The IPKat's linguistic limitations have been sorely exposed by his friend Kristof Neefs, who has sent him this link to a proposal from some deputies in the Belgian Parliament to insert a new exception into the Belgian Patent Act in order to permit the export of generic pharmaceuticals to developing countries.Right: the IPKat prays for the compulsory licensing of Belgian chocolates ...
Kristof explains in brief that the amendment would read as follows:
"Article 28: The rights confered by a patent do not extend to ... (g) the export of generic versions of patented medicinal products to developing countries that have issued compulsory licences, to developing countries where those medicinal products have not been patented, or to developing countries that make use of the flexibility provided for in Article 30 of the TRIPs agreement".Adds Kristof:
"I think it is highly unlikely that the proposal would pass the vote of parliament, as the authors are members of a minority party.The IPKat wonders whether Belgium has the equivalent of the committee stage in the UK, at which wrinkled drafting can be ironed out. Merpel wonders what measures would be proposed so as to ensure that any products made for those laudable purposes would end up there and not return to the European Union for sale on a highly profitable basis.
Second, if the exception only extends to exports, wouldn't the generics still be infringing the patent by producing the medicines, even if they were destined for export? (the proposal contains no further amendments)
Third, "to developing countries that have issued compulsory licences": that's rather broad, is it not? This would imply that the export of patented pharmaceutical A to country B would be permitted if country B has issued a compulsory licence for pharmaceutical C.
Conclusion: a lot of good intentions, but poor drafting".
TRIPs and pharmaceutical patents: the World Trade Organization fact sheet here
Belgian patent proposal -- good sentiments, poor drafting?
Reviewed by Jeremy
on
Sunday, April 06, 2008
Rating:
Reviewed by Jeremy
on
Sunday, April 06, 2008
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] EUIPO Second Board of Appeal refers case to Grand Board of Appeal following earlier refusal to register a photograph of a man’s head/face as an EU trade mark](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUj9v-k3DYaSVMR4lsmKDLHVB5nIoINuvZNbH2TQCelrfaAE9qmGSAQs-plzQ7HnZ7Svk_gRdrIODp0Nat5vpWajduit3xkArNhK76AHhX770RIJ62thfCVI5fnvcXU-5zH4NkUSfPY9FjRMFiK7OKJ7m7YSo2FzhyPSoA8ZWCsxaOXb0bBCoPQA/s72-c/Picture%201.png)
![[Guest post] Benelux Office rules on opposition proceedings prepared by ChatGPT](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi29VY0rNNP1Hqyz8RgB47r4q7fhqQfYHxsEbX_RKmT4KU5Y_vg7vB6dsAW91CidjMfJ38klTvD4mMtZb3QmwFPAHaGF88BPttWSbfYvo7UUg7MpFRTNtEjThmG0QaX2qZFFHSnN71i3YQZSBFC0SL7PgkAlme-XH8cSNWRFbOAOuLr_LMOGcImLQ/s72-c/Screenshot%202024-12-04%20at%2020.45.58.png)
Posts
No comments:
All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.
It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.
Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html