Declaration on Patent Protection - Regulatory Sovereignty Under Trips

Lamping, Matthias; Hilty, Reto M.; Burk, Dan L.; Correa, Carlos M.; Drahoš, Peter; Gopalakrishnan, N.S.; Ruse-Khan, Henning Grosse; Kur, Annette; Overwalle, Geertrui Van; Reichman, Jerome H.; Ullrich, Hanns

doi:10.2139/ssrn.2500784

Cited by 11 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…53 Exceptions carve out from the exclusive rights of patent owners specific purposes and forms of use that serve important individual and collective interests. 54 This allows third parties to use subject matter protected under Article 28 TRIPS in certain circumstances regardless of any authorisation granted by the right holders and protects them from patent infringement claims. 55 Exceptions therefore offer an opportunity to balance a patent holder's economic interests with societal interests of access to patented products and can be used to achieve greater access to patented medicines.…”

Section: Article 30 Providesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using the flexibilities of Article 30 TRIPS to implement patent exceptions in pursuit of Sustainable Development Goal 3

Tesoriero

2022

World Intellectual Property

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite over 25 years passing since TRIPS entered into force, the full potential of the patent exceptions provision under Article 30 TRIPS (Article 30) is yet to be realised. The hesitation by developing states to implement new patent exceptions in their domestic laws has presented a barrier to reconciling the tension between protecting patent rights and achieving access to essential medicines for all as committed by states under Sustainable Development Goal 3 (SDG 3). This article addresses the uncertainty of the interpretation of Article 30 through a doctrinal analysis of treaty interpretation rules and the recent Australia‐Tobacco Plain Packaging decisions. It proposes an original interpretation of Article 30 that permits public interest considerations, and uses this interpretation to justify a proposed stockpiling exception for pandemic and epidemic preparedness aimed at facilitating access to essential medicines to achieve SDG 3. Accordingly, developing states should feel more confident about implementing patent exceptions tailored to their public interest needs in pursuit of SDG 3.

show abstract

Section: Article 30 Providesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using the flexibilities of Article 30 TRIPS to implement patent exceptions in pursuit of Sustainable Development Goal 3

Tesoriero

2022

World Intellectual Property

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…27 de tal manera que no resulta prohibitivo para los países otorgar licencias obligatorias en el caso de que no se verifique la fabricación local y siempre y cuando se pueda articular con los conceptos de "libre intercambio" y globalización que propone la OMC. Para cumplir con dichas restricciones, el Estado podría garantizarle al titular de la patente suficiente tiempo para comenzar la fabricación local y que la licencia obligatoria no sea otorgada en caso de que el titular pueda justificar su accionar debidamente 29 .…”

Section: Fabricación Local En El áMbito Del Adpicunclassified

Revisando el concepto de explotación en la normativa argentina de patentes

Ros¹,

Ardila²

2022

propin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Numerosos análisis se han dedicado a estudiar la relación entre los grados de fortaleza que puede mostrar el derecho de patente con sus efectos sobre el fenómeno de innovación. El presente trabajo busca colaborar en esa discusión enfocando la mirada en la forma que es interpretado el requisito de explotación que las legislaciones suelen contener. Del estudio de las leyes de patentes de varios países puede entenderse que, como resultado del Acuerdo sobre los Aspectos de los Derechos de Propiedad Intelectual relacionados con el Comercio (ADPIC), los Estados deberían interpretar de forma amplia aquel concepto, de manera que, por ejemplo, la simple puesta en el mercado del producto derivado de la invención, sin importar su origen, satisfaga el requisito de explotación. Sin embargo, se presentan aquí evidencias sobre la existencia de un espacio conceptual para establecer normativas nacionales que, mientras observan aquel y otros compromisos supranacionales, se promueva la innovación a través del impulso de la fabricación local, cuando sea posible.

show abstract

“…18 In 2014, prominent IP scholars across the world drafted the Declaration on Patent Protection: Regulatory Sovereignty under TRIPS, in order to "clarify some of the regulatory options states still retain under international law, in particular the TRIPS Agreement." 19 Drawing upon some of the flexibilities cited earlier, as well as other provisions of the law, the Declaration interprets, potentially too expansively, 20 the regulatory discretion that national legislators have in implementing their own patent systems. 21 However, some provisions leave less room for discretion.…”

Section: Disharmony By Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

Harmony and Disharmony in International Patent Law

Chien

2016

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One of the purposes of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is to harmonize standards and create a uniform climate for trade and investment. As lawmakers deliberate the terms of the deal, they must consider what the long-term impact of agreeing to its sweeping provisions will be. As they do so, they should keep in mind that the gaps between the agreed-upon principles and local implementation, and the differences between local implementation-some of them by design-are often quite great. Drawing upon the existing literature, this short essay provides a survey of the extent of harmony and disharmony in the 20 years that have passed since ratification of the TRIPS agreement, with a focus on its patent provisions. After considering the framework for harmonization that the TPP and TRIPS share, I discuss and provide examples of three types of differences: differences between the minimum standards that are negotiated and compliance with them, differences between the substantive principles agreed to and the actual laws that implement them (and the procedural contexts in which they operate), and differences between the laws as enacted and the laws that are applied.

show abstract

Declaration on Patent Protection - Regulatory Sovereignty Under Trips

Cited by 11 publications

References 0 publications

Using the flexibilities of Article 30 TRIPS to implement patent exceptions in pursuit of Sustainable Development Goal 3

Using the flexibilities of Article 30 TRIPS to implement patent exceptions in pursuit of Sustainable Development Goal 3

Revisando el concepto de explotación en la normativa argentina de patentes

Harmony and Disharmony in International Patent Law

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About