Public Order or Ordre Public of Patent Act 1983 in the Context of Biotechnology
Keywords:
biotechnology, patentability, ordre public, Article 27.2 TRIPS, section 31 Patent Act 1983Abstract
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.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increase access to HIV drugs, Unpublished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.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
It is the author’s sole responsibility to ensure that all work submitted does not infringe on any existing copyright. Authors should obtain permission to reproduce or adapt copyrighted material and provide evidence of approval upon submitting the final version of the manuscript. Views expressed by authors are entirely their own. The Editorial Board shall not be responsible for views expressed and the language used in every article.
