Indian presence at Casablanca patent law meet was unjust
Seth Johnson <[email protected]> Tue, 26 Apr 2005 05:06:06 -0400
| Newsgroups | gmane.org.dmca-activists,gmane.org.aful.patents |
|---|---|
| Organization | Real Measures |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Commons-Law] ÂIndian presence at Casablanca patent law meet was unjust Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 10:33:25 +0200 From: Ram <[email protected]> To: [email protected] >Financial Express 'Indian presence at Casablanca patent law meet was unjust' KG NARENDRANATH New Delhi, April 24 Was there any harmful thoughtlessness or even culpability in India's perceived reversal of role in the February Casablanca meeting that "informally" deliberated on the Substantive Patent Law Treaty (SPLT)? At least, Debabrata Saha, India's deputy permanent representative to the UN, thinks so, going by a critical letter he recently wrote to BS Baswan, secretary in the HRD ministry. Mr Saha believes that behind the ongoing SPLT talks and the proposed reform of the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), there is a deliberate Washington-Brussels agenda to shape and influence national patent laws, to the detriment of developing countries like India, Brazil, Israel and China with substantial interests at odds with former on patent issues. He is worried that India took active participation in Casablanca meeting, held "without any mandate" from the World Intellectual Property Organisation's (WIPO) general assembly. Dr RA Mashelkar, ditrector-general of the CSIR, chaired the meeting. "There is concern that Dr Mashelkar's chairing of the Casablanca meeting and playing a key role in shaping its outcome could be a signal that India was not just distancing itself from other developing countries on an important North-South issue, but more ominously that India might be considering joining the other side," he said in the letter. It may be noted that Dr Mashelkar, a Padma awardee, chairs the panel set up by the government recently to thrash out a formula for two issues of India's patent law, unsettled even after the recent amendment approved by Parliament. It may also be noted that India did not sign the statement of Groups of Friends of Development (a forum of developing countries) calling for a "balanced treaty" on substantive harmonization of patent law. The ambassador sees an attempt to establish "global patent" in West's efforts to thrust substantive issues of patent examination and grant into the PCT Reforms agenda in the guise of "upward harmonization" of national patent systems. PCT reform was originally meant to be merely procedural. According to him, the working group on PCT (procedural) reforms has no mandate to venture into the arena of patent examination even if it is done in the garb of an "optional protocol." "The Paris convention was was optional too. But did it remain effectively optional after TRIPS? Wasn't it for all practical purposes, subsumed in TRIPS ? Doesn't this prove that what is an optional treaty today could very well become obligatory tomorrow?" he asked pointedly, in writing, elsewhere. According to him, the aim of the developed countries clearly is to transform the PCT from an international patent filing system to an international patent granting surrogate Dwelling on related issues, Mr Saha in the letter to Mr Baswan stressed the importance of easy use of compulsory licence (CL) provision- a TRIPS compliant tool to sidestep patents. "Any regime that places legal and procedural obstacles to the use of CL effectively reduces the legislative provision for such licences to a nullity." Stating that global generic drug industry depends critically on its ability to continue to source active basic ingredients from Indian industry, he said that few investors would take the risk of investing in facilities in generic-related research if the entry of generic to the market- through CL- was uncertain. TRIPS provides for no injunctive relief to a patent holder when a CL is issued. To fulfill India's leading role of supplier of affordable medicines, New Delhi must put a legislation in place to facilitate generic production for exports, said Mr Saha. URL: http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php?content_id=88919 -- Prabhu Ram, Max-Planck-Institut for Intellectual Property, Competition and Tax Law, MarstallPlatz 1, 80539 Munich GERMANY Tel: + 49 89 24246226 Mob: + 49 17629830521 Web: http://infoserve.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ commons-law mailing list [email protected] https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/commons-law