IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/medlaw/v31y2023i3p358-390..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Intellectual property protection for traditional medical knowledge in China’s context: a round peg in a square hole?

Author

Listed:
  • Nan Xia

Abstract

This article is an examination of the extent to which traditional medical knowledge in China can be protected by intellectual property laws. The analysis begins by providing a global picture with regard to the historic origin of intellectual property, exploring the reasons why China does not have indigenous counterparts to the western system of intellectual property rights protecting its traditional knowledge (including traditional medical knowledge) and stating the problems of transplanting western intellectual property standards in China. A discussion follows on how China, under foreign pressure, has made efforts to comply with the changing standards mandated by various international, regional, and bilateral arrangements related to intellectual property, with examples of the development of China’s patent law. China’s approach towards the protection of traditional medical knowledge in various international fora related to intellectual property is explored. Finally, there is a specific examination of the compatibilities between the western system of intellectual property rights and traditional medical knowledge in China, at the national and community levels. This article argues that the system of intellectual property rights does not easily fit with China’s traditional medical knowledge because of China’s unique cultural traits, distinctive historical context and wide ethnic, religious, and local community diversity.

Suggested Citation

  • Nan Xia, 2023. "Intellectual property protection for traditional medical knowledge in China’s context: a round peg in a square hole?," Medical Law Review, Oxford University Press, vol. 31(3), pages 358-390.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:medlaw:v:31:y:2023:i:3:p:358-390.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/medlaw/fwad006
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:medlaw:v:31:y:2023:i:3:p:358-390.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/medlaw .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.