Affiliation:
1. National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies , Tokyo , Japan
Abstract
Abstract
This study examines the variations within Asia of how Article 27.3(a) of the WTO Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (the TRIPS Agreement), allowing Parties to remove from patentability diagnostic, therapeutic and surgical methods for the treatment of humans and animals, is implemented. The medical treatment exclusion is one of several important provisions in the TRIPS Agreement that are designed to support domestic public health objectives and countries’ overall scientific and technological aspirations. Examples of this exclusion in the respective patent policies of South, Southeast and East Asia countries and territories are examined, and peculiarities in the variations among countries in these sub-regions are identified. While most jurisdictions in the data set incorporated some form of a medical treatment exclusion, variations were found in how the exclusion is implemented, the rationale given for excluding medical treatments, and the scope of the exclusion.
Reference11 articles.
1. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). Using intellectual property rights to stimulate pharmaceutical production in developing countries: a reference guide. Geneva, New York: United Nations; 2011.
2. Mitnovetski, O, Nicol, D. Are patents for methods of medical treatment contrary to the order public and morality or “generally inconvenient”. J Med Ethics 2004;30:470–7.
3. Adachi, K. The patentability of second and subsequent medical uses in Asia’s patent legislation. Asian J Law Econ 2022;14:59–75. https://doi.org/10.1515/ajle-2022-0091.
4. Ventose, E. Medical patent law – the challenges of medical treatment. Cheltenham, UK, Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar; 2011.
5. Bentley, L. Exclusions from patentability and exceptions to patentees’ rights: taking exceptions seriously. Curr Leg Probl 2011;64:315–47. https://doi.org/10.1093/clp/cur011.