Integrating Public Health Concerns into Patent Legislation in Developing Countries
(2000; 140 pages) [French] [Spanish] View the PDF document
Table of Contents
View the documentTHE SOUTH CENTRE
View the documentFOREWORD
View the documentACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
View the documentGLOSSARY*
Open this folder and view contentsI. INTRODUCTION
Open this folder and view contentsII. PATENTABLE SUBJECT MATTER
Open this folder and view contentsIII. SCOPE OF CLAIMS
Open this folder and view contentsIV. PATENTABILITY REQUIREMENTS
Close this folderV. SPECIAL CASES IN PHARMACEUTICALS
View the documentV.1 Selection Patents
View the documentV.2 Prior Public Availability
View the documentV.3 Polymorphism
View the documentV.4 Analogy processes
View the documentV.5 Compositions
View the documentV.6 Optical Isomers
View the documentV.7 Active Metabolites
View the documentV.8 Prodrugs
Open this folder and view contentsVI. DISCLOSURE
Open this folder and view contentsVII. EXCEPTIONS TO EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS
Open this folder and view contentsVIII. EXAMINATION AND OBSERVATION PROCEDURES
Open this folder and view contentsIX. CLAIMS INTERPRETATION
Open this folder and view contentsX. COMPULSORY LICENSING
View the documentXI. FINAL REMARKS
View the documentREFERENCES
View the documentBACK COVER
 

V.4 Analogy processes

Some countries have permitted patenting of non-novel processes (sometimes called “analogy processes”) if the resulting chemical is novel and displays unexpected properties.

The United States has held “analogy process” claims to be unpatentable unless they are inventive in themselves103, but has carved out an exception for biotechnology. The products and processes of biotechnology have posed hard problems for applying the inventive step standard, since many biotechnology “inventions” repeat previously invented processes in slightly different contexts. This problem led to a statutory amendment of U.S. law in 1995, which lowered the nonobviousness standard by deeming a biotech process claim nonobvious if it involves new and nonobvious starting materials or produces a new and nonobvious result104. While this solution, targeted only to biotechnology, may be deemed discriminatory - and hence inconsistent with article 27.1 of the TRIPs Agreement - it has been extended by case law to other fields of technology105.

103 See, e.g., Grubb, 1999, p. 206.

104 See, e.g., Dratler, §2.03[3].

105 See, e.g., Grubb, 1999, p. 207.

While the protection of “analogy processes” has been accepted in many jurisdictions as a logical means of protecting new developments, no country is obliged under the TRIPs Agreement to follow this approach of expanding the realm of patentable subject matter.

to previous section
to next section
 
 
The WHO Essential Medicines and Health Products Information Portal was designed and is maintained by Human Info NGO. Last updated: November 5, 2014