[Commons-Law] Fwd: Govt, trade bodies discuss Patent Act amendments

[jayna kothari]

        Govt, trade bodies discuss Patent Act amendments
>
>TIMES NEWS NETWORK[ WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 06, 2003 02:07:33 AM ]
>NEW DELHI: The government has kicked off the process for the third 
>amendment
>to the Patents Act 1970, which would mark the introduction of the
>TRIPS-mandated product patents regime in the country for food, drugs and
>pharmaceuticals and chemicals. The amendment would also throw open the
>possibility of introducing provisions that cater to domestic constituency,
>even as the country's obligation of making the legislation TRIPS-compliant
>before the year '05 is being fulfilled.
>
>Beginning the consultation process for the third amendment, the department
>of industrial policy and promotion (DIPP) today organised a one-day session
>with Assocham, CII and Ficci and a cross-section of various IPR-related
>interest groups and stakeholders. Inaugurating the session, commerce and
>industry minister Arun Jaitley said the amendment would be fully balanced
>with the concerns of national and public interest, especially those 
>relating
>to public health in India.
>
>With the process being set in motion, issues on which the stakeholders are
>at loggerheads even after the first and second amendments of '99 and '02 -
>grounds for issuance of compulsory licences, `parallel imports' and
>`exhaustion of patent rights', `technology transfer', `patentable 
>inventions
>', `abuse of patents' and sundry definitions - are being placed afresh for
>debate. ``This is the next milestone in India's IPR law. We propose to have
>extensive consultations with all stakeholders before finalising the
>provisos,'' the official said. The government is planning to hold 15-20
>interactive sessions in different cities in the country in the next six to
>eight weeks.
>
>Referring to the debate a decade ago which was marked by apprehensions that
>medicines would have to be paid for in dollars due to signing of TRIPS
>agreement by India, Mr Jaitley said: ``Let alone having to pay in dollars,
>India is getting ready to supply quality drugs to the rest of the world, at
>prices equivalent in rupees. This is a significant change that has taken
>place in the last one decade.''
>
>With our large knowledge base and propensity for research, why should we be
>on the backfoot as far as IPR protection is concerned?, asked the minister.
>The first amendment to the Patents Act had extended the facility of product
>patents to agrochemicals and pharmaceuticals.
>
>The second amendment in '02 incorporated national emergency, circumstances
>of extreme urgency and for public non-commercial use of patented product as
>grounds for invoking compulsory licence. It also explained,  although not 
>to
>the satisfaction of all, what would and would not be patentable. Now, there
>are demands for review of the grounds for compulsory licensing, as the
>second amendment allegedly did not make full use of the flexibility 
>provided
>by Doha Declaration on TRIPS and public health. Some feel that abuse of
>patent rights by the patentee -- reckoned on the basis of high price or 
>lack
>of insufficient availability - can be a ground for issuing CL and the
>patentee should not be required to be convinced of the abuse by the seeker
>of compulsory licence. Also, since the patentee is deemed to have exhausted
>his right when there is case for parallel import from a secondary source,
>the question of payment of royalty to the patentee should not arise. The
>patentee should be mandated to transfer the technology to the CL holder, on
>payment of incremental royalty. In addition to national emergency, a
>``health emergency'' should also be reason for invoking CL. Health 
>emergency
>should be distinctly defined and the power to declare such emergency should
>vest with the health ministry. Declaring a national emergency is process
>that requires legislative and presidential assents and there should be
>broader ground for invoking CL and under easier practical terms.
>
>There should also be differential appeals for economic and legal issues.
>While the proposed appellate tribunal, as brought in with the second
>amendment, can settle disputes when the patent controller's decisions are
>questioned, an administrative committee should arbitrate disputes of
>economic purport. While the first amendment to the Act in '98 provided for
>product patents in pharmaceuticals and agro-chemicals, there is demand that
>product patents be given for food and fine chemicals as well.
>
>The government is taking note of these proposals from the domestic lobbies
>as well as grouse of some multinational corporations, mainly pharma MNCs,
>that India's patent law is weak and not completely TRIPS-compliant, while
>attempting the Third Amendment.
>
>
>http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/xml/uncomp/articleshow?msid=1155
>32
>
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Are you Unmarried? http://www.bharatmatrimony.com/cgi-bin/bmclicks1.cgi?4d 
Register in India's No 1 Matrimony.