Appropriate patent rules in developing countries - Some deliberations based on thai legislation

Journal of Intellectual Property Rights

Volumn 13, Issue 5, 2008, Pages 447-455

  Kuanpoth, Jakkrit ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WOLLONGONG   (Australia)

Author keywords

Compulsory license; International exhaustion; Parallel imports; Thai patent act; TRIPS

Indexed keywords

EID: 77951777830     PISSN: 09717544     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Maskus K E and Reichman J H, International Public Goods and Transfer of Technology under a Globalized Intellectual Property Regime(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge), 2005, pp. 240-241, 243 CIPR, Integrating Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy, Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, London, 2002;
2. Harrelson J A , Note, TRIPS, pharmaceutical patents, and the HIV/AIDS crisis: Finding the proper balance between intellectual property rights and compassion, Widener Law Symposium Journal, 7 (2001) 175.
3. Mandich G, Venetian Patents (1450-1550), Journal of the Patent Office Society, 30 (1948) 172.
4. Greenstreet C H, History of Patent Systems, in Mainly on Patents: The Use of Industrial Property and Its Literature, edited by F Liebesny (Butterworths, London), 1972, p.2.
5. Hulme W, The history of the patent system under the prerogative and at common law, Law Quarterly Review, 12 (1896) 142.
6. Greenstreet C H, History of Patent Systems, in Mainly on Patents: The Use of Industrial Property and Its Literature, edited by F Liebesny (Butterworths, London), 1972, p.6.
7. Penrose E T, The Economics of the International Patent System (John Hopkins Press, Baltimore), 1951, p.7.
8. Fisher B, The British Patent System, in Mainly on Patents: The Use of Industrial Property and Its Literature, edited by F Liebesny (Butterworths, London), 1972, p.21.
9. Ladas S P, Patents, Trademarks, and Related Rights, (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts) 1975, vol 1, p.6.
10. Dutton H I, The Patent System and Inventive Activity during the Industrial Revolution 1750-1852, (Manchester University Press, Manchester), 1984, p.22.
11. TRIPS Article 27.1 provides that patent rights shall be enjoyable without discrimination ... whether products are imported or locally produced; Foster G, Opposing forces in a revolution in international tatent protection: The United States and India in the Uruguay Round and its aftermath, UCLA Journal of International Law & Foreign Affairs, 3(1) (1998) 292;
12. Adelman M J and Baldia S, Prospects and limits of the patent provision in the TRIPS Agreement: The case of India, Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 29 (1996) 507, 517;
13. Doane M, TRIPS and intellectual property protection in an age of advancing technology, American University Journal of International Law & Policy, 9 (2) (1994) 465, 479.
14. Correa C M, Can the TRIPS Agreement Foster Technology Transfer to Developing Countries? in Maskus K E and Reichman J H, International Public Goods and Transfer of Technology under a Globalized Intellectual Property Regime (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge), 2005, pp. 240-241, 243.
15. Champ P and Attaran A, Patent rights and local working under the WTO TRIPS Agreement: An analysis of the US-Brazil Patent Dispute, Yale Journal of International Law, 27 (2002) 367-368
16. Patent Act B.E.2522, Section 49
17. Patent Act B.E.2522, Section 46 Paragraph 3.
18. Ministerial Regulations No.6 (B.E. 2524), clause 14(1). The Royal Gazette, Special Issue, Vol.98 Part 196, 17 November 1981.
19. Paris Convention, Article 5A(4) states: '... it should be refused if the patentee justifies his inaction by legitimate reason.'
20. UNCTAD, The Role of Patent System in the Transfer of Technology to Developing Countries, TD/B/AC.11/19/ Rev.19, 1975, para. 339.
21. Oddi A S, The International patent system and Third World Development: Reality or Myth? Duke Law Journal 5 (1987) 862. In fact, the period could be one year longer due to the right of priority provision.
22. UNCTAD, Formulation of a Strategy for the Technological Transformation of Developing Countries, Doc.TD/B/779, 1980, para.2.
23. Feather v R (1865), 6 B&S 257.
24. WTO Ministerial Conference, 4th Session, Doha, 9-14 November 2001, WT/MIN(01)/Dec/2.
25. For example, Section 56 of UK Patents Act 1977 provides for the use of patented inventions by the Crown in cases of supply for foreign defence purposes, production or supply of drugs and medicines, and production or use of atomic energy or research considered by the government agency to be necessary or expedient.
26. TRIPS Agreement, Article 31 (k).
27. Love J, Remuneration Guidelines for Non-voluntary use of a Patent on Medical Technologies, WHO, WHO/TCM/2005.1, Geneva, 2005.
28. This is in line with TRIPS, Article 31(i) and Q), which requires that any decision relating to the authorization of such use and the remuneration 'shall be subject to judicial review or other independent review by a distinct higher authority in that Member'.
29. Patent Act B.E. 2522, Sections 50 and 51.
30. Wright v United States, 53 Fed. Cl. 466,469 (Ct. Cl. 2002).
31. Harrelson J A, Note, TRIPS, pharmaceutical patents, and the HIV/AIDS crisis: Finding the proper balance between intellectual property rights and compassion, Widener Law Symposium Journal, 7 (2001) 192.
32. Implementation of Paragraph 11 of the General Council Decision of 30 August 2003 on the Implementation of Paragraph 6 of the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health', Council for Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, IP/C/41, December 6 2005, www.wto.org/english/ news-e/pres05-e/pr426-e.htm.
33. Abbott F M, The WTO medicines decision: World pharmaceutical trade and the protection of public health, American Journal of International Law, 99(2005)317.
34. Article 5 A(3) of the Paris Convention states: importation by the patentee into the country where the patent has been granted of articles manufactured in any of the countries of the Union shall not entail forfeiture of the patent.'
35. Economie aspects of parallel import ,Maskus K E, Intellectual Property Rights in the Global Economy (Institute for International Economics, Washington DC), 2000.
36. For the arguments for and against parallel import, Abbott F, First Report (Final) to the Committee on International Trade Law of the International Law Association on the Subject of Parallel Importation, Journal of International Economic Law, 1 (1998) 607-636;
37. Beal H E, The conflicts between parallel trade and product access and innovation: The case of pharmaceuticals, Journal of International Economic Law, 1 (1998) 637-653.
38. Chiappetta V, The desirability of agreeing to disagree: The WTO, TRIPS, International IPR exhaustion and a few other things, Michigan Journal of International Law, 21 (2000) 333.
39. EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal's Decision, G2/88, MOBIL OIL/Friction reducing additive [OJ EPO (1990), 93].
40. Paterson G, The patentability of further uses of a known product under the European Patent Convention, European Intellectual Property Review, 13 (1) (1991) 16.
41. White A W, The Novelty-destroying disclosure: Some recent decisions', European Intellectual Property Review, 12 (9) (1990)320.
42. EPO Guidelines for Examination in the European Patent Office, C-IV, 4.2.
43. OJ EPO (1985), 64.
44. John Wyeth and Brother Ltd.'s Application, [1985] RPC 545.
45. Correa C M, Integrating Public Health Concerns into Patent Legislation in Developing Countries, South Centre, Geneva, 2000, pp.23-24and55.
46. Kanter J, A New Battlefield: Ownership of ideas, International Herald Tribune, 3 October 2005.
47. Beier F K, The Remedies of the Patent Applicant and his competitors in comparison - Balance or Imbalance? A comparative law study, IIC, 20 (1989) 407, 438;
48. Pagenberg J, Different Level of Inventive Step for German and European Patents? The Present Practice of Nullity Proceedings in Germany, IIC, 22 (1991) 763.
49. Dhar B and Gopakumar K M, Post-2005 TRIPS Scenario in Patent Protection in the Pharmaceutical Sector: The Case of the Generic Pharmaceutical Industry in India, ICTSDUNCTAD Project on IPRs and Sustainable Development, Geneva, 2006, http://www.iprsonline.org/unctadictsd/regional-research.htm.
50. Kuanpoth J, Harmonisation of TRIPS-Plus IPR Policies and Potential Impacts on Technological Capability: A Case Study of the Pharmaceutical Industry in Thailand, ICTSDUNCTAD Project on IPRs and Sustainable Development, Geneva, 2006, p. 16-17, http://www.iprsonline.org/unctadictsd/regional-research.htm.
51. Helfgott S, The declining use of patent oppositions, IIC, 16 (1985) 178-179