Page 147 - Q26 -
P. 147

¥ÿ≈æ“À



              safeguarded and the patent çevergreeningé is prevented. Patent oppositions are

              significant in bringing pertinent proof and contentions before patent examiners,
              especially in the countries with severe resource limitations.


                      The example of the resource to patent oppositions in the area of HIV

              was the case that the activists in Thailand brought regarding the patent on
                                  (22)
              didanosine in 2001. Nevertheless, the country which sought the most to the
                                                         (23)
              opposition proceedings has been India.        Their experience illustrates that
              merely filing patent opposition may cause the pharmaceutical firms to drop the

                                                                                            (24)
              prices, to issue voluntary licenses or even to remove patent applications.

                      It should be noted that, such procedures must allow companies,

              NGOs, and third parties to participate, and avoid limiting the categories of

              challenges and evidence demonstrated or assumptions of patent validity.
              The Patent and Trademark Office of the United States (USPTO), for instance,

              has attempted to better exploit outside data for patent quality control through

              a  çpeer to patenté  mechanism allowing the third parties to remark on
              applications and present prior art.



              (22)
                 NDP (2010), Good Practice Guide: Improving Access To Treatment By Utilizing Public Health
                 Flexibilities In The WTO TRIPS Agreement at p. 23; see Médecins Sans Frontières (2003),

                 Drug Patents under the Spotlight: Sharing Practical Knowledge about Pharmaceutical
                 Patents, available at http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/pdf/s4913e/s4913e.pdf. at 20; see AIDS
                 Access Foundation et al. v. Bristol Myers-Squibb Company and Department of Intellectual
                 Property, Central Intellectual Property & International Trade Court, Black Case No. Tor Por
                 34/2544, Red Case No. 92/2545 (2002).
              (23)
                 Sections 25.1, 25.2, Indian Patents Act, 1970.
              (24)
                 Both examples are discussed in Amin, T (2010), Re-visiting the Patents and Access to
                 Medicines Dichotomy: An Evaluation of TRIPs Implementation and Public Health Safeguards
                 in Developing Countries, in Global Governance of HIV/AIDS: Intellectual Property and

                 Access to Essential Medicines (Aginam, O, Harrington J & Yu PK eds., 2010).



              136                                                            ‡≈à¡∑’Ë Ò  ªï∑’Ë ˆ˜
   142   143   144   145   146   147   148   149   150   151   152