Search

The article discusses access to medicines and compliance with the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) treaty in India and Brazil, focusing on the different responses of the two nations to the implementation of TRIPS. International patent laws are mentioned, along with comparative law and compulsory licensing. Health as a fundamental right is mentioned, along with India's 1970 Patents Act and pharmaceutical products laws. Patentability is also examined.

Decades often pass before scientists attain—and governments recognize—scientific certainty regarding the possible harmful effects of a newly invented technology or activity. Prior to 1970, governments were generally reluctant to regulate activities until harm was proven to a high degree of certainty and this led to significant damage to the environment and public health. In response, many nations incorporated some version of the precautionary principle—which asserts that mitigating measures either can or must be taken in the face of scientific uncertainty—into their domestic and international environmental laws and policies. A precautionary philosophy is also used by many nations in other areas of the law, including patent law, where statutes frequently exclude potentially harmful inventions from patentability. However, the United States consistently opposes the precautionary principle, and does not take a precautionary approach in either its environmental laws or its patent laws. This comment examines the environmental and public health consequences of U.S. patent law, and argues that incorporating a form of the precautionary principle would be a practical and effective means of mitigating the harm caused by advancing technology in the absence of such a principle. After examining the methods by which various nations exclude potentially harmful inventions from patentability, the author concludes that explicitly limiting the scope of patentable subject matter in U.S. patent law is an appropriate means for removing the patent incentive to develop and produce technologies that are known, or strongly suspected, to produce harmful impacts on the environment or public health. Furthermore, to ensure an objective scientific basis for excluding inventions from patentability, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office should apply the new limits to patentable subject matter in consultation with other federal agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Health and Human Services, and their subagencies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Phytosterols are currently being used for different purposes in human health. Since these compounds can only be obtained from plants, many scientists all over the world dedicate efforts to look for ways of obtaining them and possible by products. The significance and value of information from patents, an intense search of documents related with obtaining procedures was carried out, as well as derived products and uses which are protected by the Patent Rights. The information on patents granted by the United Stated Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) from 1976 to 2004 was carefully processed and analyzed. As a result of the increase on uses of phytosterols in drug and cosmetic industry, a remarkable number of patents were observed. Particularly, application of phytosterols for human health was noticed by the raise of patents grouped under the International Patent Classification A61K in last decade. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article, I argue that some academic technology transfer professionals are rethinking their mission, their models of success, and their public message. In particular, they are beginning to orientate their activities to take account more explicitly of the missions of academic institutions, the stated purposes of publicly funded research, and the goal of legislation governing academic patenting and licensing. Focusing on health-related technology transfer activities, which have attracted some of the strongest criticism, I review existing, emerging, and suggested practices aimed not at maximising profit but at maximising the social benefit of academic research, some of which employ sophisticated licensing of patented academic inventions and discoveries. These practices, I will argue, should be considered and, where appropriate, employed by academic technology transfer offices, both because they aim to secure a moral good and because they will help academic technology transfer offices achieve a kind of success that closely mirrors the missions of their institutions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]