woah what have we here peeps ...
In the meantime a big Katpat to Cathal Lane from Tomkins who sent a link to this seminal Irish case on compulsory licensing Allen and Hanburys Ltd. v. Controller of Patents, Designs and Trademarks [1996] IEHC 59.
Although the issue in that case was discrimination by field of technology, the reasoning is applicable mutandis mutatis to discrimination on the basis of lack of domestic working, because Art 27 treats them in exactly the same way. Art 27 was clearly understood in the Irish decision (as far as this Kat reads it) to prohibit compulsory licensing provisions that discriminate in the manner that Art 27 forbids. For example, the Irish decision states “It is not contested that Section 42 [the provision in question relating to compulsory licences] does permit discrimination as to the field of technology in respect of enjoyment of patent rights contrary to Article 27(1) of TRIPS”. [feline emphasis]
Although the issue in that case was discrimination by field of technology, the reasoning is applicable mutandis mutatis to discrimination on the basis of lack of domestic working, because Art 27 treats them in exactly the same way. Art 27 was clearly understood in the Irish decision (as far as this Kat reads it) to prohibit compulsory licensing provisions that discriminate in the manner that Art 27 forbids. For example, the Irish decision states “It is not contested that Section 42 [the provision in question relating to compulsory licences] does permit discrimination as to the field of technology in respect of enjoyment of patent rights contrary to Article 27(1) of TRIPS”. [feline emphasis]
***************
http://ipkitten.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/what-limitations-does-trips-put-on.html
**********
lack of domestic manufacture eh ...
00.27, 15.01.12.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.