Pharmaceutical manufacture for export – what do you think?
There’s been a fair bit of fuss earlier today over Australia’s patent laws and allowing Australian manufacturers to manufacture for export only without infringing an existing patent.
The Australian Financial Review ran a piece as did the the popular ‘Club Troppo‘ Blog and Blogotariat. No doubt there will be more to come. One of the perceived issues is whether Australia would be complying with both TRIPS and the US Free Trade Agreement in doing so.
Leading Australian Intellectual Property Academic, Andrew Christie noted in a 2002 Report to the Australian Government that the Australian legislation already allows manufacture for export. (Review of Pharmaceutical Patent Extensions and Springboarding Provisions in Various Jurisdictions, 2002. – let me know if you want a copy and I will send it to you.)
What do you think? Should countries be allowed to have an exemption from patent infringement solely for manufacture and export?
Photo credit: CarbonNYC
4 Comments on “Pharmaceutical manufacture for export – what do you think?”
You must log in to post a comment.
Duncan,
Interesting issue. Just wondered how parallel imports might fit into the
picture. If you manufacture for export only, one would assume that
re-importation is not possible. For some countries, this is something likely to
happen, though. To the extent that this is likely in a country, this would tend
to make the exportation distinction meaningless.
–Stan
Duncan,
Interesting issue. Just wondered how parallel imports might fit into the
picture. If you manufacture for export only, one would assume that
re-importation is not possible. For some countries, this is something likely to
happen, though. To the extent that this is likely in a country, this would tend
to make the exportation distinction meaningless.
–Stan
Hey StanThanks for your thoughts. The limited exception doesn’t and wouldn’t apply to parallel imports which would be an infringement. So, although it might be more likely in a country, it is still patent infringement, and therefore perhaps not meaningless?
Hey StanThanks for your thoughts. The limited exception doesn’t and wouldn’t apply to parallel imports which would be an infringement. So, although it might be more likely in a country, it is still patent infringement, and therefore perhaps not meaningless?