Integrating Public Health Concerns into Patent Legislation in Developing Countries
(2000; 140 pages) [French] [Spanish] Ver el documento en el formato PDF
Índice de contenido
Ver el documentoTHE SOUTH CENTRE
Ver el documentoFOREWORD
Ver el documentoGLOSSARY*
Abrir esta carpeta y ver su contenidoI. INTRODUCTION
Abrir esta carpeta y ver su contenidoII. PATENTABLE SUBJECT MATTER
Abrir esta carpeta y ver su contenidoIII. SCOPE OF CLAIMS
Abrir esta carpeta y ver su contenidoIV. PATENTABILITY REQUIREMENTS
Ver el documentoV.1 Selection Patents
Ver el documentoV.2 Prior Public Availability
Ver el documentoV.3 Polymorphism
Ver el documentoV.4 Analogy processes
Ver el documentoV.5 Compositions
Ver el documentoV.6 Optical Isomers
Ver el documentoV.7 Active Metabolites
Ver el documentoV.8 Prodrugs
Abrir esta carpeta y ver su contenidoVI. DISCLOSURE
Abrir esta carpeta y ver su contenidoVII. EXCEPTIONS TO EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS
Abrir esta carpeta y ver su contenidoVIII. EXAMINATION AND OBSERVATION PROCEDURES
Abrir esta carpeta y ver su contenidoIX. CLAIMS INTERPRETATION
Abrir esta carpeta y ver su contenidoX. COMPULSORY LICENSING
Ver el documentoXI. FINAL REMARKS
Ver el documentoREFERENCES
Ver el documentoBACK 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.

Ir a la sección anterior
Ir a la siguiente sección
El Portal de Información - Medicamentos Esenciales y Productos de Salud de la OMS fue diseñado y es mantenido por la ONG Human Info. Última actualización: le 1 diciembre 2019