Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Evergreen dilemma: law blind to patent's purpose

By Andrew Christie and Sally Pryor - posted Tuesday, 17 August 2004


This notification will alert major patent holders to the intention of generic manufacturers to enter the market, thereby encouraging them to take preventive action. In theory, this could act as a deterrent to generic drugs reaching the market in the first place.

Labor is concerned that this process will create incentives for major drug companies to file questionable new patents in the face of competition from generic manufacturers.

Opposition Leader Mark Latham's amendment would hopefully preclude these applications from being lodged in the first place, by creating a disincentive for the filing of new patents, should they turn out to be dodgy.

Advertisement

Prime Minister John Howard wasted no time in branding this amendment unnecessary, choosing instead to retain faith in the legal system. He maintains that our courts would never allow such spurious patents. Dodgy patents were not an issue because they wouldn't be granted to begin with.

But both these arguments are missing the point, which is: how can a dodgy patent be recognised in the first place?

The trouble is that dodgy is not a ground for examination under patent law. It is a subjective term, and one that exists only in the eye of the beholder, so to speak.

While the practice of evergreening would be likely to appear bogus from the perspective of a health economist, it would not be so from the view of a patent lawyer. Patent law is written for the latter, not the former.

To attempt to marry the two perspectives is logistically impossible, because there is simply no scope under patent law for the patentee's motives to be assessed alongside the validity of the patent.

An evergreen patent may well pass the standard of innovation, even though it contributes little or nothing to social welfare. So long as there is an invention, the law is blind to the purpose for which it is being patented, and social and economic issues don't get a look-in.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All

Article edited by Ian Miller.
If you'd like to be a volunteer editor too, click here.

This article was previously published in The Australian Financial Review on 5 August 2004.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Authors

Professor Andrew Christie is the Director of the Intellectual Property Research Institute of Australia based at the University of Melbourne.

Sally Pryor is a researcher at the Intellectual Property Research Institute of Australia at the University of Melbourne.

Other articles by these Authors

All articles by Andrew Christie
All articles by Sally Pryor
Article Tools
Comment Comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy