A new PCT Proposal seeks to amend the PCT Regulations so as to provide Member States to enter into a voluntary or opt-in arrangement that would allow such Member state to ‘outsource’ it’s patenting mechanism to another country/ regional treaty office even if it is not a member of such regional treaty. However, a patenting office with a full-fledged examination cadre acts a core component in capacity building for the Member State and serves to protect against imposition of TRIPs plus provisions by being an active part of the national policy discourse. Instead of opting in for full-fledged ‘outsourcing’ of their patenting function, it may be a better idea (in the long term) to develop their internal patent office cadre, develop appropriate IP policies best suited to their stage of development and at the same time, giving deference to the patenting decisions of like-minded countries. Developing countries will stand to benefit more by showing deference to decisions of like countries, rather than delegating the power to make those decisions. By granting a Contracting state the power to grant and reject patents of another State, this proposal could tantamount to introducing substantive patent law provisions through the backdoor: an endeavour to harmonize substantive patent law that the WIPO has failed to achieve over the years.
Go to Source
Author: Guest contributor
facebooks