IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

L'économie politique du brevet au sud : variations Indiennes sur le brevet pharmaceutique

Listed author(s):
  • Samira Guennif
  • Julien Chaisse

The rationale behind patenting of an invention can be traced to the community of interests between the society and the inventor. For the society, an individual can be guaranteed access to new, safe and efficient therapies and obtain full disclosure of an invention to promote innovation. For the inventor, he (or she) benefits from a monopoly for the use of the product or process and recover the resources devoted to research and development. Accordingly, patents induce innovation in a sector where firms are exposed to problems of appropriation. This compromise between diverging interests was always at the heart of modifications made in patent protection in developed countries ; since the granting of patents on processes alone to ensure the diffusion of innovation and the growth of a competitive pharmaceutical industry, to the granting of patents to both processes and products from the fifties onwards. In the eighties, bowing to constant pressure from the pharmaceutical industry, the term of a patent was extended to twenty years in developed countries. As of the same period, we witness a strengthening of patent regimes in the world, especially in developing countries with the ratification of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) in 1994. Beginning 1st January 1996, developed countries amended their national legislation to comply with TRIPS while a twenty-year moratorium was provided for least developing countries. Yet, other developing countries have benefited from a ten-year moratorium, which ended in 1st January 2006, and have or are amending their patent law to be compliance with the agreement. At this occasion, there has been sharp questioning and criticism, and disputes arise. While it has been constantly reminded to developing countries that the TRIPS is not inconsistent with the aims of industrial development and public health, there have been expressions of acute fear and sharp protests from Brazil, India and even the “African group” within the World Trade Organization. The flexibility provided for in the agreement fail to reassure developing countries. The aim of this article is precisely to shed light on the ins and outs of the extension of intellectual property rights (IPR) to developing countries, by scrutinizing the particular pattern followed by India, which brings about feasible industrial and sanitary improvements while the country is progressively currently amending with delay its patent law to comply with TRIPS. To understand better the stakes involved in the ratification of the TRIPS agreement in India, we will begin by establishing that opting for a stringent intellectual property regime is not without consequences. It determines the extent of progress achieved in the industrial and health sectors both in the developed as well as developing countries. In particular, through the implementation of a weak IPR regime in the past, India has largely contributed recently to the access of patients infected by HIV/AIDS to treatments through sharp reduction of prices. Then, we shall see how the TRIPS establishes a strong IPR system that aims to reconcile protection of innovation and public health promotion by providing for “exceptions” at the global level. Finally, after having dealt in detail with Indian reticence and tardiness in making its legislation TRIPS compliance, we will analyse the legal path followed by India to carry on improvements regarding access to medicines.

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.

File URL:
Download Restriction: free

File URL:
Download Restriction: free

Article provided by De Boeck Université in its journal Revue internationale de droit économique.

Volume (Year): t. XXI, 2 (2007)
Issue (Month): 2 ()
Pages: 185-210

in new window

Handle: RePEc:cai:riddbu:ride_212_0185
Contact details of provider: Web page:

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cai:riddbu:ride_212_0185. 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: (Jean-Baptiste de Vathaire)

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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.