The general exception clauses of the TRIPS agreement : promoting sustainable development / Edson Beas Rodrigues Jr.
2012
K1401 .R63 2012 (Map It)
Available at Cellar
Formats
| Format | |
|---|---|
| BibTeX | |
| MARCXML | |
| TextMARC | |
| MARC | |
| DublinCore | |
| EndNote | |
| NLM | |
| RefWorks | |
| RIS |
Items
Details
Title
The general exception clauses of the TRIPS agreement : promoting sustainable development / Edson Beas Rodrigues Jr.
Published
Cambridge, UK ; New York : Cambridge University Press, 2012.
Call Number
K1401 .R63 2012
ISBN
9781107017481 (hbk.)
1107017483 (hbk.)
1107017483 (hbk.)
Description
xxxiii, 365 pages ; 24 cm.
System Control No.
(OCoLC)773429652
Bibliography, etc. Note
Includes bibliographical references (pages 330-350) and index.
Record Appears in
Variant Title
General exception clauses of the Trade-related aspects of Intellectual Property Rights agreement
Table of Contents
List of tables
xii
Acknowledgements
xiii
Table of cases
xiv
List of Treaties, Declarations and Resolutions
xxii
List of Statutes
xxvi
List of abbreviations
xxxi
1.
Introduction
1
1.1.
Relationship between sustainable development and access to knowledge
1
1.2.
Role of intellectual property rights in restricting access to knowledge
12
1.3.
Purpose and plan of the work
15
1.4.
Methodological approach
24
pt. I
Determining the normative meaning of the general exception clauses of the TRIPS Agreement
27
2.
The customary rules of treaty interpretation and the elements in light of which the general exception clauses of TRIPS should be interpreted
29
Introduction
29
2.1.
Ordinary meaning attributable to the terms of the treaty
32
2.2.
Principle of good faith
33
2.2.1.
Principle of effectiveness in the interpretation of treaties
34
2.2.2.
Doctrine of abuse of rights
36
2.3.
Object and purposes of the WTO system and the TRIPS Agreement
39
2.3.1.
General objectives of the WTO system
41
2.3.2.
Specific objectives of the TRIPS Agreement
42
2.3.3.
Article 8 of the TRIPS Agreement and the guiding principles of the general exception clauses
44
2.3.3.1.
Objectives pursued by the exceptions to IPRs
45
2.3.3.2.
The necessity standard
46
2.3.3.2.1.
The transformation of the necessity standard into a proportionality test
54
2.3.3.2.2.
The necessity standard in the context of art. 8 of the TRIPS Agreement
61
2.3.3.3.
The consistency standard of art. 8 of the TRIPS Agreement
63
2.3.3.3.1.
Additional obligations that shall be observed by copyright exceptions
64
2.3.3.3.2.
Additional obligations that shall be observed by the exceptions to the rights conferred by trademarks
66
2.3.3.3.3.
Additional obligations that shall be observed by the exceptions to the rights conferred by protected industrial designs
66
2.3.3.3.4.
Additional obligations that shall be observed by the exceptions to the exclusive rights conferred by a patent
67
2.3.3.3.4.1.
Guarantee of protection to all categories of inventions that shall be protected by all WTO Members
67
2.3.3.3.4.2.
Minimum term of protection of patents
68
2.3.3.3.4.3.
Respect for the area occupied by the TRIPS compulsory licensing system
68
2.3.3.3.4.4.
Non-discrimination based on national origins, the field of technology and the manner of exploitation of the invention
70
2.4.
Context of the general exception clauses of the TRIPS Agreement
74
2.4.1.
Interpretative agreements and subsequent State practices
75
2.4.2.
Rules of international law applicable in the relations between the parties
78
2.4.2.1.
Principle of proportionality
82
2.5.
Supplementary means of interpretation
87
3.
Determining the normative meaning of arts. 17, 26(2) and 30 of the TRIPS Agreement
90
3.1.
Introduction
90
3.2.
Art. 30 of TRIPS according to Canada - Pharmaceutical Patents
90
3.2.1.
The first step of the test of art. 30
91
3.2.2.
The second step of the test of art. 30
93
3.2.3.
The third step of the test of art. 30
95
3.2.4.
Obstacles created by Canada - Pharmaceutical Patents
96
3.3.
Reframing the meaning of art. 30 in the light of the treaty interpretation rules of the VCLT
97
3.3.1.
The first step of the test
97
3.3.2.
The second step of the test
100
3.3.3.
The third step of the test
103
3.3.4.
Summary of the normative meaning of art. 30 resulting from the application of the general rule of interpretation of the VCLT
107
3.4.
Assessment test of the legitimacy of exceptions to the rights conferred by trademarks (art. 17)
108
3.5.
Assessment test of the legitimacy of exceptions to the rights conferred by protected industrial designs (art. 26.2)
114
4.
Determining the normative meaning of art. 13 of the TRIPS Agreement and art. 9(2) of the Berne Convention
117
4.1.
Introduction
117
4.2.
Art. 13 of TRIPS according to US - Section 110(5) Copyright Act
121
4.2.1.
First step: exceptions shall be confined to certain special cases
121
4.2.2.
Second step: exceptions shall not conflict with a normal exploitation of the affected works
122
4.2.3.
Third step: exceptions shall not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the copyright holders concerned
124
4.2.4.
Why US - Section 110(5) Copyright Act is legally irrelevant to future disputes
124
4.3.
Interpreting art. 13 TRIPS and art. 9(2) BC in accordance with the customary rules of treaty interpretation
127
4.3.1.
The first step
127
4.3.2.
The second step
130
4.3.3.
The third step
136
4.3.4.
Aids offered by the records of the Stockholm Revision Conference
140
Concluding remarks on Part I
148
pt. II
Putting to the test the capacity of the general exception clauses of the TRIPS Agreement to promote the pillars of sustainable development
157
5.
Patents and the R&D and genetic diagnostic test exceptions
159
5.1.
Introduction
159
5.2.
Potential obstacles set by biotech patents to the progress of science and technology
163
5.2.1.
Challenges created by gene patents
163
5.2.2.
Patents on genes associated with disease and genetic tests
168
5.2.3.
Genes and unique resources
171
5.2.4.
Research tools
172
5.2.4.1.
Definition
172
5.2.4.2.
Problems caused by granting patents on research tools
173
5.2.5.
Tragedy of the anti-commons
176
5.2.6.
Royalty stacking
177
5.3.
Research use exception and freedom in science and technology
178
5.4.
Research use exceptions adopted by some members of the international community
182
5.5.
The R&D and genetic diagnostic test exceptions
190
5.5.1.
General rules applicable to both exceptions
192
5.5.1.1.
Rule I: Mandatory character of the exceptions
192
5.5.1.2.
Rule II: Duty to inform
193
5.5.1.3.
Rule III: Guarantee of access to biological materials
193
5.5.1.4.
Rule IV: Prohibition of reach-through patent claims and contractual clauses
193
5.5.1.5.
Rule V: Establishment of a patent clearing house
195
5.5.1.6.
Rule VI: De-bureaucratization of the procedures for granting compulsory licenses
197
5.5.1.6.1.
Compulsory licensing for unique research tools
199
5.5.1.6.2.
Compulsory licensing of blocking patents
200
5.5.2.
R&D exception - first component: uses focused on generating knowledge on the subject matter of the patent and developing new innovations
201
5.5.3.
R&D exception - second component: scientific and humanitarian uses
204
5.5.4.
R&D exception - third component: dual inventions, when used as research tools
205
5.5.4.1.
Differential treatment and graduated rates
207
5.5.5.
R&D exception - fourth component: unique research tools
209
5.6.
Assessment of the lawfulness of the R&D exception
211
5.6.1.
First step: assessment of the limited character of the exception
211
5.6.2.
Second step: assessment of the reasonableness of the interference caused by the exception
212
5.6.2.1.
Proposals of exceptions governed by the TRIPS compulsory licensing system
214
5.6.2.2.
Proposals based on the "fair use" defense
216
5.6.2.3.
Proposals of sui generis patent exceptions
219
5.6.2.3.1.
Janice Mueller's proposal
219
5.6.2.3.2.
Rochelle Dreyfuss's proposal
221
5.6.2.3.3.
Rebecca Eisenberg's proposal
223
5.6.2.4.
Conclusions on the proposals examined
225
5.6.3.
Third step: assessment of the reasonableness of the degree of harm caused by the R&D exception
226
5.7.
The genetic diagnostic test exception and its functioning
227
5.8.
Assessment of the lawfulness of the genetic diagnostic test exception in the light of art. 30 TRIPS
231
5.8.1.
First step: assessment of the limited character of the exception
231
5.8.2.
Second step: assessment of the reasonableness of the interference caused by the exception
233
5.8.2.1.
Proposal of Lynn Rivers
233
5.8.2.2.
Proposals based on a compulsory licensing scheme
234
5.8.3.
Third step: assessment of the reasonableness of the prejudice caused by the exception
235
6.
Trademarks and the parody and criticism exception
237
6.1.
Introduction
237
6.2.
Some cases involving conflicts between the exclusive right conferred by trademarks and freedom of expression
240
6.2.1.
Laugh It Off case
240
6.2.2.
Areva case
243
6.2.3.
Esso case
245
6.2.4.
Danone case
247
6.2.5.
"Guarana Power" case
248
6.2.6.
Brazilian Olympic Committee case
250
6.2.7.
Tata Sons case
252
6.2.8.
Lessons to be drawn from the cases
255
6.3.
Proposal of a parody and criticism exception
258
6.3.1.
Assessment of the legality of the parody and criticism exception
262
7.
Industrial designs and the repair exception
266
7.1.
Introduction
266
7.2.
ANFAPE case
268
7.2.1.
SDE's ruling
271
7.2.2.
Efforts to reverse SDE's ruling
276
7.3.
European proposal for a repair exception
282
7.4.
Assessment of the lawfulness of the European repair exception
287
7.4.1.
First step
287
7.4.2.
Second step
288
7.4.3.
Third step
290
8.
Copyright and the educational exception for underprivileged students and researchers
292
8.1.
Introduction
292
8.2.
The broadening of exclusive rights and the Brazilian Copyright Act of 1998
297
8.2.1.
The cumbersome Brazilian private copying exception
301
8.2.2.
The response of the Brazilian government
309
8.3.
Proposal for an educational exception for underprivileged students and researchers
312
8.3.1.
Assessment of the legality of the proposed educational exception
315
8.3.1.1.
Assessment of the special character of the exception
315
8.3.1.2.
Assessment of the ability of the exception to conflict with the normal exploitation of the affected works
318
8.3.1.3.
Assessment of the unreasonable character of the prejudice caused by the exception to the legitimate interests of copyright holders
319
Concluding remarks on Part II
320
Final remarks
326
Bibliography
330
Index
351