1 / 22

WIPO OPEN FORUM ON THE SPLT MARCH 1 – 3, 2006

WIPO OPEN FORUM ON THE SPLT MARCH 1 – 3, 2006. EXCEPTIONS TO PATENT RIGHTS Alain GALLOCHAT Advisor for intellectual property at the French Ministry for Higher Education and Research Representative of AIPPI. The principle: Art. 28 TRIPs Agreement.

ralan
Télécharger la présentation

WIPO OPEN FORUM ON THE SPLT MARCH 1 – 3, 2006

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. WIPO OPEN FORUM ON THE SPLTMARCH 1 – 3, 2006 EXCEPTIONS TO PATENT RIGHTS Alain GALLOCHAT Advisor for intellectual property at the French Ministry for Higher Education and Research Representative of AIPPI

  2. The principle: Art. 28 TRIPs Agreement • The patent grants to the patentee an exclusive right, that to exclude non authorized persons from • making, using, offering for sale, selling, or importing for these purposes the patented product • using the patented process, and using, offering for sale, selling, or importing for these purposes the product obtained directly by that process.

  3. Exceptions to the principle • Authorized by Law: Art. 30 of the TRIPs Agreement «Exceptions to rights conferred » • Authorized by a Court or by an Administrative body: Art. 31 of the TRIPs Agreement «Other use without authorization of the right holder »

  4. The exceptions: Art 30 TRIPs Agreement (1) • Exceptions to Rights Conferred: Members may provide limited exceptions to the exclusive rights conferred by a patent, provided that such exceptions do not unreasonably conflict with a normal exploitation of the patent and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the patent owner, taking account of the legitimate interests of third parties.

  5. The exceptions: Art 30 TRIPs Agreement (2) • A balanced position: the legitimate interests of the patent owner / the legitimate interests of third parties • REMINDER • a patent represents a balanced position: the legitimate interests of the inventor / the legitimate interests of the Society

  6. Exceptions to the principle // experimental use // • Statute of the exemption: • non statutory exemption • Australia, Canada, USA, New-Zealand • Switzerland • statutory exemption • European Union • Japan, Korea, Mexico, Norway

  7. Which exceptions? (1) • Private use of the invention (France: Art. L. 613-5 IPC « Acts done privately and for non-commercial purposes » ) • Acts done to satisfy idle curiosity or for strictly philosophical inquiry (USA – Roche v Bolar) • Specific use of the invention: • France: art. L. 613-5 IPC « The extemporaneous preparation for individual cases in a pharmacy of a medicine in accordance with a medical prescription or acts concerning the medicine so prepared ».   • Japan: art. 69.3 Patent law concerning « medicines prepared in accordance with the prescriptions of physicians or dentists » 

  8. Which exceptions? (2) • Experimental use: falls within the scope of Art. 30 of TRIPs Agreement • Divergence among the countries • the USA: common law; « patent infringement does not extend to use that is done for amusement, to satisfy idle curiosity, or for strictly philosophical inquiry »  (Bolar) • Japan: art. 69.1 of the patent law « The effects of the patent right shall not extend to the working of the patent right for the purposes of experiment or research ».

  9. Which exceptions? (3) • European Union • Nothing in the EPC • Possibly in a future « Community patent Regulation » • National laws: UK Patents Act [s. 60(5)], German Patent Act (s.11.2), French IPC (art. L. 613-5) « The effects of the patent shall not extend to acts done for experimental purposes relating to the subject matter of the patented invention ».

  10. Experimental use • Which kind of experimental use? • improvements • regulatory requirements • clinical trials

  11. Experimental use: improvements (1) • Improvements: which kind of improvements? • new applications of a patented product • new process for preparing a product (either patented or not) • new pharmaceutical presentation of a patented product • Improvements: which conditions? • non-commercial purpose • increase in the general knowledge  dependant patent for the improvement, with a possible compulsory license

  12. Experimental use: improvements (2) • Position of some countries: • generally accepted by the majority of the countries (see in particular the German Clinical Trials II justifying such improvements) • specific approach in the USA: Madey v Duke University (CAFC 2002) « the Common law rule does not immunize any conduct that is in keeping with the alleged infringer’s legitimate business, regardless of commercial implication » [Duke’s argument: use was exempt because it was limited to research and educational purposes]

  13. Experimental use: regulatory requirements (1) • Acts done in order to get an administrative (regulatory) approval: mainly for, but not limited to, medicines; do they fall under the exemption? • Great diversity of situations: • no: United-Kingdom [as a result of a Monsanto v Stauffer decision – 1985 / Lord Justice Dillon opinion] • yes, but limited: • Germany: probably no in case of bioequivalency testing and yes when producing new knowledge • France: the act of filing an application for getting an administrative approval is not an infringement per se [Supreme Court – 1998 – Promedica v Allen]; unclear concerning the trials supporting such application [infringement according to the Supreme Court, non infringement according to two decisions - 2001 & 2002 - from lower Courts involving Science Union]

  14. Experimental use: regulatory requirements (2) • yes: the USA [ Restoration Act 1984 / Hatch- Waxman Amendments  « Bolar exception » • 35USC 271(e) « use of a patented invention solely for purposes reasonably related to gathering data to support an FDA application for generic versions of patented drug does not constitute infringement » • « Bolar exception applicable to medical devices [Eli Lilly v Medtronic - 1989]

  15. Experimental use: clinical trials (1) • Trials supporting an application for getting an administrative approval for medicines (visa) • Situation in some countries: do such trials fall within the exemption? • the USA: yes as a result of « Bolar exception », but only when clinical trials are performed to obtain such approval • France: yes if the trials are performed on the patent subject-matter and on an experimental basis, or if they fall within the new French Public Health Code (generic drugs)

  16. Experimental use: clinical trials (2) • Germany: yes in case of trials performed to find new applications [Clinical Trials I – 1995] and in case of trials performed to find the best form for a substance with the same indication as in the patent [Clinical Trials II – 1998]; in both cases, increase of knowledge. No in case the trials are performed merely to prove that the product works [German Constitutional Court – 2000]. • United-Kingdom: yes as a result of Monsanto decision ifthe trials are performed either i) to discover something new, or ii) to test an hypothesis, or iii) to confirm that the subject-matter works in different conditions, or iv) to confirm that the subject-matter can be manufactured.

  17. Experimental use / AIPPI • AIPPI resolution at the Tokyo Congress (April 5 – 12, 1992) « AIPPI is in favor of the authorization of the experimental use of a patented invention by the third parties because of the potential importance of such use for technical progress  »

  18. Experimental use / OECD • OECD undergoing survey on « Research use of patented knowledge » by the Working Party on Innovation and Technology Policy • meeting in Paris on December 12-14, 2005 • international conference in Madrid on May 18-19, 2006

  19. Other use without authorization of the right holder:Art 31 TRIPs Agreement (1) • Compulsory licenses: • for improvements: in case of improvements resulting from experimental use of a patented invention and enabling the public to get access to a patented improvement (substantial technical progress and economic interest, …)

  20. Other use without authorization of the right holder:Art 31 TRIPs Agreement (2) • for specific needs: public health, others (national defence) • exemple of the French law: art L. 613-15 IPC (compulsory license in the interest of public health), • applicable to medicines, process, medical apparatus, ex vivo diagnosis method • in case of unsufficient quantity, quality, too high price, unfair behaviour, …

  21. As a conclusion • Concept of experimental use and compulsory licenses: • to be approved on its principle: • already provided in the TRIPs Agreement • a need to fulfil the balanced situation private interest (inventor, patentee) / public interest • to be clearly delimited and clarified • need of harmonization throughout the countries in the world • legal concept of an exception to be narrowly interpreted by the Courts

  22. Thank you for your attention… alain.gallochat@recherche.gouv.fr

More Related