trips article 27.3

WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION

legal texts

URUGUAY ROUND AGREEMENT: TRIPS

Part II — Standards concerning the availability, scope and use of Intellectual Property Rights

Sections 5 and 6

PART I General Provisions and Basic Principles
PART II Standards Concerning the Availability, Scope and Use of Intellectual Property Rights
1. Copyright and Related Rights
2. Trademarks
3. Geographical Indications
4. Industrial Designs
6. Layout-Designs (Topographies) of Integrated Circuits
7. Protection of Undisclosed Information
8. Control of Anti-Competitive Practices in Contractual Licences
PART III Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights
1. General Obligations
2. Civil and Administrative Procedures and Remedies
3. Provisional Measures
4. Special Requirements Related to Border Measures
5. Criminal Procedures
PART IV Acquisition and Maintenance of Intellectual Property Rights and Related Inter-Partes Procedures
PART V Dispute Prevention and Settlement
PART VI Transitional Arrangements
PART VII Institutional Arrangements; Final Provisions

Section 5: patents

Article 27 patentable subject matter.

1. Subject to the provisions of paragraphs 2 and 3, patents shall be available for any inventions, whether products or processes, in all fields of technology, provided that they are new, involve an inventive step and are capable of industrial application. (5) Subject to paragraph 4 of Article 65, paragraph 8 of Article 70 and paragraph 3 of this Article, patents shall be available and patent rights enjoyable without discrimination as to the place of invention, the field of technology and whether products are imported or locally produced.

2. Members may exclude from patentability inventions, the prevention within their territory of the commercial exploitation of which is necessary to protect ordre public or morality, including to protect human, animal or plant life or health or to avoid serious prejudice to the environment, provided that such exclusion is not made merely because the exploitation is prohibited by their law.

3. Members may also exclude from patentability:

(a) diagnostic, therapeutic and surgical methods for the treatment of humans or animals;

(b) plants and animals other than micro-organisms, and essentially biological processes for the production of plants or animals other than non-biological and microbiological processes. However, Members shall provide for the protection of plant varieties either by patents or by an effective sui generis system or by any combination thereof. The provisions of this subparagraph shall be reviewed four years after the date of entry into force of the WTO Agreement.

Article 28 Rights Conferred

1. A patent shall confer on its owner the following exclusive rights:

(a) where the subject matter of a patent is a product, to prevent third parties not having the owner’s consent from the acts of: making, using, offering for sale, selling, or importing (6) for these purposes that product;

(b) where the subject matter of a patent is a process, to prevent third parties not having the owner’s consent from the act of using the process, and from the acts of: using, offering for sale, selling, or importing for these purposes at least the product obtained directly by that process.

2. Patent owners shall also have the right to assign, or transfer by succession, the patent and to conclude licensing contracts.

Article 29 Conditions on Patent Applicants

1. Members shall require that an applicant for a patent shall disclose the invention in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for the invention to be carried out by a person skilled in the art and may require the applicant to indicate the best mode for carrying out the invention known to the inventor at the filing date or, where priority is claimed, at the priority date of the application.

2. Members may require an applicant for a patent to provide information concerning the applicant’s corresponding foreign applications and grants.

Article 30 Exceptions to Rights Conferred

Members may provide limited exceptions to the exclusive rights conferred by a patent, provided that such exceptions do not unreasonably conflict with a normal exploitation of the patent and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the patent owner, taking account of the legitimate interests of third parties.

Article 31 Other Use Without Authorization of the Right Holder

Where the law of a Member allows for other use (7) of the subject matter of a patent without the authorization of the right holder, including use by the government or third parties authorized by the government, the following provisions shall be respected:

(a) authorization of such use shall be considered on its individual merits;

(b) such use may only be permitted if, prior to such use, the proposed user has made efforts to obtain authorization from the right holder on reasonable commercial terms and conditions and that such efforts have not been successful within a reasonable period of time. This requirement may be waived by a Member in the case of a national emergency or other circumstances of extreme urgency or in cases of public non-commercial use. In situations of national emergency or other circumstances of extreme urgency, the right holder shall, nevertheless, be notified as soon as reasonably practicable. In the case of public non-commercial use, where the government or contractor, without making a patent search, knows or has demonstrable grounds to know that a valid patent is or will be used by or for the government, the right holder shall be informed promptly;

(c) the scope and duration of such use shall be limited to the purpose for which it was authorized, and in the case of semi-conductor technology shall only be for public non-commercial use or to remedy a practice determined after judicial or administrative process to be anti-competitive;

(d) such use shall be non-exclusive;

(e) such use shall be non-assignable, except with that part of the enterprise or goodwill which enjoys such use;

(f) any such use shall be authorized predominantly for the supply of the domestic market of the Member authorizing such use;

(g) authorization for such use shall be liable, subject to adequate protection of the legitimate interests of the persons so authorized, to be terminated if and when the circumstances which led to it cease to exist and are unlikely to recur. The competent authority shall have the authority to review, upon motivated request, the continued existence of these circumstances;

(h) the right holder shall be paid adequate remuneration in the circumstances of each case, taking into account the economic value of the authorization;

(i) the legal validity of any decision relating to the authorization of such use shall be subject to judicial review or other independent review by a distinct higher authority in that Member;

(j) any decision relating to the remuneration provided in respect of such use shall be subject to judicial review or other independent review by a distinct higher authority in that Member;

(k) Members are not obliged to apply the conditions set forth in subparagraphs (b) and (f) where such use is permitted to remedy a practice determined after judicial or administrative process to be anti-competitive. The need to correct anti-competitive practices may be taken into account in determining the amount of remuneration in such cases. Competent authorities shall have the authority to refuse termination of authorization if and when the conditions which led to such authorization are likely to recur;

(l) where such use is authorized to permit the exploitation of a patent (“the second patent”) which cannot be exploited without infringing another patent (“the first patent”), the following additional conditions shall apply:

(i) the invention claimed in the second patent shall involve an important technical advance of considerable economic significance in relation to the invention claimed in the first patent;

(ii) the owner of the first patent shall be entitled to a cross-licence on reasonable terms to use the invention claimed in the second patent; and

(iii) the use authorized in respect of the first patent shall be non-assignable except with the assignment of the second patent.

Article 32 Revocation/Forfeiture

An opportunity for judicial review of any decision to revoke or forfeit a patent shall be available.

Article 33 Term of Protection

The term of protection available shall not end before the expiration of a period of twenty years counted from the filing date (8)

Article 34 Process Patents: Burden of Proof

1. For the purposes of civil proceedings in respect of the infringement of the rights of the owner referred to in paragraph 1(b) of Article 28, if the subject matter of a patent is a process for obtaining a product, the judicial authorities shall have the authority to order the defendant to prove that the process to obtain an identical product is different from the patented process. Therefore, Members shall provide, in at least one of the following circumstances, that any identical product when produced without the consent of the patent owner shall, in the absence of proof to the contrary, be deemed to have been obtained by the patented process:

(a) if the product obtained by the patented process is new;

(b) if there is a substantial likelihood that the identical product was made by the process and the owner of the patent has been unable through reasonable efforts to determine the process actually used.

2. Any Member shall be free to provide that the burden of proof indicated in paragraph 1 shall be on the alleged infringer only if the condition referred to in subparagraph (a) is fulfilled or only if the condition referred to in subparagraph (b) is fulfilled.

3. In the adduction of proof to the contrary, the legitimate interests of defendants in protecting their manufacturing and business secrets shall be taken into account.

Section 6: layout-designs (topographies) of integrated circuits

Article 35 relation to the ipic treaty.

Members agree to provide protection to the layout-designs (topographies) of integrated circuits (referred to in this Agreement as “layout-designs”) in accordance with Articles 2 through 7 (other than paragraph 3 of Article 6), Article 12 and paragraph 3 of Article 16 of the Treaty on Intellectual Property in Respect of Integrated Circuits and, in addition, to comply with the following provisions.

Article 36 Scope of the Protection

Subject to the provisions of paragraph 1 of Article 37, Members shall consider unlawful the following acts if performed without the authorization of the right holder: (9) importing, selling, or otherwise distributing for commercial purposes a protected layout-design, an integrated circuit in which a protected layout-design is incorporated, or an article incorporating such an integrated circuit only in so far as it continues to contain an unlawfully reproduced layout-design.

Article 37 Acts Not Requiring the Authorization of the Right Holder

1. Notwithstanding Article 36, no Member shall consider unlawful the performance of any of the acts referred to in that Article in respect of an integrated circuit incorporating an unlawfully reproduced layout-design or any article incorporating such an integrated circuit where the person performing or ordering such acts did not know and had no reasonable ground to know, when acquiring the integrated circuit or article incorporating such an integrated circuit, that it incorporated an unlawfully reproduced layout-design. Members shall provide that, after the time that such person has received sufficient notice that the layout-design was unlawfully reproduced, that person may perform any of the acts with respect to the stock on hand or ordered before such time, but shall be liable to pay to the right holder a sum equivalent to a reasonable royalty such as would be payable under a freely negotiated licence in respect of such a layout-design.

2. The conditions set out in subparagraphs (a) through (k) of Article 31 shall apply mutatis mutandis in the event of any non-voluntary licensing of a layout-design or of its use by or for the government without the authorization of the right holder.

Article 38 Term of Protection

1. In Members requiring registration as a condition of protection, the term of protection of layout-designs shall not end before the expiration of a period of 10 years counted from the date of filing an application for registration or from the first commercial exploitation wherever in the world it occurs.

2. In Members not requiring registration as a condition for protection, layout-designs shall be protected for a term of no less than 10 years from the date of the first commercial exploitation wherever in the world it occurs.

3. Notwithstanding paragraphs 1 and 2, a Member may provide that protection shall lapse 15 years after the creation of the layout-design.

< Previous Next >

5. For the purposes of this Article, the terms “inventive step” and “capable of industrial application” may be deemed by a Member to be synonymous with the terms “non-obvious” and “useful” respectively. Back to text
6. This right, like all other rights conferred under this Agreement in respect of the use, sale, importation or other distribution of goods, is subject to the provisions of Article 6. Back to text
7. “Other use” refers to use other than that allowed under Article 30. Back to text
8. It is understood that those Members which do not have a system of original grant may provide that the term of protection shall be computed from the filing date in the system of original grant. Back to text
9. The term “right holder” in this Section shall be understood as having the same meaning as the term “holder of the right” in the IPIC Treaty. Back to text

Download in: > Word format (31 pages;150KB) > pdf format (33 pages;193KB)

The texts reproduced in this section do not have the legal standing of the original documents which are entrusted and kept at the WTO Secretariat in Geneva.

Go to a basic explanation of the agreements ...
...or a more technical one
List of Abbreviations

Information for Review of Art. 27.3(b) (Patentable Subject Matter) - View

Main information, 1. submitting member, 2. submission status, 3. brief introduction if applicable, list of questions, illustrative list of questions prepared by the secretariat., a. patent protection of plant and animal inventions.

To what extent is this due to per se exclusions from patentability?
To what extent is this based on other grounds (for example because conditions for patentability other than those stipulated in Article 27.1 are not met or in order to protect ordre public or morality (see Article 27.2 of the Agreement))?

N.B. Please ensure that your responses to the questions above cover each category of subject matter specified in Article 27.3(b), namely micro-organisms, essentially biological processes for the production of plants or animals, microbiological processes, non-biological processes, plant varieties and other inventions concerning plants or animals.

B. Protection of Plant Varieties

Plant varieties can only be protected under plant breeders’ rights. However, where a plant variety is the product of a micro-biological process, such a process may be protected by patent law. The Act and all information supplied makes it very clear that a plant variety (in other words, the plant itself) can only be protected under plant breeders' rights, and not under a patent.

acts performed for research or experimental purposes;
acts performed to develop new varieties of plants;
acts performed to commercialize such newly developed varieties;
any "farmer's privilege" (e.g. acts performed by a farmer on his own land in respect of seed saved from the previous harvest);
acts done privately and for non-commercial purposes;
compulsory licensing.

Representative Questions for TRIPS 27.3(b) Review Submitted by the Delegations of Canada, the European Union (formerly European Communities), Japan and the United States

A. patent system questions, b. plant variety protection systems.

Help & FAQ

Review of Article 27.3(b) and the patenting of life forms: hitting a BRIC wall in the WTO?

Department of Management

Research output : Contribution to journal › Review Article › Research › peer-review

Under Article 27.3(b) of the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement of the World Trade Organization (WTO), all members are required to extend private property rights to life forms. Using official WTO documents, this article analyzes the negotiating positions of WTO members on life patents during a review of Article 27.3(b) which commenced in 1999 and is currently ongoing. Initially, developing countries raised serious ethical concerns regarding life patents, creating a clear North-South divide. However, over time the position of Brazil and India moved away from the ethics of life patents to the prevention of bio-piracy, a position supported by China. Russia too is supportive of life patents. A group of small developing countries have, however, continued to question the morality of life patents despite this "BRIC wall,"changing the dynamics of the negotiations from a North-South divide to one which now includes a South-South divide.

Article 27.3(b)
Intellectual property rights
Life patents
Negotiations

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Access to Document

10.1163/15718069-BJA10018

Article 27(3)(b) TRIPS and Plant Variety Protection in Developing Countries

Cite this chapter.

Christoph Antons 8

Part of the book series: MPI Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law ((MSIP,volume 25))

1579 Accesses

4 Citations

In comparison with industrialised countries, agriculture in developing countries accounts for a substantial share of GDP and involves a substantial sector of small-holders and traditional agriculturalists. In view of these differences, the biotechnology clause of Article 27.3.b TRIPS with its requirement of plant variety protection either by patents or an effective sui generis system or a combination of the two has been controversial. However, developing countries have made surprisingly little use of the freedom to design their own systems in this field. Instead, there has been a surge in UPOV membership among developing countries and some have gone as far as introducing patent protection for plant varieties. Such countries now have to consider the same exclusions and exceptions to patenting that are normally discussed in countries with much more advanced biotechnology industries. The chapter examines the scope for the use of orde public considerations under Article 27.2 TRIPS, of exceptions for research and experimental purposes under Article 30 TRIPS, compulsory licensing under Article 31 TRIPS as well as the advantages of a specific breeding exemption and it briefly comments on the various sui generis options. While liberal interpretations of the TRIPS exceptions remain possible, the chapter concludes that the majority of developing countries will be better off in more creatively using the freedom to develop sui generis systems suitable for their local conditions rather than struggling to introduce TRIPS conform ‘limited exceptions’ to patent protection for plant varieties.

Prof. Dr. Christoph Antons is Professor at Deakin University, Melbourne, Affiliated Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich, Chief Investigator at the ARC Centre of Excellence for Creative Industries and Innovation and Senior Fellow at the Center for Development Research, University of Bonn.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

Get 10 units per month
Download Article/Chapter or eBook
1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
Cancel anytime
Available as PDF
Read on any device
Instant download
Own it forever
Available as EPUB and PDF
Compact, lightweight edition
Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
Free shipping worldwide - see info
Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Intellectual Property Law of Plant Varieties in Thailand: A Contextual Analysis

Agricultural Innovation: Patenting and Plant Variety Rights Protection

The Globalisation of Plant Variety Protection: Are Developing Countries Still Policy Takers?

E.g. P. Drahos & J. Braithwaite (2002), Information Feudalism: Who Owns the Knowledge Economy?; S.K. Sell (2003), Private Power, Public Law: The Globalization of Intellectual Property Rights.

See for example the discussion of the impact of Article 27.1 TRIPS in UNCTAD-ICTSD (2005), Resource Book on TRIPS and Development, pp. 363-367.

C.M. Correa (2012), TRIPS-Related Patent Flexibilities and Food Security: Options for Developing Countries, p. 3.

M. Llewelyn (2003), Which Rules in World Trade Law – Patents or Plant Variety Protection?, in T. Cottier & P.C. Mavroidis (Eds.), Intellectual Property: Trade, Competition and Sustainable Development, p. 306.

World Bank World Development Indicators: Data Indicators Agriculture, value added (% of GDP), available at: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NV.AGR.TOTL.ZS (accessed 24 March 2014).

C.M. Correa (2012), TRIPS-Related Patent Flexibilities and Food Security: Options for Developing Countries, p. 2.

H.M. Haugen, M.R. Muller & S.M. Narashiman (2011), Food Security and Intellectual Property Rights: Finding the Linkages, in T. Wong & G. Dutfield (Eds.), Intellectual Property and Human Development: Current Trends and Future Scenarios, pp. 103-138.

World Bank World Development Indicators: Data Indicators Rural population (% of total population), available at: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.RUR.TOTL.ZS (accessed 24 March 2014).

C. Wittayapak & P. Vandergeest (2010), The Politics of Decentralization: Natural Resource Management in Asia.

E.g. S. Smeltzer (2008), The Message is the Market: Selling Biotechnology and Nation in Malaysia, in J. Nevins & N.L. Peluso (Eds.), Taking Southeast Asia to Market: Commodities, Nature, and People in the Neoliberal Age, pp. 191-205.

See www.upov.int/members/en (accessed 25 September 2014).

See www.upov.int/members/en/observers.html (accessed 25 September 2014).

UNCTAD-ICTSD (2005), Resource Book on TRIPS and Development, p. 391.

D. Gervais (2008), The TRIPS Agreement: Drafting History and Analysis, pp. 361-372.

D.B. Barbosa & K. Grau-Kuntz (2010), Exclusions from Patentable Subject Matter and Exceptions and Limitations to the Rights: Biotechnology, WIPO SCP/15/3, p. 19, note 43.

On the different views in the Council for TRIPS deliberations during the review, see P. Roffe (2008), Bringing Minimum Intellectual Property Standards into Agriculture: The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), in G. Tansey & T. Rajotte (Eds.), The Future Control of Food, pp. 63-64.

D. Gervais (2008), The TRIPS Agreement: Drafting History and Analysis, p. 353; UNCTAD-ICTSD (2005), Resource Book on TRIPS and Development, p. 394; M. Llewelyn (2003), Which Rules in World Trade Law – Patents or Plant Variety Protection?, in T. Cottier & P.C. Mavroidis (Eds.), Intellectual Property: Trade, Competition and Sustainable Development, pp. 308-309; K. Aoki (2008), Seed Wars: Controversies and Cases on Plant Genetic Resources and Intellectual Property, p. 82, note 101; G. van Overwalle (2008), Biotechnology and Patents: Global Standards, European Approaches and National Accents, in D. Würger & T. Cottier (Eds.), Genetic Engineering and the World Trade System, p. 80.

S. Ragavan & J. Mayer (2007), Has India Addressed Its Farmers Woes? A Story of Plant Protection Issues, 20 Geo. Int’l Envtl. L. Rev. 2007, 101.

D.B. Barbosa & K. Grau-Kuntz (2010), Exclusions from Patentable Subject Matter and Exceptions and Limitations to the Rights: Biotechnology, WIPO SCP/15/3, p. 39; S. Ragavan & J. Mayer (2007), Has India Addressed Its Farmers Woes? A Story of Plant Protection Issues, 20 Geo. Int’l Envtl. L. Rev. 2007, 103.

UNCTAD-ICTSD (2005), Resource Book on TRIPS and Development, p. 353.

C.M. Correa (2012), TRIPS-Related Patent Flexibilities and Food Security: Options for Developing Countries, p. 6.

D.B. Barbosa & K. Grau-Kuntz (2010), Exclusions from Patentable Subject Matter and Exceptions and Limitations to the Rights: Biotechnology, WIPO SCP/15/3, pp. 20-24.

L. Bently (2011), Exclusions from Patentability and Exceptions to Patentees’ Rights: Taking Exceptions Seriously, 64 CLP 2011, 334.

R. Kanniah & C. Antons (2012), Plant Variety Protection and Traditional Agricultural Knowledge in Southeast Asia, 13 Australian J. Asian L. 2010, 3.

W.L. Ng-Loy (2015), IP and FTAs of Singapore: Ten Years On, in C. Antons & R.M. Hilty (Eds.), Free Trade Agreements and Intellectual Property in the Asia-Pacific Region.

C.M. Correa (2012), TRIPS-Related Patent Flexibilities and Food Security: Options for Developing Countries, p. 4; D.B. Barbosa & K. Grau-Kuntz (2010), Exclusions from Patentable Subject Matter and Exceptions and Limitations to the Rights: Biotechnology, WIPO SCP/15/3, p. 32.

C.M. Correa (2012), TRIPS-Related Patent Flexibilities and Food Security: Options for Developing Countries, pp. 5-6; see also H.M. Haugen (2007), The Right to Food and the TRIPS Agreement: With a Particular Emphasis on Developing Countries’ Measures for Food Production and Distribution, pp. 228-229.

Ibid., p. 233, fn. 84.

Ibid., p. 230.

G. van Overwalle (2008), Biotechnology and Patents: Global Standards, European Approaches and National Accents, in D. Würger & T. Cottier (Eds.), Genetic Engineering and the World Trade System, pp. 89-91; N. Louwaars et al. (2009), Breeding Business: The Future of Plant Breeding in the Light of Developments in Patent Rights and Plant Breeder’s Rights, pp. 15-16; P. van der Kooij (2010), Towards a Breeder’s Exemption in Patent Law?, 32 EIPR 2010, 546-547.

K. Aoki (2008), Seed Wars: Controversies and Cases on Plant Genetic Resources and Intellectual Property, pp. 30-34.

Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980).

N. Louwaars et al. (2009), Breeding Business: The Future of Plant Breeding in the Light of Developments in Patent Rights and Plant Breeder’s Rights, p. 29; P. van der Kooij (2010), Towards a Breeder’s Exemption in Patent Law?, 32 EIPR 2010, 549; C.M. Correa (2012), TRIPS-Related Patent Flexibilities and Food Security: Options for Developing Countries, p. 5; M. Rimmer (2013), Patent-Busting: The Public Patent Foundation, Gene Patents and the Seed Wars, in C. Lawson & J. Sanderson (Eds.), The Intellectual Property and Food Project: From Rewarding Innovation and Creation to Feeding the World.

R.C. Dreyfuss (2009), Fostering Dynamic Innovation, Development and Trade: Intellectual Property as a Case Study in Global Administrative Law, Acta Juridica 2009, 258-259.

C.M. Correa (2012), TRIPS-Related Patent Flexibilities and Food Security: Options for Developing Countries; C.M. Correa (2005), The International Dimension of the Research Exception; C. Garrison (2006), Exceptions to Patent Rights in Developing Countries, UNCTAD-ICTSD Issue Paper No. 17; G. Dinwoodie & R. Dreyfuss (2007), Diversifying Without Discriminating: Complying with the Mandates of the TRIPS Agreement, 13 Mich. Telecomm. Tech. L. Rev. 2007, 445; H.M. Haugen (2007), The Right to Food and the TRIPS Agreement: With a Particular Emphasis on Developing Countries’ Measures for Food Production and Distribution; H.M. Haugen (2009), Human Rights and TRIPS Exclusion and Exception Provisions, 11 J. W. Intell. Prop. 2009, 345; H.M. Haugen, M.R. Muller & S.M. Narashiman (2011), Food Security and Intellectual Property Rights: Finding the Linkages, in T. Wong & G. Dutfield (Eds.), Intellectual Property and Human Development: Current Trends and Future Scenarios.

K.J. Strandburg (2009), Evolving Innovation Paradigms and the Global Intellectual Property Regime, 41 Conn. L. Rev. 2009, 861-920; C. Dent (2011), The TRIPS Agreement and an Experimental Use Exception for ‘Research Tools’, 44 Australian Econ. Rev. 2011, 73-78.

C.M. Correa (2012), TRIPS-Related Patent Flexibilities and Food Security: Options for Developing Countries, p. 8.

S. Hubicki & B. Sherman (2005), Terminator Genes as “Technical” Protection Measures for Patents?, in C. Heath & A. Kamperman Sanders (Eds.), New Frontiers of Intellectual Property Law: IP and Cultural Heritage, Geographical Indications, Enforcement and Overprotection.

H.M. Haugen (2009), Human Rights and TRIPS Exclusion and Exception Provisions, 11 J. W. Intell. Prop. 2009, 349-350.

H.M. Haugen (2009), Human Rights and TRIPS Exclusion and Exception Provisions, 11 J. W. Intell. Prop. 2009, 345.

J. Curci (2010), The Protection of Biodiversity and Traditional Knowledge in International Law of Intellectual Property, pp. 234-235.

P. Drahos (2010), The Global Governance of Knowledge: Patent Offices and their Clients.

C. Arup (2008), The World Trade Organization Knowledge Agreements, p. 392; see also R.C. Dreyfuss (2009), Fostering Dynamic Innovation, Development and Trade: Intellectual Property as a Case Study in Global Administrative Law, Acta Juridica 2009, 252.

L. Bently (2011), Exclusions from Patentability and Exceptions to Patentees’ Rights: Taking Exceptions Seriously, 64 CLP 2011, 329, 338-341.

C.M. Correa (2005), The International Dimension of the Research Exception, pp. 7-8.

Ibid., p. 6, note 4.

Ibid., p. 8.

S.J.R. Bostyn (2013), Patentability of Plants: At the Crossroads between Monopolizing Nature and Protecting Technological Innovation?, 16 J. W. Intell. Prop. 2013, 132.

V. Prifti (2013), The Breeding Exemption in Patent Law: Analysis of Compliance with Article 30 of the TRIPS Agreement, 16 J. W. Intell. Prop. 2013, 218-219.

K.J. Strandburg (2004), What Does the Public Get? Experimental Use and the Patent Bargain, Wis. L. Rev. 2004, 122.

G. van Overwalle (2006), The Implementation of the Biotechnology Directive and its After-Effects: The Introduction of a New Research Exemption and a Compulsory Licence for Public Health, 37 IIC 2006, 907.

C.M. Correa (2005), The International Dimension of the Research Exception, p. 23; C. Garrison (2006), Exceptions to Patent Rights in Developing Countries, UNCTAD-ICTSD Issue Paper No. 17, pp. 4-5; E. Misati & K. Adachi (2010), The Research and Experimentation Exceptions in Patent Law: Jurisdictional Variations and the WIPO Development Agenda, UNCTAD-ICTSD Policy Brief No. 7, pp. 3-6.

Ibid., pp. 4, 6.

V. Prifti (2013), The Breeding Exemption in Patent Law: Analysis of Compliance with Article 30 of the TRIPS Agreement, 16 J. W. Intell. Prop. 2013, 219.

Ibid., 236, note 4, mentioning the pharmaceutical, biofuel, chemical and cosmetics industry.

See the overview in C.M. Correa (2005), The International Dimension of the Research Exception, pp. 34-66.

Ibid., p. 31.

W.R. Cornish (1998), Experimental Use of Patented Inventions in European Community States, 29 IIC 1998, 735; E. Misati & K. Adachi (2010), The Research and Experimentation Exceptions in Patent Law: Jurisdictional Variations and the WIPO Development Agenda, UNCTAD-ICTSD Policy Brief No. 7, p. 3.

UNCTAD-ICTSD (2005), Resource Book on TRIPS and Development, p. 443.

N. Louwaars et al. (2009), Breeding Business: The Future of Plant Breeding in the Light of Developments in Patent Rights and Plant Breeder’s Rights, p. 17; S.J.R. Bostyn (2013), Patentability of Plants: At the Crossroads between Monopolizing Nature and Protecting Technological Innovation?, 16 J. W. Intell. Prop. 2013, 133-134. See also the list of countries in WIPO (2010), Patent Related Flexibilities in the Multilateral Legal Framework and their Legislative Implementation at the National and Regional Levels, WIPO Doc. CDIP/5/4 Rev., p. 21.

C. Dent (2011), The TRIPS Agreement and an Experimental Use Exception for ‘Research Tools’, 44 Australian Econ. Rev. 2011, 76-77.

H. Grosse Ruse-Khan (2011), Assessing the Need for a General Public Interest Exception in the TRIPS Agreement, in A. Kur & M. Levin (Eds.), Intellectual Property Rights in a Fair World Trade System: Proposals for Reform of TRIPS, p. 183; A. Kur (2011), Limitations and Exceptions under the Three-Step Test – How much Room to Walk the Middle Ground?, in A. Kur & M. Levin (Eds.), Intellectual Property Rights in a Fair World Trade System: Proposals for Reform of TRIPS, p. 227.

R.C. Dreyfuss (2009), Fostering Dynamic Innovation, Development and Trade: Intellectual Property as a Case Study in Global Administrative Law, Acta Juridica 2009, 252-255.

A. Kur (2011), Limitations and Exceptions under the Three-Step Test – How much Room to Walk the Middle Ground?, in A. Kur & M. Levin (Eds.), Intellectual Property Rights in a Fair World Trade System: Proposals for Reform of TRIPS, pp. 236-237, 239.

C. Garrison (2006), Exceptions to Patent Rights in Developing Countries, UNCTAD-ICTSD Issue Paper No. 17, pp. 41-42.

C.M. Correa (2005), The International Dimension of the Research Exception, p. 10.

L. Bently (2011), Exclusions from Patentability and Exceptions to Patentees’ Rights: Taking Exceptions Seriously, 64 CLP 2011, 346-347.

C. Geiger, J. Griffiths & R.M. Hilty (2008), Declaration on a Balanced Interpretation of the ‘Three-Step Test’ in Copyright Law, 39 IIC 2008, 709.

H. Grosse Ruse-Khan (2011), Assessing the Need for a General Public Interest Exception in the TRIPS Agreement, in A. Kur & M. Levin (Eds.), Intellectual Property Rights in a Fair World Trade System: Proposals for Reform of TRIPS; A. Kur (2011), Limitations and Exceptions under the Three-Step Test – How much Room to Walk the Middle Ground?, in A. Kur & M. Levin (Eds.), Intellectual Property Rights in a Fair World Trade System: Proposals for Reform of TRIPS.

H.M. Haugen (2007), The Right to Food and the TRIPS Agreement: With a Particular Emphasis on Developing Countries’ Measures for Food Production and Distribution, p. 243.

C.M. Correa (2005), The International Dimension of the Research Exception, p. 16.

V. Prifti (2013), The Breeding Exemption in Patent Law: Analysis of Compliance with Article 30 of the TRIPS Agreement, 16 J. W. Intell. Prop. 2013, 225.

C.M. Correa (2005), The International Dimension of the Research Exception, pp. 34-66.

See for example the provisions in Albania, Argentina, Bahrain, Bolivia, Kazakhstan, Nicaragua and others. See also the countries listed in WIPO (2010), Patent Related Flexibilities in the Multilateral Legal Framework and their Legislative Implementation at the National and Regional Levels, WIPO Doc. CDIP/5/4 Rev., p. 21.

UNCTAD-ICTSD (2005), Resource Book on TRIPS and Development, p. 437.

M.R. Dove (2000), The Life-Cycle of Indigenous Knowledge, and the Case of Natural Rubber Production, in R. Ellen, P. Parkes & A. Bicker (Eds.), Indigenous Environmental Knowledge and its Transformations: Critical Anthropological Perspectives, p. 215.

M.R. Dove (2012), The Banana Tree at the Gate: A History of Marginal Peoples and Global Markets in Borneo, p. 201.

C.M. Correa (2005), The International Dimension of the Research Exception.

See also P. van der Kooij (2010), Towards a Breeder’s Exemption in Patent Law?, 32 EIPR 2010, 549.

C. Dent (2011), The TRIPS Agreement and an Experimental Use Exception for ‘Research Tools’, 44 Australian Econ. Rev. 77; K.J. Strandburg (2004), What Does the Public Get? Experimental Use and the Patent Bargain, Wis. L. Rev. 2004, 138-146.

C. Dent et al. (2006), Research Use of Patented Knowledge: A Review, STI Working Paper 2006/2, pp. 38-39.

C.M. Correa (2012), TRIPS-Related Patent Flexibilities and Food Security: Options for Developing Countries, p. 15.

Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions; P. van der Kooij (2010), Towards a Breeder’s Exemption in Patent Law?, 32 EIPR 2010, 547-548.

J.J. Fox (2014), Fast Breeding Insect is Devastating Java’s Rice – Thanks to Pesticides, Jakarta Globe of 7 March 2014.

N. Louwaars et al. (2009), Breeding Business: The Future of Plant Breeding in the Light of Developments in Patent Rights and Plant Breeder’s Rights, p. 53; P. van der Kooij (2010), Towards a Breeder’s Exemption in Patent Law?, 32 EIPR 2010, 545.

V. Prifti (2013), The Breeding Exemption in Patent Law: Analysis of Compliance with Article 30 of the TRIPS Agreement, 16 J. W. Intell. Prop. 2013, 222.

Ibid., 226; L. Bently (2011), Exclusions from Patentability and Exceptions to Patentees’ Rights: Taking Exceptions Seriously, 64 CLP 2011, 343.

See also P. van der Kooij (2010), Towards a Breeder’s Exemption in Patent Law?, 32 EIPR 2010, 552.

V. Prifti (2013), The Breeding Exemption in Patent Law: Analysis of Compliance with Article 30 of the TRIPS Agreement, 16 J. W. Intell. Prop. 2013, 235.

P. van der Kooij (2010), Towards a Breeder’s Exemption in Patent Law?, 32 EIPR 2010, 545.

C.G. Trojan (2012), Problem-solving Approaches to the Issue of the Overlap between Patent Law and Breeders’ Rights in the Plant Breeding Sector.

P. van der Kooij (2010), Towards a Breeder’s Exemption in Patent Law?, 32 EIPR 2010, 550.

For a detailed discussion see D. Leskien & M. Flitner (1997), Intellectual Property Rights and Plant Genetic Resources: Options for a Sui Generis System, IPGRI Issues in Genetic Resources No. 6; C.M. Correa (2000), Options for the Implementation of Farmers’ Rights at the National Level, S. Ctr. Working Paper No. 8.

R. Kanniah & C. Antons (2012), Plant Variety Protection and Traditional Agricultural Knowledge in Southeast Asia, 13 Australian J. Asian L. 2012, 12-13; E.O. Awuku (2008), Intellectual Property Rights, Biotechnology and Development: African Perspectives, in D. Würger & T. Cottier (Eds.), Genetic Engineering and the World Trade System, p. 115; T. Jaeger (2015), The EU Approach to IP Protection in Partnership Agreements, in C. Antons & R.M. Hilty (Eds.), Intellectual Property and Free Trade Agreements in the Asia-Pacific Region.

C. Antons (2010), Sui Generis Protection for Plant Varieties and Traditional Knowledge in Biodiversity and Agriculture: The International Framework and National Approaches in the Philippines and India, 6 Ind. J.L. Tech. 2010, 95, 103; B. Tobin (2013), Open Access Seeds and Breeds: The Role of the Commons in Protecting Farmers’ and Livestock Keeper’s Rights and Food Security, in C. Lawson & J. Sanderson (Eds.), The Intellectual Property and Food Project: From Rewarding Innovation and Creation to Feeding the World, pp. 86-90.

R. Andersen & T. Winge (2013), Realising Farmers’ Rights to Crop Genetic Resources: Success Stories and Best Practices.

T. Winge, R. Andersen & A. Ramanna Pathak (2013), Combining Farmers’ Rights and Plant Variety Protection in Indian Law, in R. Andersen & T. Winge (Eds.), Realising Farmers’ Rights to Crop Genetic Resources: Success Stories and Best Practices; S. Ragavan & J. Mayer (2007), Has India Addressed Its Farmers Woes? A Story of Plant Protection Issues, 20 Geo. Int’l Envtl. L. Rev. 2007, 97.

R. Sagar (2005), Intellectual Property, Benefit-Sharing and Traditional Knowledge: How Effective is the Indian Biological Diversity Act, 2002?, 8 J. W. Intell. Prop. 2005, 383; N.S. Gopalakrishnan (2002), Protection of Traditional Knowledge: The Need for a Sui Generis Law in India, 5 J. W. Intell. Prop. 2002, 725; C. Antons (2007), Sui Generis Protection for Plant Varieties and Traditional Agricultural Knowledge: The Example of India, 29 EIPR 2007, 480; C. Antons (2010), Sui Generis Protection for Plant Varieties and Traditional Knowledge in Biodiversity and Agriculture: The International Framework and National Approaches in the Philippines and India, 6 Ind. J.L. Tech. 2010, 89; B. Tobin (2013), Open Access Seeds and Breeds: The Role of the Commons in Protecting Farmers’ and Livestock Keeper’s Rights and Food Security, in C. Lawson & J. Sanderson (Eds.), The Intellectual Property and Food Project: From Rewarding Innovation and Creation to Feeding the World; R. Kanniah & C. Antons (2012), Plant Variety Protection and Traditional Agricultural Knowledge in Southeast Asia, 13 Australian J. Asian L. 2012, 1.

See the contributions in J.P. Brosius, A. Lowenhaupt Tsing & C. Zerner (2005), Communities and Conservation: Histories and Politics of Community-Based Natural Resource Management; C. Wittayapak & P. Vandergeest (2010), The Politics of Decentralization: Natural Resource Management in Asia.

E. Ostrom & C. Hess (2007), A Framework for Analyzing the Knowledge Commons, in C. Hess & E. Ostrom (Eds.), Understanding Knowledge as a Commons: From Theory to Practice.

P. Vandergeest & C. Wittayapak (2010), Decentralization and Politics, in C. Wittayapak & P. Vandergeest (Eds.), The Politics of Decentralization: Natural Resource Management in Asia.

L.R. Helfer & G.W. Austin (2011), Human Rights and Intellectual Property: Mapping the Global Interface, p. 388.

See also C.M. Correa (2012), TRIPS-Related Patent Flexibilities and Food Security: Options for Developing Countries, p. 13.

L.R. Helfer & G.W. Austin (2011), Human Rights and Intellectual Property: Mapping the Global Interface, p. 388, quoting J. Watal (2000), Intellectual Property Rights in the WTO and Developing Countries.

Andersen, R. & Winge, T. (2013), Realising Farmers’ Rights to Crop Genetic Resources: Success Stories and Best Practices, Abingdon (UK): Routledge

Google Scholar

Antons, C. (2007), Sui Generis Protection for Plant Varieties and Traditional Agricultural Knowledge: The Example of India, 29 EIPR 2007, 480, London: Sweet & Maxwell

Antons, C. (2010), Sui Generis Protection for Plant Varieties and Traditional Knowledge in Biodiversity and Agriculture: The International Framework and National Approaches in the Philippines and India, 6 Ind. J.L. Tech. 2010, 89, Bangalore: National Law School of India University

Aoki, K. (2008), Seed Wars: Controversies and Cases on Plant Genetic Resources and Intellectual Property, Durham, North Carolina: Carolina Academic Press

Arup, C. (2008), The World Trade Organization Knowledge Agreements, 2 nd ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Awuku, E.O. (2008), Intellectual Property Rights, Biotechnology and Development: African Perspectives, in D. Würger & T. Cottier (Eds.), Genetic Engineering and the World Trade System, pp. 109-117, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Barbosa, D.B. & Grau-Kuntz, K. (2010), Exclusions from Patentable Subject Matter and Exceptions and Limitations to the Rights: Biotechnology, WIPO SCP/15/3, available at: http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/scp/en/scp_15/scp_15_3-annex3.pdf (accessed 24 March 2015)

Bently, L. (2011), Exclusions from Patentability and Exceptions to Patentees’ Rights: Taking Exceptions Seriously, 64 CLP 2011, 315, Oxford: Oxford University Press

Bostyn, S.J.R. (2013), Patentability of Plants: At the Crossroads between Monopolizing Nature and Protecting Technological Innovation?, 16 J. W. Intell. Prop. 2013, 105, Malden: John Wiley & Sons

Brosius, J.P., Lowenhaupt Tsing, A. & Zerner, C. (2005), Communities and Conservation: Histories and Politics of Community-Based Natural Resource Management, Lanham, MD/Plymouth, UK: Altamira Press

Cornish, W.R. (1998), Experimental Use of Patented Inventions in European Community States, 29 IIC 1998, 735, Munich/Berlin: C.H. Beck/Springer

Correa, C.M. (2000), Options for the Implementation of Farmers’ Rights at the National Level, S. Ctr., T.R.A.D.E., Working Paper No. 8

Correa, C.M. (2005), The International Dimension of the Research Exception, Washington, DC: SIPPI Project, AAAS, available at: http://sippi.aaas.org/intlexemptionpaper.shtml (accessed 24 March 2015)

Correa, C.M. (2012), TRIPS-Related Patent Flexibilities and Food Security: Options for Developing Countries, Geneva: Quaker United Nations Office (QUNO) and International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD)

Curci, J. (2010), The Protection of Biodiversity and Traditional Knowledge in International Law of Intellectual Property, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Dent, C. (2011), The TRIPS Agreement and an Experimental Use Exception for ‘Research Tools’, 44 Australian Econ. Rev. 2011, 73, Malden: John Wiley & Sons

Dent, C. et al. (2006), Research Use of Patented Knowledge: A Review, STI Working Paper 2006/2, Paris: OECD Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry

Dinwoodie, G. & Dreyfuss, R. (2007), Diversifying Without Discriminating: Complying with the Mandates of the TRIPS Agreement, 13 Mich. Telecomm. Tech. L. Rev. 2007, 445, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Law School

Dove, M.R. (2000), The Life-Cycle of Indigenous Knowledge, and the Case of Natural Rubber Production, in R. Ellen, P. Parkes & A. Bicker (Eds.), Indigenous Environmental Knowledge and its Transformations: Critical Anthropological Perspectives, pp. 213-248, London: Routledge

Dove, M.R. (2012), The Banana Tree at the Gate: A History of Marginal Peoples and Global Markets in Borneo, Singapore: NUS Press

Drahos, P. & Braithwaite, J. (2002), Information Feudalism: Who Owns the Knowledge Economy?, London: Earthscan

Drahos, P. (2010), The Global Governance of Knowledge: Patent Offices and their Clients, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Dreyfuss, R.C. (2009), Fostering Dynamic Innovation, Development and Trade: Intellectual Property as a Case Study in Global Administrative Law, Acta Juridica 2009, 237, Claremont: Juta Law

Fox, J.J. (2014), Fast Breeding Insect is Devastating Java’s Rice – Thanks to Pesticides, Jakarta Globe of 7 March 2014

Garrison, C. (2006), Exceptions to Patent Rights in Developing Countries, Geneva: UNCTAD-ICTSD Issue Paper No. 17

Geiger, C., Griffiths, J. & Hilty R.M. (2008), Declaration on a Balanced Interpretation of the ‘Three-Step test’ in Copyright Law, 39 IIC 2008, 707, Munich/Berlin: C.H. Beck/Springer

Gervais, D. (2008), The TRIPS Agreement: Drafting History and Analysis, 3 rd ed., London: Thomson Reuters

Gopalakrishnan, N.S. (2002), Protection of Traditional Knowledge: The Need for a Sui Generis Law in India, 5 J. W. Intell. Prop. 2002, 725, Malden: John Wiley & Sons

Grosse Ruse-Khan, H. (2011), Assessing the Need for a General Public Interest Exception in the TRIPS Agreement, in A. Kur & M. Levin (Eds.), Intellectual Property Rights in a Fair World Trade System: Proposals for Reform of TRIPS, pp. 167-207, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar

Haugen, H.M. (2007), The Right to Food and the TRIPS Agreement: With a Particular Emphasis on Developing Countries’ Measures for Food Production and Distribution, Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers

Haugen, H.M. (2009), Human Rights and TRIPS Exclusion and Exception Provisions, 11 J. W. Intell. Prop. 2009, 345, Malden: John Wiley & Sons

Haugen, H.M., Muller M.R. & Narashiman S.M. (2011), Food Security and Intellectual Property Rights: Finding the Linkages, in T. Wong & G. Dutfield (Eds.), Intellectual Property and Human Development: Current Trends and Future Scenarios, pp. 103-138, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Helfer, L.R. & Austin, G.W. (2011), Human Rights and Intellectual Property: Mapping the Global Interface, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Hubicki, S. & Sherman, B. (2005), Terminator Genes as “Technical” Protection Measures for Patents?, in C. Heath & A. Kamperman Sanders (Eds.), New Frontiers of Intellectual Property Law: IP and Cultural Heritage, Geographical Indications, Enforcement and Overprotection, pp. 267-289, Oxford/Portland, Oregon: Hart Publishing

Jaeger, T. (2015), The EU Approach to IP Protection in Partnership Agreements, in C. Antons & R.M. Hilty (Eds.), Intellectual Property and Free Trade Agreements in the Asia-Pacific Region, pp. 171-210, Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer

Kanniah, R. & Antons, C. (2012), Plant Variety Protection and Traditional Agricultural Knowledge in Southeast Asia, 13 Australian J. Asian L. 2012, 1, Annandale, NSW: The Federation Press

Kur, A. (2011), Limitations and Exceptions under the Three-Step Test – How much Room to Walk the Middle Ground?, in A. Kur & M. Levin (Eds.), Intellectual Property Rights in a Fair World Trade System: Proposals for Reform of TRIPS, pp. 208-261, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar

Leskien, D. & Flitner, M. (1997), Intellectual Property Rights and Plant Genetic Resources: Options for a Sui Generis System, IPGRI, Issues in Genetic Resources No. 6

Llewelyn, M. (2003), Which Rules in World Trade Law – Patents or Plant Variety Protection?, in T. Cottier & P.C. Mavroidis (Eds.), Intellectual Property: Trade, Competition and Sustainable Development, pp. 303-339, Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press

Louwaars, N. et al. (2009), Breeding Business: The Future of Plant Breeding in the Light of Developments in Patent Rights and Plant Breeder’s Rights, Wageningen: Centre for Genetic Resources

Misati, E. & Adachi, K. (2010), The Research and Experimentation Exceptions in Patent Law: Jurisdictional Variations and the WIPO Development Agenda, Geneva, UNCTAD-ICTSD, Policy Brief Number 7, March 2010

Ng-Loy, W.L. (2015), IP and FTAs of Singapore: Ten Years On, in C. Antons & R.M. Hilty (Eds.), Free Trade Agreements and Intellectual Property in the Asia-Pacific Region, pp. 337-353, Heidelberg/Berlin: Springer

Ostrom, E. & Hess, C. (2007), A Framework for Analyzing the Knowledge Commons, in C. Hess & E. Ostrom (Eds.), Understanding Knowledge as a Commons: From Theory to Practice, pp. 41-81, Cambridge, Mass./London: The MIT Press

Prifti, V. (2013), The Breeding Exemption in Patent Law: Analysis of Compliance with Article 30 of the TRIPS Agreement, 16 J. W. Intell. Prop. 2013, 218, Malden: John Wiley & Sons

Ragavan, S. & Mayer, J. (2007), Has India Addressed Its Farmers Woes? A Story of Plant Protection Issues, 20 Geo. Int’l Envtl. L. Rev. 2007, 97, Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Law Center

Rimmer, M. (2013), Patent-Busting: The Public Patent Foundation, Gene Patents and the Seed Wars, in C. Lawson & J. Sanderson (Eds.), The Intellectual Property and Food Project: From Rewarding Innovation and Creation to Feeding the World, pp. 201-249. Farnham, Surrey/Burlington, VT: Ashgate

Roffe, P. (2008), Bringing Minimum Intellectual Property Standards into Agriculture: The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), in G. Tansey & T. Rajotte (Eds.), The Future Control of Food, pp. 48-68, London: Earthscan

Sagar, R. (2005), Intellectual Property, Benefit-Sharing and Traditional Knowledge: How Effective is the Indian Biological Diversity Act, 2002?, 8 J. W. Intell. Prop. 2005, 383, Malden: John Wiley & Sons

Sell, S.K. (2003), Private Power, Public Law: The Globalization of Intellectual Property Rights, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Smeltzer, S. (2008), The Message is the Market: Selling Biotechnology and Nation in Malaysia, in J. Nevins & N.L. Peluso (Eds.), Taking Southeast Asia to Market: Commodities, Nature, and People in the Neoliberal Age, pp. 191-205, Ithaca/London: Cornell University Press

Strandburg, K.J. (2004), What does the Public get? Experimental Use and the Patent Bargain, Wis. L. Rev. 2004, 81, Madison: University of Wisconsin Law School

Strandburg, K.J. (2009), Evolving Innovation Paradigms and the Global Intellectual Property Regime, 41 Conn. L. Rev. 2009, 861, Hartford: University of Connecticut School of Law

Tobin, B. (2013), Open Access Seeds and Breeds: The Role of the Commons in Protecting Farmers’ and Livestock Keeper’s Rights and Food Security, in C. Lawson & J. Sanderson (Eds.), The Intellectual Property and Food Project: From Rewarding Innovation and Creation to Feeding the World, pp. 75-100. Farnham, Surrey/Burlington, VT: Ashgate

Trojan, C.G. (2012), Problem-solving Approaches to the Issue of the Overlap between Patent Law and Breeders’ Rights in the Plant Breeding Sector. Report submitted to the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation, available at the website of the International Association of Horticultural Producers, http://www.aiph.org/site/index.cfm?act=download.mod&doc…trojan (accessed 30 September 2014)

UNCTAD-ICTSD (2005), Resource Book on TRIPS and Development, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Vandergeest, P. & Wittayapak, C. (2010), Decentralization and Politics, in C. Wittayapak & P. Vandergeest (Eds.), The Politics of Decentralization: Natural Resource Management in Asia, pp. 1-20, Chiang Mai: Mekong Press

Van der Kooij, P. (2010), Towards a Breeder’s Exemption in Patent Law?, 32 EIPR 2010, 545, London: Sweet & Maxwell

Van Overwalle, G. (2006), The Implementation of the Biotechnology Directive and its After-Effects: The Introduction of a New Research Exemption and a Compulsory Licence for Public Health, 37 IIC 2006, 889, Munich/Berlin: C.H. Beck/Springer

Van Overwalle, G. (2008), Biotechnology and Patents: Global Standards, European Approaches and National Accents, in D. Würger & T. Cottier (Eds.), Genetic Engineering and the World Trade System, pp. 77-108, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Watal, J. (2000), Intellectual Property Rights in the WTO and Developing Countries, London/The Hague/Boston: Kluwer Law International

Winge, T., Andersen, R. & Ramanna Pathak, A. (2013), Combining Farmers’ Rights and Plant Variety Protection in Indian Law, in R. Andersen & T. Winge (Eds.), Realising Farmers’ Rights to Crop Genetic Resources: Success Stories and Best Practices, pp. 54-61, Abingdon, UK: Routledge

Wittayapak, C. & Vandergeest, P. (2010), The Politics of Decentralization: Natural Resource Management in Asia, Chiang Mai: Mekong Press

World Intellectual Property Organization (2010), Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP), Patent Related Flexibilities in the Multilateral Legal Framework and their Legislative Implementation at the National and Regional Levels, WIPO Doc. CDIP/5/4 Rev. of 18 August 2010, available at: http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/doc_details.jsp?doc_id=131629 (accessed 30 September 2014)

Download references

Acknowledgement

This research was supported under the Australian Research Council’s Discovery Project’s funding scheme (project number DP130100213).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Business and Law, School of Law, Deakin University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

Christoph Antons

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christoph Antons .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich, Germany

Hanns Ullrich

Reto M. Hilty

Matthias Lamping

Josef Drexl

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Antons, C. (2016). Article 27(3)(b) TRIPS and Plant Variety Protection in Developing Countries. In: Ullrich, H., Hilty, R., Lamping, M., Drexl, J. (eds) TRIPS plus 20. MPI Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law, vol 25. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-48107-3_12

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-48107-3_12

Publisher Name : Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

Print ISBN : 978-3-662-48106-6

Online ISBN : 978-3-662-48107-3

eBook Packages : Law and Criminology Law and Criminology (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Find a journal
Track your research

Review of Article 27.3(b) Under TRIPS Agreement: OurLegalWorld

Written by admin

Updated on: April 6, 2024

Table of Contents

Review of Article 27.3(b) Under TRIPS Agreement

Introduction

In the age of globalization, the pace of technology adoption was unprecedented. As a result, intellectual property rights, especially patent law, are required to be stricter. To achieve this goal. The trade-related aspect of intellectual property (TRIP) is Delayed participation in multilateral trade negotiations under the auspices of GATT the eighth round in Uruguay is currently forming an essential and important agreement with the WTO. It is the most controversial region and is widely debated around the world for its vastness. Especially effective in the patent field. TRIPs Agreement has expanded its scope Article 27 Patent Subject by stipulating whether all inventions are patentable It is imported to a country that works locally or is subsidized.

Also Read: REGIONAL TRADING BLOCS: STUMBLING OR BUILDING BLOCKS?

However, some exceptions are allowed Conforms to sections 2 and 3 of the same article, but already with exceptions The provisions of Article 27.3 (b) shall be reviewed four years after implementation. TRIPs Agreement. These provisions have been revised since the WTO came into effect on January 1, 1995. Deadlocks still exist from 1999 to the present and are under review. I have it now Differences of opinion between two different political parties on this issue. Attempt Leading biotechnology companies patenting biological materials from developing countries Will be resisted. In addition, the development and release of genetically modified seeds u Harvesting raises concerns in many areas. Countries don’t want to compromise Food security for their population. Given the ongoing review negotiations that are taking place A particular issue highlighted by different countries, this treatise attempts I will summarize some important points from various perspectives. After reviewing Article 27.3 (b) It revolves around the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and Traditional Knowledge (TC). Efforts have also been made to briefly review the relevant provisions of these and related terms. Related implementation aspects. The purpose of the study is to generate and increase Understand the relationship between TRIPS and CBD, including TK. Research Many issues that may be relevant to developing countries when dealing with interfaces Between these disciplines where an understanding of law and economics represents a unique analysis Challenge to politics. The methodology chosen is purely analytical and existing available materials.

Also Read: Pharmaceutical and Medical Diagnostics Innovation and Patents under the TRIPS and Indian Patent Law

The TRIPS Agreement is seen as a comprehensive new framework primarily to protect intellectual property in trade-sensitive areas and to protect intellectual property protection standards. It is also worth noting that the TRIPs Agreement is the first legal agreement to cover all areas of intellectual property with a series of specific provisions. The three main points of the agreement are: Standards-All Member States must provide a minimum standard to protect the intellectual property rights of each IP category covered by the contract. Each area of intellectual property is treated as if all essential aspects of protection were all, such as the subject to be protected, the rights granted, the possibility of exceptions to these rights, and the minimum duration of protection. Is stated. Enforcement-The second set of clauses focuses on national procedures and remedies for enforcing intellectual property rights. The Agreement sets out a comprehensive set of rules that apply to all IPR enforcement activities. It also includes provisions for civil and administrative procedures and remedies, interim measures, special border requirements and criminal procedures.

All of these outline the procedures and remedies that the right holder must provide in order to exercise their rights. Dispute Resolution-Disputes between WTO Member States over liability arising under the TRIPS Agreement are subject to WTO dispute resolution procedures. Only a few years have passed since the TRIPS Agreement generally came into effect, Several proposals have already been submitted for review. Part of these coverage areas Belongs to the “Built-in Agenda” (UNCTAD 1999), that is, geographical issues Notice (Article 23.4), Patentability of Biological Inventions (Article 27.3 (b)), and “Non-Infringement” Cases(Article 64). There are also many proposals that exceed this limit. Review WTO Member States submitted a review of Section 27.3 (b) As a representative of the TRIPS Board of Directors, he gives different views on issues related to: TRIPS and his CBD relationship, intellectual property rights and traditional knowledge, microbial and genetic department or life form patents. Developing countries and Least Developed countries have succeeded in exerting pressure as a whole Developed or industrialized countries that help absorb. Uruguay Round provisions for multilateral trade negotiations.

DOHA Ministerial Conference

The Doha Ministerial Conference held in November 2001 had also unanimously concluded on the note that certain issues of Trade Related Aspects of the Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) would be negotiated and reviewed. Among other issues discussed the issues regarding Review of Article 27.3 (b) relating to patentability of micro -organisms and non-,biological and microbiological processes; and Review of implementation of TRIPS Agreement under Article 71.1 and other relevant new development pointed out by the member countries regarding this Article; were the highlights. At Doha it was also speculated to examine the relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and protection traditional knowledge (TK) and folklore; The Doha Ministerial Declaration also laid down stress upon that while undertaking the Work Program relating to TRIPS Agreement ‘the TRIPS Council shall be guided by the objectives and principles set out in Articles 7 and 8 of TRIPS Agreement and shall take fully into account the development dimensions arising from the mandate of the Work Programme. Another important thing the TRIPS Agreement holds is the Article 71.1 which runs as “The Council shall, having regard to the experience gained in its implementation, review it two years after that date and at identical intervals thereafter. The Council may also undertake reviews in the light of any relevant new developments which might warrant modification or amendment of this Agreement”.

Recent Updates

In recent years, the TRIPS Council has Suigeneris plant variety protection for patent protection and access related to life forms, Transfer and dissemination of technology. The three main agenda items for the review structure are: Section 27.3 (b), TRIPS-CBD Relationship and Traditional Protection Knowledge and folklore. Various other issues, such as capacity, are also being discussed. Development and technology transfer in developing and least developed countries These countries are to achieve the objectives of Article 7 of the TRIPS Agreement. In the discussion, it was a view that emphasized concerns about intellectual property. Rights to living organisms and genetic material can make access more difficult and increase costs Techniques in this area with the exclusive right granted to the right holder to prevent others from doing so From the use of protected techniques. While the African group is saying the subject Whether and how intellectual property rights such as patents and breeder rights lead to transfer Technology investment, transfer, dissemination, R & D We need to investigate developing countries. 29 The United States responded completely Implementation of TRIPS provisions by developing countries, including the provisions of Article 27.3 (b) Build the trust of domestic and foreign investors and stimulate investment Innovative and creativ companies in these countries 30. Japan supported the view of the United States. In addition, we confirmed that if the technology is in the hands of the private sector, it can be transferred. Most effectively through market mechanisms such as licenses and license agreements Proper protection of intellectual property is an important prerequisite.

Written by Dhawani Sharma B.Com LLB(Hons.) Amity Law School

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/intel2_e.htm

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/art27_3b_background_e.htm#:~:text=Article%2027.3(b)%2C%20explained,cover%20all%20fields%20of%20technology. https://blog.ipleaders.in/all-you-need-to-know-about-the-trips-agreement/

Pharmaceutical and Medical Diagnostics Innovation and Patents under the TRIPS and Indian Patent Law

Form of appeal for cestat under section 129a: legal draft.

NEELA FILM PRODUCTIONS PVT LTD V TAARAKMEHTAKAOOLTAHCHASHMAH.COM AND ORS

Novartis ag v. union of india, intellectual property in the age of generative artificial intelligence, anil kapoor v. simply life india and ors: personality rights.

Latest News

NEELA FILM PRODUCTIONS PVT LTD V TAARAKMEHTAKAOOLTAHCHASHMAH

18th Pro Bono Enviro National Moot Court Competition, 2024

Dnlu student law journal-online is inviting submissions on a rolling basis.

TAX LAWS CLUB

Help & FAQ

Article 27(3)(b) TRIPS and plant variety protection in developing countries

Research output : Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding › Chapter › peer-review

In comparison with industrialised countries, agriculture in developing countries accounts for a substantial share of GDP and involves a substantial sector of small-holders and traditional agriculturalists. In view of these differences, the biotechnology clause of Article 27.3.b TRIPS with its requirement of plant variety protection either by patents or an effective sui generis system or a combination of the two has been controversial. However, developing countries have made surprisingly little use of the freedom to design their own systems in this field. Instead, there has been a surge in UPOV membership among developing countries and some have gone as far as introducing patent protection for plant varieties. Such countries now have to consider the same exclusions and exceptions to patenting that are normally discussed in countries with much more advanced biotechnology industries. The chapter examines the scope for the use of orde public considerations under Article 27.2 TRIPS, of exceptions for research and experimental purposes under Article 30 TRIPS, compulsory licensing under Article 31 TRIPS as well as the advantages of a specific breeding exemption and it briefly comments on the various sui generis options. While liberal interpretations of the TRIPS exceptions remain possible, the chapter concludes that the majority of developing countries will be better off in more creatively using the freedom to develop sui generis systems suitable for their local conditions rather than struggling to introduce TRIPS conform 'limited exceptions' to patent protection for plant varieties.

Publication series

plant variety protection
developing countries
agriculture
biotechnology
orde public
breeding exemption
compulsory licensing
research exceptions

Access to Document

10.1007/978-3-662-48107-3_12

Taking Forward the Review of Article 27.3(b) of the TRIPs Agreement

Africa Group

The Africa Group report aims to assist in finalising longstanding issues relating to the review of provisions of the WTO's Article 27.3(b) of the TRIPs Agreement. To this end, the communication first indicates the solutions that the Africa Group considers need to be found; secondly it sets out possible areas of agreement on issues that have arisen; thirdly it provides suggestions on how to resolve issues that members have not been able to reach a common understanding on for the moment; and then suggests the way forward.

Agriculture & Food Systems
Climate Solutions
Trade & Governance
Additional Topics
Publications
Staff Directory
Board of Directors
Annual Reports and Financials
Jobs and Internships

Wikimedia Commons / LoneStarMike / CC BY 3.0

The 10 Best Views in Austin

Published : September 19, 2024

AAA Travel Editor, WA

Table of contents.

Mount Bonnell
Zilker Metropolitan Park
Mayfield Park and Nature Preserve
Doug Sahm Hill
Lou Neff Point
Pennybacker Bridge And Overlook Hike
Hippie Hollow Park
Hornsby Bend Bird Observatory
Barton Creek Square Mall
Twin Falls and Sculpture Falls

Plan Your Trip to Austin with AAA.

Austin is with unique beauty that takes many forms: expansive parks, hidden hiking trails, vibrant murals and much more. There are many ways to enjoy the sights in this remarkable city, but sometimes what you’re looking for is destination with a great view.

No matter how you explore this scenic city, you’ll be able to find plenty of locations with impressive views. To help find the best ones for your trip, we’ve laid out information on the 10 best views in Austin.

1. Mount Bonnell

Address: 3800 Mt Bonnell Road, Austin
Parking: Free parking available near the street at Covert Park

No trip to Austin is truly complete without a visit to the city's highest peak . This is where you can enjoy sweeping views of the city, as well as one of the best sunsets in all of Texas. You'll also get your steps in for the day, as you ascend over 100 steps to reach the peak at Covert Park.

When you reach the top, feel free to rest at one of the conveniently located benches or picnic tables. Information displays provide in-depth insights into the area's fascinating geology, flora and fauna, so take your time and enjoy a remarkable learning experience.

2. Zilker Metropolitan Park

Address: 2100 Barton Springs Road, Austin
Parking: Multiple paid lots available within walking distance

Another must-visit for an outdoorsy trip to Austin, Zilker is often referred to as the city's crown jewel. Home to the iconic Barton Springs Pool , this sprawling park is a true oasis. The botanical gardens are worth a visit when you crave lush scenery, but any area within the park is sure to provide a visual feast. Many areas provide extraordinary skyline views which make for a great location to view the impressive sunset.

3. Mayfield Park and Nature Preserve

Address: 3505 West 35th Street, Austin
Parking: Free parking lot and nearby street parking

After you hit up all of Austin's best skyline spots, head for Mayfield Park to enjoy a completely different type of scenery. There, you'll have the chance to gaze at the creek and memorable rock formations as you meander along the well-maintained walking trails.

4. Doug Sahm Hill

Address: 1000 Barton Springs Road, Austin
Parking: Limited parking available at onsite paid lot with additional parking across the street near the Roy and Ann Butler Hike and Bike Trail

As Butler Metro Park's highest point, Doug Sahm Hill provides the rare opportunity for vacationing parents to have it all: a place to keep kids entertained while also enjoying a few moments of scenic bliss at one of Austin's most beautiful spots.

The area's true visual appeal centers around the hill named after talented musician Doug Sahm. This hill is not particularly difficult to climb and the rewards at the top are considerable: lovely views of Butler Metro Park and the Austin skyline.

5. Lou Neff Point

Address: 2114 Lou Neff Road, Austin
Parking: Nearby paid parking lots available along Lou Neff Road

As one of many highlights along the popular Roy and Ann Butler Hike and Bike Trail, Lou Neff is something of a hidden gem, tucked away within one of Austin's most expansive green spaces. Named after former Austin Junior League president Lou Neff, this scenic spot reveals where Barton Creek and Lady Bird Lake meet.

Several benches are conveniently located in the most scenic area, making this an ideal resting resting point midway through your walk or bike ride. In addition to spectacular skyline views, this is also a great place to spot ducks and even swans.

6. Pennybacker Bridge And Overlook Hike

Address: 5200 North Capital of Texas Highway, Austin
Parking: Free onsite parking lot

Sometimes referred to as the Austin 360 Bridge, Pennybacker Bridge offers sweeping views of both Hill Country and the skyline. It also has a fascinating history as the world's second bridge to be constructed using a cable support system. Stunning views can be expected while driving across the bridge, however, there's an even better way to take in these amazing vistas: while hiking the out-and-back overlook trail. This hike may be busy at sunset, but it's gorgeous any time of day.

7. Hippie Hollow Park

Address: 7000 Comanche Trail, Austin
Parking: Paid lot onsite

There's more to view at Hippie Hollow than steep cliffs or even Lake Travis. This is a clothing-optional destination and, as a strictly 18+ attraction, it's not a family destination. Despite this, many initially skeptical visitors are delighted to discover that they adore this relaxed spot, where nudity is by no means required. The park has friendly vibes and lovely views, so it's worth adding to your itinerary if you're not bothered by its clothing-optional status.

8. Hornsby Bend Bird Observatory

Address: 2210 South FM 973, Austin
Parking: Free parking available onsite

A wastewater treatment plant might not seem like the best place to enjoy top views in Austin, but you will be surprised at how delightful such an unusual destination can be when it involves Austin's Hornsby Bend Bird Observatory. Birdwatchers flock to this area, which attracts all kinds of shorebirds along with beautiful butterflies. This observatory links to the River Trail, which while being short, beckons bird enthusiasts to explore.

9. Barton Creek Square Mall

Address: 2901 South Capital of Texas Highway, Austin
Parking: Extensive onsite parking available in the shopping mall lot

Barton Creek Square is home to typical shopping stores and chains such as Macy's, Nordstrom, Old Navy and the like. This mall's true appeal lies not within its many stores, however, but in the parking lot, which provides surprisingly scenic views of the city. Visit on a Saturday to check out the adjacent Barton Creek Farmers Market, where you'll find an abundance of fresh produce, along with kombucha, chocolate and even live music.

10. Twin Falls and Sculpture Falls

Address: 3918 South MoPac Expressway, Austin
Parking: Free parking available at the dedicated Sculpture Falls lot

Austin is home to many lovely waterfalls — and with the right hike, you can view two within a single expedition. A top section of the Barton Creek Greenbelt will bring you to Twin Falls and Sculpture Falls, which are equally spectacular. The falls themselves are remarkable, but the beauty of this experience also lies in the lush forest and dramatic rock walls. This experience is both scenic and fun, as you can take a refreshing dip in the swimming hole.

Join the over a million people who are AAA members and start planning your trip to Austin today. Dream up the perfect trip and use your membership to get the best discounts on hotels , rental cars and entertainment tickets.

Travel like an expert with aaa and trip canvas, get ideas from the pros.

As one of the largest travel agencies in North America, we have a wealth of recommendations to share! Browse our articles and videos for inspiration, or dive right in with preplanned AAA Road Trips, cruises and vacation tours.

Build and Research Your Options

Save and organize every aspect of your trip including cruises, hotels, activities, transportation and more. Book hotels confidently using our AAA Diamond Designations and verified reviews.

Book Everything in One Place

From cruises to day tours, buy all parts of your vacation in one transaction, or work with our nationwide network of AAA Travel Agents to secure the trip of your dreams!

latest in US News

NYC's first Rainforest Cafe to open — but there's a catch

Federal judge delivers another blow to Biden’s student loan...

Mom of budding journalist killed in East River chopper crash wins...

Trump suggests capping annual credit card interest rates at 10%...

NYC Council rolls out bill to repeal Mayor Adams' policy forcing...

Ex-college athlete who bit elderly stranger's ear off on train...

Tajik migrants with suspected ISIS ties planned to attack a LGBTQ...

'White woman war zone': Trader Joe’s viral $2.99 mini tote bags...

Elderly woman sustains third-degree burns, evacuated by helicopter after yellowstone trip goes awry.

YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK, Wyo. – A park visitor from New Hampshire experienced severe burns to her lower leg while walking in a thermal area at Yellowstone National Park.

Park officials said the 60-year-old woman was walking off-trail with her husband and leashed dog near Mallard Lake Trailhead at Old Faithful when she stepped and broke through a thin crust over scalding water.

The woman was then evaluated at a park medical clinic and later transported by helicopter to Eastern Idaho Regional Medical Center for further treatment.

She reportedly suffered second- and third-degree burns. Neither her husband nor dog were injured.

This is the first known thermal injury in Yellowstone National Park this year, park officials said.

The NPS urges visitors to remain on boardwalks and trails while exploring hydrothermal areas, and to exercise extreme caution.

They noted that the ground in the thermal areas is fragile and thin, and scalding water lies just below the surface.

Tourists gathering on a boardwalk in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming to watch the eruption of Old Faithful geyser on August 10, 2024.

The water at Old Faithful’s vent is 204 degrees, and the water deeper inside the geyser’s plumbing is much hotter, according to the NPS.

Park officials also remind visitors that pets are not permitted in thermal areas, on boardwalks, hiking trails or in the backcountry.

IMAGES

PPT
PPT
Review of Article 27.3(b) Under TRIPS Agreement: OurLegalWorld
PPT
PPT
PPT

COMMENTS

World Trade Organization
We would like to show you a description here but the site won't allow us.
Review of Article 27.3(B) Under TRIPs Agreement: A Critical Analysis
The TRIPs Agreement had widened the scope of patents subject matter in Article 27 by providing that all the inventions are patentable whether worked locally or imported in the country of its grant. ... Verma, Dharam Prakash, Review of Article 27.3(B) Under TRIPs Agreement: A Critical Analysis (April 11, 2010). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn ...
For a full review of TRIPS 27.3 (b)
Article 27.3 (b), in which these rules are spelled out, was due to be reviewed in 1999. This paper summarises what occurred with the review of TRIPS Article 27.3 (b) in 1999. It shares GRAIN's understanding of how far developing countries are in the process of implementing the obligation to provide IPR over plant varieties.
PDF Agreement on Trips: Legal Framework for Plant Variety Protection
Rights (TRIPS) requires all WTO members to provide for intellectual property pro-tection for plant varieties. According to the TRIPS Article 27.3 (b), protection is to be provided "… either by patents or by an effective sui generis ('of its own kind' in Latin) system or by any combination thereof". Since sui generis itself can take
Review of TRIPs Art 27.3(b): strategic recommendations
TRIPs Article 27.3(b) is a radically new development in international IPR law, as the vast majority of WTO member countries have rejected granting life patents at the national level. ... simply delete the last two sentences of paragraph 27-3-b, or (4) combinations, variations, etc. of 1 and 2 and 3. [6] The Union for the Protection of New ...
Information for Review of the Provisions of TRIPS Art. 27.3(b
The TRIPS Council invited Members that were already under an obligation to apply Article 27.3(b) to provide information on how the matters addressed in these provisions were presently treated in their domestic law. Other Members were invited to provide such information on a best-endeavours basis. While it would be left to each Member to provide ...
Information for Review of Art. 27.3(b) (Patentable Subject Matter)
TRIPS Review Materials. Review of TRIPS Implementing Legislation; Review under Art. 24.2 - checklist; Review of Provisions of Art. 27.3(b) - checklist; TRIPS Council Minutes; Graphs and Charts. Laws or Regulations under Art. 63.2; TRIPS Review Materials and Checklist on Enforcement; TRIPS Council Special Session Minutes
PDF TRIPs, BIODIVERSITY AND COMMONWEALTH COUNTRIES: capacity building
TRIPs, BIODIVERSITY AND COMMONWEALTH COUNTRIES: capacity building priorities for the 1999 review of TRIPs Article 27.3 (b) A discussion paper GATT/WTO Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs Agreement) Article 27. 3. Members may also exclude from patentability: ...
Review of Article 27.3(B) Under TRIPs Agreement: A ...
Review of Article 27.3 (B) Under TRIPs Agreement: A Critical Analysis. April 2010. SSRN Electronic Journal. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.1587584. Authors: Dr. Dharam Prakash Verma. To read the full-text of ...
Review of Article 27.3(b) and the patenting of life forms: hitting a
Under Article 27.3(b) of the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement of the World Trade Organization (WTO), all members are required to extend private property rights to life forms. Using official WTO documents, this article analyzes the negotiating positions of WTO members on life patents during a review of ...
Article 27(3)(B) Trips and Plant Variety Protection in ...
The chapter examines the scope for the use of orde public considerations under Article 27.2 TRIPS, of exclusions for research and experimental purposes under Article 30 TRIPS, compulsory licensing under Article 31 TRIPS as well as the advantages of a specific breeding exemption and it briefly comments on the various sui generis options.
(PDF) Article 27 (3) (b) TRIPS and Plant Variety Protection in
The so-called 'biotechnology clause' of Article 27.3(b) of the WTO-TRIPS Agreement requires from member states protection for plant varieties either via the patent system or via an ...
Article 27(3)(b) TRIPS and Plant Variety Protection in Developing
Abstract. In comparison with industrialised countries, agriculture in developing countries accounts for a substantial share of GDP and involves a substantial sector of small-holders and traditional agriculturalists. In view of these differences, the biotechnology clause of Article 27.3.b TRIPS with its requirement of plant variety protection ...
An examination of Article 27 of the TRIPS Agreement in relation to the
Council for Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. 26 June 2003; Boniface Guwa Chidyausiku, 'Article 27.3 (b) of the TRIPS Agreement the Review Process and Development at National and Regional Level', in Christophe Bellmann and Ricardo Melendez-Ortiz (eds), Trading in Knowledge: Development Perspectives on TRIPS, Trade and ...
Review of Article 27.3(b) Under TRIPS Agreement: OurLegalWorld
The three main agenda items for the review structure are: Section 27.3 (b), TRIPS-CBD Relationship and Traditional Protection Knowledge and folklore. Various other issues, such as capacity, are also being discussed. Development and technology transfer in developing and least developed countries These countries are to achieve the objectives of ...
Article 27(3)(b) TRIPS and plant variety protection in developing
TY - CHAP. T1 - Article 27(3)(b) TRIPS and plant variety protection in developing countries. AU - Antons, Christoph. PY - 2016. Y1 - 2016. N2 - In comparison with industrialised countries, agriculture in developing countries accounts for a substantial share of GDP and involves a substantial sector of small-holders and traditional agriculturalists.
X
Biodiversity and traditional knowledge - the review of the provisions on what can broadly be called 'biotechnology patenting' established under Article 27.3(b) of the TRIPS Agreement, and a wider slate of related issues, especially the work on the relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD, and the protection of TK and folklore.
TRIPS versus biodiversity: What to do with the 1999 review of Article
TRIPS is a new obstacle in this path because it usurps the rights of these communities. It also undermines the promises of the Convention on Biological Diversity. TRIPS Article 27.3(b), which requires all WTO countries to provide some kind of intellectual property right (IPR) on plant varieties, is up for review in 1999.
Multisectoral Proposal for the Review of WTO-TRIPs Article 27
Finally, regarding procedure, while TRIPS Article 27.3(b) has been understood as something we must comply with by 1 January 2000, we note two things. First, the built-in review of this Article scheduled for 1999 means that we can amend the treaty before implementing it. There is no deadline by which the built-in review must be finished.
Article 27.3(b) of the TRIPS Agreement: Review options for the South
TRIPS review, 1999. As already mentioned, Article 27.3 (b) is to be reviewed in 1999. However, the scope of this review is not clearly defined within the provision, and the discussions on the scope and procedure of the review are still ongoing. During a TRIPS Council meeting in December 1998, it was agreed that an information-gathering exercise ...
Taking Forward the Review of Article 27.3(b) of the TRIPs Agreement
The Africa Group report aims to assist in finalising longstanding issues relating to the review of provisions of the WTO's Article 27.3(b) of the TRIPs Agreement.
PDF ARTICLE 27.3(B) OF TRIPS AND PLANT VARIETY
Article 27.3.b of TRIPs provides1 that " Members may exclude from patentability plants and animals other than micro-organisms, and essentially biological processes for the production of plants or animals other than non-biological and microbiological processes.
Notification requirements
Article 24.2: In the context of the review of the application of the provisions of the Section on geographical indications under Article 24.2 of the TRIPS Agreement, the Council, at its meetings in May and July 1998, invited those Members already under an obligation to apply the provisions in question to provide their responses to a Checklist ...
The 10 Best Views in Austin
To help find the best ones for your trip, we've laid out information on the 10 best views in Austin. 1. Mount Bonnell. Address: 3800 Mt Bonnell Road, Austin; Parking: Free parking available near the street at Covert Park; No trip to Austin is truly complete without a visit to the city's highest peak. This is where you can enjoy sweeping views ...
Yellowstone National Park visitor experiences 3rd-degree burns after
Elderly woman sustains third-degree burns, evacuated by helicopter after Yellowstone trip goes awry By . FOX Weather. Published Sep. 19, 2024, 12:32 p.m. ET. Originally Published by:

WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION

Part II — Standards concerning the availability, scope and use of Intellectual Property Rights

Section 5: patents

Article 28 Rights Conferred

Article 29 Conditions on Patent Applicants

Article 30 Exceptions to Rights Conferred

Article 31 Other Use Without Authorization of the Right Holder

Article 32 Revocation/Forfeiture

Article 33 Term of Protection

Article 34 Process Patents: Burden of Proof

Section 6: layout-designs (topographies) of integrated circuits

Article 36 Scope of the Protection

Article 37 Acts Not Requiring the Authorization of the Right Holder

Article 38 Term of Protection

Information for Review of Art. 27.3(b) (Patentable Subject Matter) - View

B. Protection of Plant Varieties

Representative Questions for TRIPS 27.3(b) Review Submitted by the Delegations of Canada, the European Union (formerly European Communities), Japan and the United States

Review of Article 27.3(b) and the patenting of life forms: hitting a BRIC wall in the WTO?

Access to Document

Other files and links

Article 27(3)(b) TRIPS and Plant Variety Protection in Developing Countries

Access this chapter

Similar content being viewed by others

Intellectual Property Law of Plant Varieties in Thailand: A Contextual Analysis

Agricultural Innovation: Patenting and Plant Variety Rights Protection

The Globalisation of Plant Variety Protection: Are Developing Countries Still Policy Takers?

Acknowledgement

Author information

Corresponding author

Editor information

Rights and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Download citation

Share this chapter

Review of Article 27.3(b) Under TRIPS Agreement: OurLegalWorld

Introduction

DOHA Ministerial Conference

Recent Updates

Pharmaceutical and Medical Diagnostics Innovation and Patents under the TRIPS and Indian Patent Law

NEELA FILM PRODUCTIONS PVT LTD V TAARAKMEHTAKAOOLTAHCHASHMAH.COM AND ORS

Latest News

18th Pro Bono Enviro National Moot Court Competition, 2024

Article 27(3)(b) TRIPS and plant variety protection in developing countries

Publication series

Access to Document

Other files and links

Taking Forward the Review of Article 27.3(b) of the TRIPs Agreement

The 10 Best Views in Austin

AAA Travel Editor, WA

Plan Your Trip to Austin with AAA.

1. Mount Bonnell

2. Zilker Metropolitan Park

3. Mayfield Park and Nature Preserve

4. Doug Sahm Hill

5. Lou Neff Point

6. Pennybacker Bridge And Overlook Hike

7. Hippie Hollow Park

8. Hornsby Bend Bird Observatory

9. Barton Creek Square Mall

10. Twin Falls and Sculpture Falls

More Articles

Build and Research Your Options

Book Everything in One Place

latest in US News

NYC's first Rainforest Cafe to open — but there's a catch

Federal judge delivers another blow to Biden’s student loan...

Mom of budding journalist killed in East River chopper crash wins...

Trump suggests capping annual credit card interest rates at 10%...

NYC Council rolls out bill to repeal Mayor Adams' policy forcing...

Ex-college athlete who bit elderly stranger's ear off on train...

Tajik migrants with suspected ISIS ties planned to attack a LGBTQ...

'White woman war zone': Trader Joe’s viral $2.99 mini tote bags...

IMAGES

COMMENTS