Public Order or Ordre Public of Patent Act 1983 in the Context of Biotechnology

Nor Ashikin Mohamed Yusof

Abstract


TRIPS and Article 27.2 permits country members to reject a perfectly patentable subject matter on morality and ordre public basis. Malaysia as a member to World Trade Organization (WTO) and subsequently Agreement on Trade Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) has abided to the minimum standard requirements thereto. The existing Patent Act 1983 was amended for the said purpose in 1998. The ordre public requirement of Article 27.2 of TRIPS is embedded in section 31(1) of Patent Act 1983. Noticeably section 31 of the Act uses the term public order instead of ordre public. It is unknown whether the same is done intentionally, due to typo error or a case of oversight. The small fact is significant. Both terms carry totally different meaning, has differing scope of intention and consequently impacts on the direction and future technical advancement and developmental progression locally. Considering the Malaysian government has identified biotechnology as one of the key drivers in achieving its Vision 2020, it is only appropriate then for the nation to use the correct legal terminology.

Keywords


biotechnology, patentability, ordre public, Article 27.2 TRIPS, section 31 Patent Act 1983

Full Text:

PDF

References


Ackermann, T. 1997. Dis’orderly loopholes: TRIPS

patent protection, GATT and the ECJ. Texas

International Law Journal 32: 489-510.

Anon. t.th. Stem Cell Patents: European Patent Law

and Ethics Report, www.nottingham.ac.uk/law/

StemCellProject/project.report.pdf.

August, R. 1997. International Business Law. New

Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Bondure, S. & Farr, L.G. 1998. Intellectual property

rights abroad and at home: After GATT. South

Carolina Lawyer 7:20-27.

Boonf, K. Parallel imports in pharmaceuticals:

increase access to HIV drugs, Unpublished

proceedings from Thailand Law Forum, Bangkok,

-3 June 2009.

Bostyn, S.J.R. 2003. Written requirement and description

after Enzo Biochem: Can the real requirement

step forward please. Journal of the Patent and

Trademark Office Society 85:131-179.

Burk, D. 1991. Biotechnology and patent law: Fitting

innovation to the procrustean bed. Rutgers

Computer & Technology Law Journal 17: 1-60.

Champ, P. & Attaran, A. 2002. Patent rights and local

working under the WTO TRIPS agreement: An

analysis of US-Brazil patent dispute. Yale Journal

of International Law 27: 365-398.

Correas, C. 2007. Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual

Property Rights: A Commentary on the TRIPS

Agreement. London: OUP.

Crespi, S. 2005. Enablement and written description-

A trans-Atlantic view. Journal of the Patent and

Trademark Office Society 87:343-388.

D. Bhagirath-lal. 1998. An Introduction to the WTO

Agreement. Penang: Third World Network.

Derclaye, D. 2009. Patent law’s role in the protection

of the environment - re-assessing patent law and

its justifications in the 21st century. International

Review of Intellectual Property and Competition

Law:1-15.

Di Cataldo, V. 2002. From the European patent to a

community patent. Columbia Journal of European

Law 8: 19-37.

Donavan, E. 2002. Beans, beeans, the patented fruit:

The growing international conflict over ownership

of life. Layola of Los Angeles International &

Comparative Law Review 25:117-142.

Dutch Group to the Administrative Council of EPO.

Unpublished Report Q 150 on Patentability

Requirements and Scope of Protection of Expressed

Sequence Tags (EST’s), single Nucleotide

Polymorphisms (SNP’s) and Entire Genomes.

Gana, R. & Bagley, M. 2001. Patent first, ask questions

later: Morality and biotechnology in patent law.

William and Mary Law Review 45: 69-495.

Gervais, D. 1998. TRIPS Agreements: Drafting History

And Analysis. London : Sweet & Maxwell.

Hans Morten, H. 2009. Human Rights and TRIPS

Exclusion and Exception Provisionsection. The

Journal of World Intellectual Property 11(5/6):

–374.

History of WTO-TRIPS www.wto.org/history/TRIPS/

country.

Jameson, S.A. 2007. A Comparison of the Patentability

and Patent Scope of Biotechnology. Biotechnological

Inventions in the United States and the European

Union. American Intellectual Property Law Annual

Quarterly Journal 35 (193): 202-238.

Long, D. 2003. The impact of foreign investment

on indigenous culture: An intellectual property

prospective. North Carolina Journal of

International Law and Commercial Regulation 23:

-256.

Malaysian Hansard HR. 1983. 1: 7767-7768 25 July.

Malaysia. 2005. Biotechnology Report 2005.

Malaysia. 2009. Plan Ekonomi Baru Malaysia 2009.

Malaysia. 2010. Biotechnology Report 2010.

Merges & Nelson. 2002. On the complex economics of

patent scope. Columbia Law Review 90: 839.

Miller, D.K. 2010. A patent on the conscious: a

theoretical perspective of the law on patentable life.

Journal of Animal Law & Policy: 145-164.

Morret, P. 1996. A Concise Guide To Intellectual

Property Rights-Patent. London: Longman.

Moufang, R. 1998. The Concept of “Ordre Public” and

Morality in Patent Law. In Geertrui Van Overwalle

(Ed.). Patent Law, Ethics and Biotechnology.

Bruxelles: Katholieke Universiteit Brussel.

Murphy, K. 2002. The traditional view of public policy

and ordre public in private international law.

Colorado International & Comparative Law 11:

-620.

Nor Ashikin Mohamed Yusof. 2009. The third

patentability requirement of patent; Still a constraint

to Malaysia. Journal Undang-Undang 13: 52-75.

Nor Ashikin Mohamed Yusof. 2007. Biotechnological

patents in developing countries in the post–TRIPS

era. Ph.D thesis, University of Nottingham.

N. Seeratan. 2001. The negative impact of intellectual

property rights on developing countries; An

examination of the Indian pharmaceutical industry.

(2001) SCHOLAR; St. Mary law Review on Minority

Issues 3: 339-397.

Pepa, S. 1998. International trade and emerging genetic

regulatory regimes. Law & Policy International

Business 29: 415-444.

Skarstad, R. 1999. The European Union’s self-defeating

policy: Patent harmonization and the ban on human

cloning. University of Pennyslavania Journal of

International Economic Law 20: 353-378.

Standing Committee on the Law of Patents. 2009.

Exclusions from Patentable Subject Matter and

Exceptions and Limitations to the Rights. Geneva:

t.tp.

United Nations. 2005. United Nations High

Commissioner for Human Rights Report 2005.

Wosawki, R. 1998. The evolution of patentable

composition of matter: The United States Patent

Office accepts genetically altered animals or

patentable subject matter under 35 U.S C Section

Administrative Law Journal 2: 309-367.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.