have established intellectual property laws including the incorporation of data exclusivity laws. This study also illustrates that data exclusivity and patent are two different intellectual property protection mechanisms required under the TRIPS Agreement. Moreover, this study clarifies the misconception that data exclusivity and patents are somehow related; such that data exclusivity is an extension of patent rights and that it is often regarded as a TRIPS-plus provision. The study is conducted based on qualitative research, predicated on primary sources such as the TRIPS Agreement and the various laws with respect to intellectual property in Malaysia. It is further supported by secondary sources from journals and information provided on relevant authorities’ websites. The results of the study show that Malaysia is a TRIPS compliance country and that data exclusivity is an intellectual property protection mechanism that is established pursuant to Article 39.3 of the TRIPS Agreement. Hence, this study concludes that member countries of the TRIPS Agreement that have established data exclusivity protection mechanism to protect undisclosed data submitted to their respective authorities for the purpose of marketing approval of pharmaceutical or agricultural chemical products, including Malaysia, are indeed in compliance with the obligation set under Article 39.3 of the TRIPS Agreement.

scholarly journals Pelindungan Hak Paten atas Pengetahuan Obat Tradisional Melalui Pasal 26 UU No. 13 Tahun 2016 tentang Paten (Protection of Patent Rights on Traditional Medicine Knowledge Through Article 26 of Law No. 13 of 2016 Concerning Patents)

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 49-65
Author(s):  
Trias Palupi Kurnianingrum
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Traditional Medicine ◽  
Traditional Knowledge ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Trips Agreement ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
Benefit Sharing ◽  
Traditional Medicines ◽  
Patent Rights

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.

Product Patent in Pharmaceuticals and Compulsory Licensing

2017 ◽  
pp. 108-123
Author(s):  
Jatinder Maan ◽  
Dinesh Kumar
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Compulsory License ◽  
Developed Countries ◽  
Developing Nations ◽  
Trips Agreement ◽  
Intellectual Property Protection ◽  
Political Pressure ◽  
Compulsory Licensing ◽  
Contentious Issue ◽  
History Of

The issue of patenting is a contentious issue. Different stakeholders hold opposite views. The pharmaceutical giants demand for stricter and longer Intellectual Property Protection for the promotion of research and development. They contend IP protection to be the “bedrock of their business”. While the health activists and governments of developing nations want greater flexibility in intellectual property protection and shorter patent period protection. Article 31 of the TRIPs agreement provides certain flexibilities to cater to certain situations. The countries are free to determine the grounds to issue provisions like compulsory licensing. But despite the provisions very few countries have used them. Pharmaceuticals giants with the backing of developed countries always try to denounce the practice of compulsory licensing with economic and political pressure. This chapter explains the concept and significance of Intellectual Property with reference to Pharmaceuticals. It also traces the little history of TRIPs agreement and explains the concept of Compulsory Licensing with trends in its use. It also discusses the few instances where compulsory License has been issued in different countries and tries to find the reasons of non issuance of Compulsory License.

scholarly journals Intellectual property protection mechanisms in research partnerships

2006 ◽  
Vol 35 (6) ◽  
pp. 825-838 ◽  
Author(s):  
Henry R. Hertzfeld ◽  
Albert N. Link ◽  
Nicholas S. Vonortas
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Intellectual Property Protection ◽  
Research Partnerships ◽  
Protection Mechanisms

Ch.14 Acquisition and Maintenance of Intellectual Property Rights, Dispute Prevention and Settlement, Transitional and Institutional Arrangements, and Final Provisions

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Correa Carlos Maria
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Institutional Arrangements ◽  
Trips Agreement ◽  
Intellectual Property Protection ◽  
Developed Country ◽  
National Legislation ◽  
One Year

This concluding chapter looks at the acquisition and maintenance of intellectual property rights (IPRs), dispute prevention and settlement, transitional and institutional arrangements, and final provisions in the Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement. Different aspects relating to the procedures for the acquisition and maintenance of intellectual property rights are regulated in Article 62 of the TRIPS Agreement. Its main purpose is to ensure that the application of national legislation on this matter does not unjustifiably impair the access to and exercise of such rights. Meanwhile, Articles 63 and 64 contain rules aimed at preventing and settling disputes concerning the implementation of the TRIPS Agreement. Prevention of disputes is basically sought under the TRIPS Agreement through the rules on ‘transparency’ contained in Article 63. All WTO Members could avail themselves of one year after the date of entry into force of the WTO Agreement to comply with the obligations relating to intellectual property protection. The reason for this is quite obvious: most or all Members, including developed country Members, needed to introduce changes into their legislation in order to comply with the standards set out by the TRIPS Agreement, especially with those contained in Part II. A Council to specifically deal with TRIPS matters is established by Article 68.

scholarly journals An investigation of faculty perspectives on barriers, incentives, and benefits of the OER movement in Turkey

2014 ◽  
Vol 15 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
Engin Kursun ◽  
Kursat Cagiltay ◽  
Gulfidan Can
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Intellectual Property Protection ◽  
Open Educational Resources ◽  
Legal Issues ◽  
Survey Study ◽  
Faculty Perspectives ◽  
Course Materials ◽  
Movement Data ◽  
Protection Mechanisms

<p>The purpose of this survey study is to investigate faculty’s perceptions of the main incentives, barriers, and benefits to publishing their course materials for free within the open educational resources (OER) movement. Data were collected from an online survey of 1,637 faculty from 56 universities in Turkey. Results showed that even though the majority of the participants’ perceptions of OER benefits and their attitudes toward publishing their course materials were positive, legal issues were perceived as an obstacle to effective application. Intellectual property protection mechanisms were perceived as the most important incentive to facilitate their contribution.</p>

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document