Conceptual map (redefined by TRIPS PLUS ULTRA).

For the specific significance of this issues from the current level harmonization go here. For the whole picture and the conceptual background of the analysis go here and here.

This post is a map to the issues that are not harmonized in the international patent scheme and explanations about the harmonization process since the TRIPS in general and how TRIPS PLUS ULTRA could change how we think about them:

• Aplicable to whom? (practically the whole world).
• Compatibility with MFN and National Treatment doctrines.

• A. Minimum requirements of the TRIPS:
  • The TRIPS standard:
    • 20 years long patents. This is the element that, if weighed smartly and in though a  relative consensus could change everything. This is the TRIPS PLUS ULTRA proposal. There are always going to be those who complain, in every country actually, but in this case all countries could have something to get  out of the negotiation (the developing world fewer years of monopoly over innovation and the developed world a properly applied system which is more effective and efficient). Everybody happy, right? No, of course there will be some affected.
    • A global understanding about a basic definition of patent (around further defining it there is a heated debate).
    • Ius prohibendi granted by a patent.
    • Why importation is = exploitation in the TRIPS global regime, which could be a very good thing with the introduction of TRIPS PLUS ULTRA.
    • No discrimination in the national regimes to foreigners.
    • The TRIPS is aplicable, by principle that admits exemptions, to all fields of technology.
    • Patents are bestowed to both product and process.
    • The disclosure and publication of knowledge requirement.
    • The technological transfer goal declared at the TRIPS. It is further argued that this goal could be achieved driven by market forces if applied within the current system with the mere addition of TRIPS PLUS ULTRA.
    • Here you will find an explanation of the small relevance of other proposals made within the current system (based on the exceptions to the standard which are discussed ahead). From it we urge the academic community to stop focusing on the small issues and address the way we could really reset the system with one single change as proposed by TRIPS PLUS ULTRA (reform of art. 33 of the TRIPS Agreement).
  • B. Limitations and exceptions to the standard from which countries may choose (Political Note: The decisions to choose thees are influenced by nationalism or by foreign governments trough trade agreements; the rules in developing countries shifts in accordance, now and again, without any real and objective academic analysis).
    • The problems and opportunities of “further defining” the standard of what we understand as a patent.
    • Limitations to the rights conferred.
      • 1. Ipso iure limits.
      • 2. Compulsory licensing and a way ending with this could be good for developing countries provided the TRIPS PLUS ULTRA gets implemented.
      • 3. Exhaustion of rights and its interaction with the TRIPS PLUS ULTRA proposal.
    • Limitations regarding the patentable subject matter.
      • Ordere public.
      • Biological matter.
      • Plant varieties and its regime.
      • Scientific methods.
      • Diagnostic methods.
      • Utility models.
      • Second use patentes (by virtue of regulations at the national levels -court mande or mandated by the legislative, which hasn’t been challenged at the WTO).

 Clink on the issues to discover more about the listed issues in the map above (in doing so remember the relative relevance of those issues, compered with the whole that has all ready been harmonized, as explained here). Any comment is more than welcome.