Product Patents and Access to Medicines in India: A Critical Review of the Implementation of TRIPS Patent Regime
In 2005, India amended its Patents Act, 1970 to introduce TRIPS compliant product patent regime. Generally speaking, law and policy makers in India during the time of the amendment were confronted with two major concerns viz. the future of the Indian pharmaceutical industry and access to affordable medicines in India and other developing countries. To address these concerns India along with many other developing countries attempted to incorporate TRIPS flexibilities in their domestic law. However, the success of the TRIPS flexibilities in addressing the question of access to affordable medicines mainly depends on three factors: a) the incorporation of flexibilities in the domestic law; b) the manufacturing capability of a country; and c) the political will to use the public interest safeguards provided in the domestic law. There are only a few countries like India, which satisfy the above-mentioned conditions to a certain extent. This article examines whether these premises hold true after five years into the implementation of the TRIPS compliant patent system in India. In this context the paper identifies and analyzes the legal, policy and institutional challenges that India is currently facing in the implementation of TRIPS flexibilities. It also identifies the main legal, policy and institutional disconnect in the implementation of TRIPS flexibilities in India. It argues that to effectively use TRIPS flexibilities to address access to affordable medicines require changes in three areas viz. law, policy and institutions. It clearly shows that mere incorporation of TRIPS flexibilities in the domestic legislation alone is not enough and the domestic legislation needs to be complemented with policy and institutional framework.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 3 (2010)
Issue (Month): 2 (May)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.degruyter.com|
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/ldr|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:lawdev:v:3:y:2010:i:2:n:11. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Peter Golla)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.