Compulsory licensing of pharmaceutical products in Canada

I I C

Volumn 27, Issue 3, 1996, Pages 316-330

  Torremans, Paul L C ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEICESTER   (United Kingdom)

^b IE BUSINESS SCHOOL   (Spain)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 21344448332     PISSN: 00189855     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (78)

1. See ROGERS, "The Revised Canadian Patent Act, the Free Trade Agreement, and Pharmaceutical Patents: An Overview of Pharmaceutical Compulsory Licensing in Canada", [1990] 10 EIPR 351, 351-352;
2. HORTON, "Pharmaceutical, Patents and Bill C-91: The Historical Perspective" 10 Canadian Intellectual Property Review (C.I.P.R.) 145, 146-147 (1993).
3. RESTRICIVE TRADE PRACTICES COMMISSION, "Report Concerning the Manufacture, Distribution and Sale of Drugs" (1963),
4. cited by HILL & STEINBERG, "Bill C-22 and Compulsory Licensing of Pharmaceutical Patents" 4 C.I.P.R. 44, 45 (1987).
5. See MURPHY, "Pharmaceutical Compulsory Licensing" 3 C.I.P.R. 11 (1987).
6. HILL & STEINBERG, C.I.P.R. op. cit., at 45.
7. "Hughes & Woodley on Patents" 587 (Butterworths, Canada 1984).
8. See the former version of the Patent Rules 117 to 129 for the application procedure.
9. See ROGERS, C.I.P.R. op. cit., at 355,
10. MURPHY, C.I.P.R. op. cit., at 16-18;
11. HILL & STEINBERG, C.I.P.R. op. cit., at 47-48.
12. See MURPHY, C.I.P.R. op. cit., at 15;
13. ROGERS, C.I.P.R. op. cit., at 355.
14. See HILL & STEINBERG, C.I.P.R. op. cit., at 46.
15. See Smith Kline & French v. Frank W. Horner, 79 C.P.R. (2d) 1 (1983); see also Parke Davis & Co. v. Fine Chemicals, [1959] S.C.R. 219.
16. HORTON, C.I.P.R. op. cit., at 147.
17. Hoffmann-La Roche v. Frank W. Horner, 61 C.P.R. 243 (1970).
18. HORTON, C.I.P.R. op. cit., at 147 and, e.g., Novopharm Ltd. v. Smith Kline & French Inter-American Corp., 62 C.P.R. 206 (1970); but see Novopharm Ltd. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 42 C.P.R. (3d) 27 (1992); and Delmar Chemicals Inc. v. Merck & Co., 42 C.P.R. (3d) 135 (1992).
19. HUGHES & WOODLEY, C.I.P.R. op. cit., at 585.
20. HILL & STEINBERG, C.I.P.R. op. cit., at 48.
21. "Report of the Commission of Inquiry on the Pharmaceutical Industry" (H.C. Eastman Commissioner), at XVIII (Supply and Services Canada, Ottawa 1985).
22. See ROTSTEIN, "Intellectual Property and the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreements: The Case of Pharmaceuticals" 8 Intellectual Property Journal 121, 124 (1993).
23. "Report of the Commission of Inquiry on the Pharmaceutical Industry" (H.C. Eastman Commissioner) (Supply and Services Canada, Ottawa 1985).
24. HORTON, Report of the Commission of Inquiry on the Pharmaceutical Industry op. cit., at 147.
25. J. BHAGWATI, "Protectionism" 62 (MIT Press 1988).
26. See ROTSTEIN, Protectionism op. cit., at 125.
27. HORTON, Protectionism op. cit., at 147.
28. For more (historical) details, see HORTON, Protectionism op. cit., at 147;
29. ROTSTEIN, Protectionism op. cit., at 126-127.
30. ROGERS, Protectionism op. cit., at 356.
31. See MURPHY, "A Review of Pharmaceutical Patent Practice under the Amended Patent Laws", 6 C.I.P.R. 38 (1989).
32. Imperial Chemical Industries PLC and ICI Pharma Division Atkemix Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 22 C.I.P.R. 201 (FCTD) (1989);
33. ROGERS, C.I.P.R. op. cit., at 357-358.
34. See HORTON, op. cit., op. cit., at 148.
35. For more details, see MURPHY, "A Review of Pharmaceutical Patent Practice under the Amended Patent Laws" 6 C.I.P.R. 38, 42 (1989).
36. Pharmaceutical products which were not invented or developed in Canada and in respect of which a compulsory licence had been obtained could be imported or manufactured if they were to be sold for consumption outside Canada. The deferral rule did not affect this. See KURDYDYCK, "Amendments to the Patent Act Relating to Patent Medicines", in THE CANADIAN INSTITUTE, "New Developments in Intellectual Property", Section IV, p. 9 (1993).
37. See MURPHY, "A Review of Pharmaceutical Patent Practice under the Amended Patent Laws", 6 C.I.P.R. 38, 43 (1989);
38. ROGERS, C.I.P.R. op. cit., at 357.
39. MARUSYK & SWAIN, "Price Control of Patented Medicines in Canada", 10 C.I.P.R. 159, 162 (1993).
40. See ROTSTEIN, C.I.P.R. op. cit., at 128-129;
41. J. LEXCHIN, "Pharmaceuticals, Patents and Politics: Canada and Bill C-22" 7-9 (The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives 1992).
42. J. LEXCHIN, Pharmaceuticals, Patents and Politics: Canada and Bill C-22 op. cit., at 9-10.
43. See J. LEXCHIN, Pharmaceuticals, Patents and Politics: Canada and Bill C-22 op. cit., at 6-7.
44. See UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE, "National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers" (U.S. Government Printing Office 1990);
45. see also G. HUFBAUER & J. SCHOTT, "North American Free Trade: Issues and Recommendations" (Institute for International Economics 1992).
46. 1993 Act to Amend the Patent Act SC 1993, c. 2, ss. 10, 11 and 12.
47. HUGHES & WOODLEY, North American Free Trade: Issues and Recommendations op. cit., at 563.
48. Patent Act, RSC 1985, c. P-4, s. 83, as amended by SC 1993, c. 2.
49. See (1993) XXII ILM 670 et seq., for the text of Part Six: Intellectual Property.
50. See 25 IIC 209 et seq. (1994), for the text of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Including Trade in Counterfeit Goods.
51. NAFTA, Art. 1709(1) and (7).
52. NAFTA, Arts. 1704 and 1709(6) and (10).
53. See 25 IIC 209 et seq. (1994), for the text of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Including Trade in Counterfeit Goods.
54. See KENT, "The Uruguay Round GATT Trips Agreement & Chapter 17 of the NAFTA: A New Era in International Patent Protection" 10 C.I.P.R. 711, 723-724 (1994);
55. BURSHTEIN, "Impact of the North American Free Trade Agreement on Intellectual Property in Canada", in THE CANADIAN INSTITUTE, "New Developments in Intellectual Property" 60-61 and 77-82 (1993).
56. NAFTA, Art. 1709(10).
57. NAFTA, Arts. 1704 and 1709(10)(k).
58. Supra note 18.
59. Patent Act, Sec. 65(2), see KURDYDYCK, New Developments in Intellectual Property op. cit., at 10-11.
60. See HOLYOAK & TORREMANS, "Intellectual Property Law" Ch. 1 (Butterworths 1995).
61. Patent Act, Sec. 65(2), see KURDYDYCK, Intellectual Property Law op. cit., at 10-11.
62. See HOLYOAK & TORREMANS, Intellectual Property Law op.cit., at Ch. 4.
63. Patent Act, Sec. 65(2), see KURDYDYCK, Intellectual Property Law op. cit., at 10-11.
64. See HOLYOAK & TORREMANS, Intellectual Property Law op.cit., at Ch. 4.
65. Patent Act, Sec. 65(2), see KURDYDYCK, Intellectual Property Law op. cit., at 10-11.
66. Patent Act, Secs. 65-66.
67. KURDYDYCK, Intellectual Property Law 10-11 Ibidem.
68. See Commission Regulation 2349/84 of 23rd July 1984 on the application of Art. 85(3) of the Treaty to certain categories of patent licensing agreements, 1984 OJ L 219/15, as amended by 1985 OJ L 113/34 and 1993 OJ L21/8 and the draft Technology Transfer Block Exemption, 1994 OJ L178/3, as corrected by 1994 OJ L 187/16; see also HOLYOAK & TORREMANS, "Intellectual Property Law" Ch. 4 (Butterworths 1995);
69. R. WHISH, "Competition Law" Ch. 7 (Butterworths, 3d ed. 1993).
70. Patents Act, Secs. 65-66.
71. See M. ADELMAN, "Patent Law Perspectives", 5-152.49-5-15250(9) (Vol. 3) (Matthew Bender, 2nd ed. 1994); and Riker Laboratories Inc. v. Gist-Brocades N.V., 208 U.S.P.Q. 777 (D.C. Cir. 1980).
72. See Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co., 210 U.S. 405 (1908); City of Milwaukee v. Activated Sludge Inc., 69 F.2d 577 (7th Ch. 1934); and see also Vitamin Technologists Inc. v. Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation., 146 F.2d 941, 63 U.S.P.Q. 262 (9th Cir. 1945).
73. See M. ADELMAN, supra note 59.
74. ROTSTEIN, Patent Law Perspectives op. cit., at 133.
75. See e.g. Case 15/74 - Centrafarm v. Sterling Drug, [1974] ECR 1147, 6 IIC 102 (1975); Case 187/80 - Merck v. Stephar, [1981] ECR 2063, 13 IIC 70 (1982); and Case 19/84 - Pharmon v. Hoechst, [1985] ECR 2281, 17 IIC 357 (1986); see also HOLYOAK & TORREMANS, "Intellectual Property Law" Ch. 4 (Butterworths 1995).
76. ROTSTEIN, Intellectual Property Law op. cit., at 132.
77. See in general MARUSYK & SWAIN, Intellectual Property Law op. cit.
78. See FISCH, "Compulsory Licensing of Pharmaceutical Patents: An Unreasonable Solution to an Unfortunate Problem", 34 Jurimetrics, Journal of Law, Science and Technology 295 (1994).