Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Article 27(3)(b) TRIPS and Plant Variety Protection in Developing Countries

  • Chapter
TRIPS plus 20

Part of the book series: MPI Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law ((MSIP,volume 25))

Abstract

In comparison with industrialised countries, agriculture in developing countries accounts for a substantial share of GDP and involves a substantial sector of small-holders and traditional agriculturalists. In view of these differences, the biotechnology clause of Article 27.3.b TRIPS with its requirement of plant variety protection either by patents or an effective sui generis system or a combination of the two has been controversial. However, developing countries have made surprisingly little use of the freedom to design their own systems in this field. Instead, there has been a surge in UPOV membership among developing countries and some have gone as far as introducing patent protection for plant varieties. Such countries now have to consider the same exclusions and exceptions to patenting that are normally discussed in countries with much more advanced biotechnology industries. The chapter examines the scope for the use of orde public considerations under Article 27.2 TRIPS, of exceptions for research and experimental purposes under Article 30 TRIPS, compulsory licensing under Article 31 TRIPS as well as the advantages of a specific breeding exemption and it briefly comments on the various sui generis options. While liberal interpretations of the TRIPS exceptions remain possible, the chapter concludes that the majority of developing countries will be better off in more creatively using the freedom to develop sui generis systems suitable for their local conditions rather than struggling to introduce TRIPS conform ‘limited exceptions’ to patent protection for plant varieties.

Prof. Dr. Christoph Antons is Professor at Deakin University, Melbourne, Affiliated Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich, Chief Investigator at the ARC Centre of Excellence for Creative Industries and Innovation and Senior Fellow at the Center for Development Research, University of Bonn.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 259.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 329.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 329.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    E.g. P. Drahos & J. Braithwaite (2002), Information Feudalism: Who Owns the Knowledge Economy?; S.K. Sell (2003), Private Power, Public Law: The Globalization of Intellectual Property Rights.

  2. 2.

    See for example the discussion of the impact of Article 27.1 TRIPS in UNCTAD-ICTSD (2005), Resource Book on TRIPS and Development, pp. 363-367.

  3. 3.

    C.M. Correa (2012), TRIPS-Related Patent Flexibilities and Food Security: Options for Developing Countries, p. 3.

  4. 4.

    M. Llewelyn (2003), Which Rules in World Trade Law – Patents or Plant Variety Protection?, in T. Cottier & P.C. Mavroidis (Eds.), Intellectual Property: Trade, Competition and Sustainable Development, p. 306.

  5. 5.

    World Bank World Development Indicators: Data Indicators Agriculture, value added (% of GDP), available at: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NV.AGR.TOTL.ZS (accessed 24 March 2014).

  6. 6.

    C.M. Correa (2012), TRIPS-Related Patent Flexibilities and Food Security: Options for Developing Countries, p. 2.

  7. 7.

    H.M. Haugen, M.R. Muller & S.M. Narashiman (2011), Food Security and Intellectual Property Rights: Finding the Linkages, in T. Wong & G. Dutfield (Eds.), Intellectual Property and Human Development: Current Trends and Future Scenarios, pp. 103-138.

  8. 8.

    World Bank World Development Indicators: Data Indicators Rural population (% of total population), available at: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.RUR.TOTL.ZS (accessed 24 March 2014).

  9. 9.

    C. Wittayapak & P. Vandergeest (2010), The Politics of Decentralization: Natural Resource Management in Asia.

  10. 10.

    E.g. S. Smeltzer (2008), The Message is the Market: Selling Biotechnology and Nation in Malaysia, in J. Nevins & N.L. Peluso (Eds.), Taking Southeast Asia to Market: Commodities, Nature, and People in the Neoliberal Age, pp. 191-205.

  11. 11.

    See www.upov.int/members/en (accessed 25 September 2014).

  12. 12.

    See www.upov.int/members/en/observers.html (accessed 25 September 2014).

  13. 13.

    UNCTAD-ICTSD (2005), Resource Book on TRIPS and Development, p. 391.

  14. 14.

    Ibid.

  15. 15.

    D. Gervais (2008), The TRIPS Agreement: Drafting History and Analysis, pp. 361-372.

  16. 16.

    D.B. Barbosa & K. Grau-Kuntz (2010), Exclusions from Patentable Subject Matter and Exceptions and Limitations to the Rights: Biotechnology, WIPO SCP/15/3, p. 19, note 43.

  17. 17.

    On the different views in the Council for TRIPS deliberations during the review, see P. Roffe (2008), Bringing Minimum Intellectual Property Standards into Agriculture: The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), in G. Tansey & T. Rajotte (Eds.), The Future Control of Food, pp. 63-64.

  18. 18.

    D. Gervais (2008), The TRIPS Agreement: Drafting History and Analysis, p. 353; UNCTAD-ICTSD (2005), Resource Book on TRIPS and Development, p. 394; M. Llewelyn (2003), Which Rules in World Trade Law – Patents or Plant Variety Protection?, in T. Cottier & P.C. Mavroidis (Eds.), Intellectual Property: Trade, Competition and Sustainable Development, pp. 308-309; K. Aoki (2008), Seed Wars: Controversies and Cases on Plant Genetic Resources and Intellectual Property, p. 82, note 101; G. van Overwalle (2008), Biotechnology and Patents: Global Standards, European Approaches and National Accents, in D. Würger & T. Cottier (Eds.), Genetic Engineering and the World Trade System, p. 80.

  19. 19.

    H.M. Haugen, M.R. Muller & S.M. Narashiman (2011), Food Security and Intellectual Property Rights: Finding the Linkages, in T. Wong & G. Dutfield (Eds.), Intellectual Property and Human Development: Current Trends and Future Scenarios, p. 120.

  20. 20.

    S. Ragavan & J. Mayer (2007), Has India Addressed Its Farmers Woes? A Story of Plant Protection Issues, 20 Geo. Int’l Envtl. L. Rev. 2007, 101.

  21. 21.

    D.B. Barbosa & K. Grau-Kuntz (2010), Exclusions from Patentable Subject Matter and Exceptions and Limitations to the Rights: Biotechnology, WIPO SCP/15/3, p. 39; S. Ragavan & J. Mayer (2007), Has India Addressed Its Farmers Woes? A Story of Plant Protection Issues, 20 Geo. Int’l Envtl. L. Rev. 2007, 103.

  22. 22.

    UNCTAD-ICTSD (2005), Resource Book on TRIPS and Development, p. 353.

  23. 23.

    C.M. Correa (2012), TRIPS-Related Patent Flexibilities and Food Security: Options for Developing Countries, p. 6.

  24. 24.

    D.B. Barbosa & K. Grau-Kuntz (2010), Exclusions from Patentable Subject Matter and Exceptions and Limitations to the Rights: Biotechnology, WIPO SCP/15/3, pp. 20-24.

  25. 25.

    L. Bently (2011), Exclusions from Patentability and Exceptions to Patentees’ Rights: Taking Exceptions Seriously, 64 CLP 2011, 334.

  26. 26.

    R. Kanniah & C. Antons (2012), Plant Variety Protection and Traditional Agricultural Knowledge in Southeast Asia, 13 Australian J. Asian L. 2010, 3.

  27. 27.

    W.L. Ng-Loy (2015), IP and FTAs of Singapore: Ten Years On, in C. Antons & R.M. Hilty (Eds.), Free Trade Agreements and Intellectual Property in the Asia-Pacific Region.

  28. 28.

    C.M. Correa (2012), TRIPS-Related Patent Flexibilities and Food Security: Options for Developing Countries, p. 4; D.B. Barbosa & K. Grau-Kuntz (2010), Exclusions from Patentable Subject Matter and Exceptions and Limitations to the Rights: Biotechnology, WIPO SCP/15/3, p. 32.

  29. 29.

    C.M. Correa (2012), TRIPS-Related Patent Flexibilities and Food Security: Options for Developing Countries, pp. 5-6; see also H.M. Haugen (2007), The Right to Food and the TRIPS Agreement: With a Particular Emphasis on Developing Countries’ Measures for Food Production and Distribution, pp. 228-229.

  30. 30.

    Ibid., p. 233, fn. 84.

  31. 31.

    Ibid., p. 230.

  32. 32.

    G. van Overwalle (2008), Biotechnology and Patents: Global Standards, European Approaches and National Accents, in D. Würger & T. Cottier (Eds.), Genetic Engineering and the World Trade System, pp. 89-91; N. Louwaars et al. (2009), Breeding Business: The Future of Plant Breeding in the Light of Developments in Patent Rights and Plant Breeder’s Rights, pp. 15-16; P. van der Kooij (2010), Towards a Breeder’s Exemption in Patent Law?, 32 EIPR 2010, 546-547.

  33. 33.

    K. Aoki (2008), Seed Wars: Controversies and Cases on Plant Genetic Resources and Intellectual Property, pp. 30-34.

  34. 34.

    Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980).

  35. 35.

    N. Louwaars et al. (2009), Breeding Business: The Future of Plant Breeding in the Light of Developments in Patent Rights and Plant Breeder’s Rights, p. 29; P. van der Kooij (2010), Towards a Breeder’s Exemption in Patent Law?, 32 EIPR 2010, 549; C.M. Correa (2012), TRIPS-Related Patent Flexibilities and Food Security: Options for Developing Countries, p. 5; M. Rimmer (2013), Patent-Busting: The Public Patent Foundation, Gene Patents and the Seed Wars, in C. Lawson & J. Sanderson (Eds.), The Intellectual Property and Food Project: From Rewarding Innovation and Creation to Feeding the World.

  36. 36.

    R.C. Dreyfuss (2009), Fostering Dynamic Innovation, Development and Trade: Intellectual Property as a Case Study in Global Administrative Law, Acta Juridica 2009, 258-259.

  37. 37.

    C.M. Correa (2012), TRIPS-Related Patent Flexibilities and Food Security: Options for Developing Countries; C.M. Correa (2005), The International Dimension of the Research Exception; C. Garrison (2006), Exceptions to Patent Rights in Developing Countries, UNCTAD-ICTSD Issue Paper No. 17; G. Dinwoodie & R. Dreyfuss (2007), Diversifying Without Discriminating: Complying with the Mandates of the TRIPS Agreement, 13 Mich. Telecomm. Tech. L. Rev. 2007, 445; H.M. Haugen (2007), The Right to Food and the TRIPS Agreement: With a Particular Emphasis on Developing Countries’ Measures for Food Production and Distribution; H.M. Haugen (2009), Human Rights and TRIPS Exclusion and Exception Provisions, 11 J. W. Intell. Prop. 2009, 345; H.M. Haugen, M.R. Muller & S.M. Narashiman (2011), Food Security and Intellectual Property Rights: Finding the Linkages, in T. Wong & G. Dutfield (Eds.), Intellectual Property and Human Development: Current Trends and Future Scenarios.

  38. 38.

    K.J. Strandburg (2009), Evolving Innovation Paradigms and the Global Intellectual Property Regime, 41 Conn. L. Rev. 2009, 861-920; C. Dent (2011), The TRIPS Agreement and an Experimental Use Exception for ‘Research Tools’, 44 Australian Econ. Rev. 2011, 73-78.

  39. 39.

    C.M. Correa (2012), TRIPS-Related Patent Flexibilities and Food Security: Options for Developing Countries, p. 8.

  40. 40.

    S. Hubicki & B. Sherman (2005), Terminator Genes as “Technical” Protection Measures for Patents?, in C. Heath & A. Kamperman Sanders (Eds.), New Frontiers of Intellectual Property Law: IP and Cultural Heritage, Geographical Indications, Enforcement and Overprotection.

  41. 41.

    H.M. Haugen (2009), Human Rights and TRIPS Exclusion and Exception Provisions, 11 J. W. Intell. Prop. 2009, 349-350.

  42. 42.

    G. van Overwalle (2008), Biotechnology and Patents: Global Standards, European Approaches and National Accents, in D. Würger & T. Cottier (Eds.), Genetic Engineering and the World Trade System, p. 81.

  43. 43.

    M. Llewelyn (2003), Which Rules in World Trade Law – Patents or Plant Variety Protection?, in T. Cottier & P.C. Mavroidis (Eds.), Intellectual Property: Trade, Competition and Sustainable Development, p. 307.

  44. 44.

    H.M. Haugen (2009), Human Rights and TRIPS Exclusion and Exception Provisions, 11 J. W. Intell. Prop. 2009, 345.

  45. 45.

    J. Curci (2010), The Protection of Biodiversity and Traditional Knowledge in International Law of Intellectual Property, pp. 234-235.

  46. 46.

    P. Drahos (2010), The Global Governance of Knowledge: Patent Offices and their Clients.

  47. 47.

    C. Arup (2008), The World Trade Organization Knowledge Agreements, p. 392; see also R.C. Dreyfuss (2009), Fostering Dynamic Innovation, Development and Trade: Intellectual Property as a Case Study in Global Administrative Law, Acta Juridica 2009, 252.

  48. 48.

    L. Bently (2011), Exclusions from Patentability and Exceptions to Patentees’ Rights: Taking Exceptions Seriously, 64 CLP 2011, 329, 338-341.

  49. 49.

    C.M. Correa (2005), The International Dimension of the Research Exception, pp. 7-8.

  50. 50.

    Ibid., p. 6, note 4.

  51. 51.

    Ibid., p. 8.

  52. 52.

    S.J.R. Bostyn (2013), Patentability of Plants: At the Crossroads between Monopolizing Nature and Protecting Technological Innovation?, 16 J. W. Intell. Prop. 2013, 132.

  53. 53.

    V. Prifti (2013), The Breeding Exemption in Patent Law: Analysis of Compliance with Article 30 of the TRIPS Agreement, 16 J. W. Intell. Prop. 2013, 218-219.

  54. 54.

    K.J. Strandburg (2004), What Does the Public Get? Experimental Use and the Patent Bargain, Wis. L. Rev. 2004, 122.

  55. 55.

    G. van Overwalle (2006), The Implementation of the Biotechnology Directive and its After-Effects: The Introduction of a New Research Exemption and a Compulsory Licence for Public Health, 37 IIC 2006, 907.

  56. 56.

    C.M. Correa (2005), The International Dimension of the Research Exception, p. 23; C. Garrison (2006), Exceptions to Patent Rights in Developing Countries, UNCTAD-ICTSD Issue Paper No. 17, pp. 4-5; E. Misati & K. Adachi (2010), The Research and Experimentation Exceptions in Patent Law: Jurisdictional Variations and the WIPO Development Agenda, UNCTAD-ICTSD Policy Brief No. 7, pp. 3-6.

  57. 57.

    Ibid., pp. 4, 6.

  58. 58.

    V. Prifti (2013), The Breeding Exemption in Patent Law: Analysis of Compliance with Article 30 of the TRIPS Agreement, 16 J. W. Intell. Prop. 2013, 219.

  59. 59.

    Ibid., 236, note 4, mentioning the pharmaceutical, biofuel, chemical and cosmetics industry.

  60. 60.

    See the overview in C.M. Correa (2005), The International Dimension of the Research Exception, pp. 34-66.

  61. 61.

    Ibid., p. 31.

  62. 62.

    W.R. Cornish (1998), Experimental Use of Patented Inventions in European Community States, 29 IIC 1998, 735; E. Misati & K. Adachi (2010), The Research and Experimentation Exceptions in Patent Law: Jurisdictional Variations and the WIPO Development Agenda, UNCTAD-ICTSD Policy Brief No. 7, p. 3.

  63. 63.

    UNCTAD-ICTSD (2005), Resource Book on TRIPS and Development, p. 443.

  64. 64.

    N. Louwaars et al. (2009), Breeding Business: The Future of Plant Breeding in the Light of Developments in Patent Rights and Plant Breeder’s Rights, p. 17; S.J.R. Bostyn (2013), Patentability of Plants: At the Crossroads between Monopolizing Nature and Protecting Technological Innovation?, 16 J. W. Intell. Prop. 2013, 133-134. See also the list of countries in WIPO (2010), Patent Related Flexibilities in the Multilateral Legal Framework and their Legislative Implementation at the National and Regional Levels, WIPO Doc. CDIP/5/4 Rev., p. 21.

  65. 65.

    C. Dent (2011), The TRIPS Agreement and an Experimental Use Exception for ‘Research Tools’, 44 Australian Econ. Rev. 2011, 76-77.

  66. 66.

    H. Grosse Ruse-Khan (2011), Assessing the Need for a General Public Interest Exception in the TRIPS Agreement, in A. Kur & M. Levin (Eds.), Intellectual Property Rights in a Fair World Trade System: Proposals for Reform of TRIPS, p. 183; A. Kur (2011), Limitations and Exceptions under the Three-Step Test – How much Room to Walk the Middle Ground?, in A. Kur & M. Levin (Eds.), Intellectual Property Rights in a Fair World Trade System: Proposals for Reform of TRIPS, p. 227.

  67. 67.

    R.C. Dreyfuss (2009), Fostering Dynamic Innovation, Development and Trade: Intellectual Property as a Case Study in Global Administrative Law, Acta Juridica 2009, 252-255.

  68. 68.

    A. Kur (2011), Limitations and Exceptions under the Three-Step Test – How much Room to Walk the Middle Ground?, in A. Kur & M. Levin (Eds.), Intellectual Property Rights in a Fair World Trade System: Proposals for Reform of TRIPS, pp. 236-237, 239.

  69. 69.

    C. Garrison (2006), Exceptions to Patent Rights in Developing Countries, UNCTAD-ICTSD Issue Paper No. 17, pp. 41-42.

  70. 70.

    C.M. Correa (2005), The International Dimension of the Research Exception, p. 10.

  71. 71.

    A. Kur (2011), Limitations and Exceptions under the Three-Step Test – How much Room to Walk the Middle Ground?, in A. Kur & M. Levin (Eds.), Intellectual Property Rights in a Fair World Trade System: Proposals for Reform of TRIPS, p. 240.

  72. 72.

    L. Bently (2011), Exclusions from Patentability and Exceptions to Patentees’ Rights: Taking Exceptions Seriously, 64 CLP 2011, 346-347.

  73. 73.

    A. Kur (2011), Limitations and Exceptions under the Three-Step Test – How much Room to Walk the Middle Ground?, in A. Kur & M. Levin (Eds.), Intellectual Property Rights in a Fair World Trade System: Proposals for Reform of TRIPS, p. 238.

  74. 74.

    C. Geiger, J. Griffiths & R.M. Hilty (2008), Declaration on a Balanced Interpretation of the ‘Three-Step Test’ in Copyright Law, 39 IIC 2008, 709.

  75. 75.

    H. Grosse Ruse-Khan (2011), Assessing the Need for a General Public Interest Exception in the TRIPS Agreement, in A. Kur & M. Levin (Eds.), Intellectual Property Rights in a Fair World Trade System: Proposals for Reform of TRIPS; A. Kur (2011), Limitations and Exceptions under the Three-Step Test – How much Room to Walk the Middle Ground?, in A. Kur & M. Levin (Eds.), Intellectual Property Rights in a Fair World Trade System: Proposals for Reform of TRIPS.

  76. 76.

    A. Kur (2011), Limitations and Exceptions under the Three-Step Test – How much Room to Walk the Middle Ground?, in A. Kur & M. Levin (Eds.), Intellectual Property Rights in a Fair World Trade System: Proposals for Reform of TRIPS, p. 249.

  77. 77.

    H.M. Haugen (2007), The Right to Food and the TRIPS Agreement: With a Particular Emphasis on Developing Countries’ Measures for Food Production and Distribution, p. 243.

  78. 78.

    C.M. Correa (2005), The International Dimension of the Research Exception, p. 16.

  79. 79.

    V. Prifti (2013), The Breeding Exemption in Patent Law: Analysis of Compliance with Article 30 of the TRIPS Agreement, 16 J. W. Intell. Prop. 2013, 225.

  80. 80.

    C.M. Correa (2005), The International Dimension of the Research Exception, pp. 34-66.

  81. 81.

    See for example the provisions in Albania, Argentina, Bahrain, Bolivia, Kazakhstan, Nicaragua and others. See also the countries listed in WIPO (2010), Patent Related Flexibilities in the Multilateral Legal Framework and their Legislative Implementation at the National and Regional Levels, WIPO Doc. CDIP/5/4 Rev., p. 21.

  82. 82.

    UNCTAD-ICTSD (2005), Resource Book on TRIPS and Development, p. 437.

  83. 83.

    M.R. Dove (2000), The Life-Cycle of Indigenous Knowledge, and the Case of Natural Rubber Production, in R. Ellen, P. Parkes & A. Bicker (Eds.), Indigenous Environmental Knowledge and its Transformations: Critical Anthropological Perspectives, p. 215.

  84. 84.

    M.R. Dove (2012), The Banana Tree at the Gate: A History of Marginal Peoples and Global Markets in Borneo, p. 201.

  85. 85.

    A. Kur (2011), Limitations and Exceptions under the Three-Step Test – How much Room to Walk the Middle Ground?, in A. Kur & M. Levin (Eds.), Intellectual Property Rights in a Fair World Trade System: Proposals for Reform of TRIPS.

  86. 86.

    C.M. Correa (2005), The International Dimension of the Research Exception.

  87. 87.

    See also P. van der Kooij (2010), Towards a Breeder’s Exemption in Patent Law?, 32 EIPR 2010, 549.

  88. 88.

    C. Dent (2011), The TRIPS Agreement and an Experimental Use Exception for ‘Research Tools’, 44 Australian Econ. Rev. 77; K.J. Strandburg (2004), What Does the Public Get? Experimental Use and the Patent Bargain, Wis. L. Rev. 2004, 138-146.

  89. 89.

    C. Dent et al. (2006), Research Use of Patented Knowledge: A Review, STI Working Paper 2006/2, pp. 38-39.

  90. 90.

    C.M. Correa (2012), TRIPS-Related Patent Flexibilities and Food Security: Options for Developing Countries, p. 15.

  91. 91.

    Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions; P. van der Kooij (2010), Towards a Breeder’s Exemption in Patent Law?, 32 EIPR 2010, 547-548.

  92. 92.

    H. Grosse Ruse-Khan (2011), Assessing the Need for a General Public Interest Exception in the TRIPS Agreement, in A. Kur & M. Levin (Eds.), Intellectual Property Rights in a Fair World Trade System: Proposals for Reform of TRIPS, p. 184.

  93. 93.

    J.J. Fox (2014), Fast Breeding Insect is Devastating Java’s Rice – Thanks to Pesticides, Jakarta Globe of 7 March 2014.

  94. 94.

    N. Louwaars et al. (2009), Breeding Business: The Future of Plant Breeding in the Light of Developments in Patent Rights and Plant Breeder’s Rights, p. 53; P. van der Kooij (2010), Towards a Breeder’s Exemption in Patent Law?, 32 EIPR 2010, 545.

  95. 95.

    V. Prifti (2013), The Breeding Exemption in Patent Law: Analysis of Compliance with Article 30 of the TRIPS Agreement, 16 J. W. Intell. Prop. 2013, 222.

  96. 96.

    Ibid., 226; L. Bently (2011), Exclusions from Patentability and Exceptions to Patentees’ Rights: Taking Exceptions Seriously, 64 CLP 2011, 343.

  97. 97.

    See also P. van der Kooij (2010), Towards a Breeder’s Exemption in Patent Law?, 32 EIPR 2010, 552.

  98. 98.

    V. Prifti (2013), The Breeding Exemption in Patent Law: Analysis of Compliance with Article 30 of the TRIPS Agreement, 16 J. W. Intell. Prop. 2013, 235.

  99. 99.

    P. van der Kooij (2010), Towards a Breeder’s Exemption in Patent Law?, 32 EIPR 2010, 545.

  100. 100.

    S.J.R. Bostyn (2013), Patentability of Plants: At the Crossroads between Monopolizing Nature and Protecting Technological Innovation?, 16 J. W. Intell. Prop. 2013, 132.

  101. 101.

    C.G. Trojan (2012), Problem-solving Approaches to the Issue of the Overlap between Patent Law and Breeders’ Rights in the Plant Breeding Sector.

  102. 102.

    P. van der Kooij (2010), Towards a Breeder’s Exemption in Patent Law?, 32 EIPR 2010, 550.

  103. 103.

    For a detailed discussion see D. Leskien & M. Flitner (1997), Intellectual Property Rights and Plant Genetic Resources: Options for a Sui Generis System, IPGRI Issues in Genetic Resources No. 6; C.M. Correa (2000), Options for the Implementation of Farmers’ Rights at the National Level, S. Ctr. Working Paper No. 8.

  104. 104.

    C.M. Correa (2012), TRIPS-Related Patent Flexibilities and Food Security: Options for Developing Countries, p. 3.

  105. 105.

    R. Kanniah & C. Antons (2012), Plant Variety Protection and Traditional Agricultural Knowledge in Southeast Asia, 13 Australian J. Asian L. 2012, 12-13; E.O. Awuku (2008), Intellectual Property Rights, Biotechnology and Development: African Perspectives, in D. Würger & T. Cottier (Eds.), Genetic Engineering and the World Trade System, p. 115; T. Jaeger (2015), The EU Approach to IP Protection in Partnership Agreements, in C. Antons & R.M. Hilty (Eds.), Intellectual Property and Free Trade Agreements in the Asia-Pacific Region.

  106. 106.

    C. Antons (2010), Sui Generis Protection for Plant Varieties and Traditional Knowledge in Biodiversity and Agriculture: The International Framework and National Approaches in the Philippines and India, 6 Ind. J.L. Tech. 2010, 95, 103; B. Tobin (2013), Open Access Seeds and Breeds: The Role of the Commons in Protecting Farmers’ and Livestock Keeper’s Rights and Food Security, in C. Lawson & J. Sanderson (Eds.), The Intellectual Property and Food Project: From Rewarding Innovation and Creation to Feeding the World, pp. 86-90.

  107. 107.

    R. Andersen & T. Winge (2013), Realising Farmers’ Rights to Crop Genetic Resources: Success Stories and Best Practices.

  108. 108.

    T. Winge, R. Andersen & A. Ramanna Pathak (2013), Combining Farmers’ Rights and Plant Variety Protection in Indian Law, in R. Andersen & T. Winge (Eds.), Realising Farmers’ Rights to Crop Genetic Resources: Success Stories and Best Practices; S. Ragavan & J. Mayer (2007), Has India Addressed Its Farmers Woes? A Story of Plant Protection Issues, 20 Geo. Int’l Envtl. L. Rev. 2007, 97.

  109. 109.

    R. Sagar (2005), Intellectual Property, Benefit-Sharing and Traditional Knowledge: How Effective is the Indian Biological Diversity Act, 2002?, 8 J. W. Intell. Prop. 2005, 383; N.S. Gopalakrishnan (2002), Protection of Traditional Knowledge: The Need for a Sui Generis Law in India, 5 J. W. Intell. Prop. 2002, 725; C. Antons (2007), Sui Generis Protection for Plant Varieties and Traditional Agricultural Knowledge: The Example of India, 29 EIPR 2007, 480; C. Antons (2010), Sui Generis Protection for Plant Varieties and Traditional Knowledge in Biodiversity and Agriculture: The International Framework and National Approaches in the Philippines and India, 6 Ind. J.L. Tech. 2010, 89; B. Tobin (2013), Open Access Seeds and Breeds: The Role of the Commons in Protecting Farmers’ and Livestock Keeper’s Rights and Food Security, in C. Lawson & J. Sanderson (Eds.), The Intellectual Property and Food Project: From Rewarding Innovation and Creation to Feeding the World; R. Kanniah & C. Antons (2012), Plant Variety Protection and Traditional Agricultural Knowledge in Southeast Asia, 13 Australian J. Asian L. 2012, 1.

  110. 110.

    See the contributions in J.P. Brosius, A. Lowenhaupt Tsing & C. Zerner (2005), Communities and Conservation: Histories and Politics of Community-Based Natural Resource Management; C. Wittayapak & P. Vandergeest (2010), The Politics of Decentralization: Natural Resource Management in Asia.

  111. 111.

    E. Ostrom & C. Hess (2007), A Framework for Analyzing the Knowledge Commons, in C. Hess & E. Ostrom (Eds.), Understanding Knowledge as a Commons: From Theory to Practice.

  112. 112.

    P. Vandergeest & C. Wittayapak (2010), Decentralization and Politics, in C. Wittayapak & P. Vandergeest (Eds.), The Politics of Decentralization: Natural Resource Management in Asia.

  113. 113.

    L.R. Helfer & G.W. Austin (2011), Human Rights and Intellectual Property: Mapping the Global Interface, p. 388.

  114. 114.

    See also C.M. Correa (2012), TRIPS-Related Patent Flexibilities and Food Security: Options for Developing Countries, p. 13.

  115. 115.

    L.R. Helfer & G.W. Austin (2011), Human Rights and Intellectual Property: Mapping the Global Interface, p. 388, quoting J. Watal (2000), Intellectual Property Rights in the WTO and Developing Countries.

References

  • Andersen, R. & Winge, T. (2013), Realising Farmers’ Rights to Crop Genetic Resources: Success Stories and Best Practices, Abingdon (UK): Routledge

    Google Scholar 

  • Antons, C. (2007), Sui Generis Protection for Plant Varieties and Traditional Agricultural Knowledge: The Example of India, 29 EIPR 2007, 480, London: Sweet & Maxwell

    Google Scholar 

  • Antons, C. (2010), Sui Generis Protection for Plant Varieties and Traditional Knowledge in Biodiversity and Agriculture: The International Framework and National Approaches in the Philippines and India, 6 Ind. J.L. Tech. 2010, 89, Bangalore: National Law School of India University

    Google Scholar 

  • Aoki, K. (2008), Seed Wars: Controversies and Cases on Plant Genetic Resources and Intellectual Property, Durham, North Carolina: Carolina Academic Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Arup, C. (2008), The World Trade Organization Knowledge Agreements, 2nd ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Awuku, E.O. (2008), Intellectual Property Rights, Biotechnology and Development: African Perspectives, in D. Würger & T. Cottier (Eds.), Genetic Engineering and the World Trade System, pp. 109-117, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbosa, D.B. & Grau-Kuntz, K. (2010), Exclusions from Patentable Subject Matter and Exceptions and Limitations to the Rights: Biotechnology, WIPO SCP/15/3, available at: http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/scp/en/scp_15/scp_15_3-annex3.pdf (accessed 24 March 2015)

    Google Scholar 

  • Bently, L. (2011), Exclusions from Patentability and Exceptions to Patentees’ Rights: Taking Exceptions Seriously, 64 CLP 2011, 315, Oxford: Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Bostyn, S.J.R. (2013), Patentability of Plants: At the Crossroads between Monopolizing Nature and Protecting Technological Innovation?, 16 J. W. Intell. Prop. 2013, 105, Malden: John Wiley & Sons

    Google Scholar 

  • Brosius, J.P., Lowenhaupt Tsing, A. & Zerner, C. (2005), Communities and Conservation: Histories and Politics of Community-Based Natural Resource Management, Lanham, MD/Plymouth, UK: Altamira Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornish, W.R. (1998), Experimental Use of Patented Inventions in European Community States, 29 IIC 1998, 735, Munich/Berlin: C.H. Beck/Springer

    Google Scholar 

  • Correa, C.M. (2000), Options for the Implementation of Farmers’ Rights at the National Level, S. Ctr., T.R.A.D.E., Working Paper No. 8

    Google Scholar 

  • Correa, C.M. (2005), The International Dimension of the Research Exception, Washington, DC: SIPPI Project, AAAS, available at: http://sippi.aaas.org/intlexemptionpaper.shtml (accessed 24 March 2015)

    Google Scholar 

  • Correa, C.M. (2012), TRIPS-Related Patent Flexibilities and Food Security: Options for Developing Countries, Geneva: Quaker United Nations Office (QUNO) and International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD)

    Google Scholar 

  • Curci, J. (2010), The Protection of Biodiversity and Traditional Knowledge in International Law of Intellectual Property, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Dent, C. (2011), The TRIPS Agreement and an Experimental Use Exception for ‘Research Tools’, 44 Australian Econ. Rev. 2011, 73, Malden: John Wiley & Sons

    Google Scholar 

  • Dent, C. et al. (2006), Research Use of Patented Knowledge: A Review, STI Working Paper 2006/2, Paris: OECD Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry

    Google Scholar 

  • Dinwoodie, G. & Dreyfuss, R. (2007), Diversifying Without Discriminating: Complying with the Mandates of the TRIPS Agreement, 13 Mich. Telecomm. Tech. L. Rev. 2007, 445, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Law School

    Google Scholar 

  • Dove, M.R. (2000), The Life-Cycle of Indigenous Knowledge, and the Case of Natural Rubber Production, in R. Ellen, P. Parkes & A. Bicker (Eds.), Indigenous Environmental Knowledge and its Transformations: Critical Anthropological Perspectives, pp. 213-248, London: Routledge

    Google Scholar 

  • Dove, M.R. (2012), The Banana Tree at the Gate: A History of Marginal Peoples and Global Markets in Borneo, Singapore: NUS Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Drahos, P. & Braithwaite, J. (2002), Information Feudalism: Who Owns the Knowledge Economy?, London: Earthscan

    Google Scholar 

  • Drahos, P. (2010), The Global Governance of Knowledge: Patent Offices and their Clients, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Dreyfuss, R.C. (2009), Fostering Dynamic Innovation, Development and Trade: Intellectual Property as a Case Study in Global Administrative Law, Acta Juridica 2009, 237, Claremont: Juta Law

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, J.J. (2014), Fast Breeding Insect is Devastating Java’s Rice – Thanks to Pesticides, Jakarta Globe of 7 March 2014

    Google Scholar 

  • Garrison, C. (2006), Exceptions to Patent Rights in Developing Countries, Geneva: UNCTAD-ICTSD Issue Paper No. 17

    Google Scholar 

  • Geiger, C., Griffiths, J. & Hilty R.M. (2008), Declaration on a Balanced Interpretation of the ‘Three-Step test’ in Copyright Law, 39 IIC 2008, 707, Munich/Berlin: C.H. Beck/Springer

    Google Scholar 

  • Gervais, D. (2008), The TRIPS Agreement: Drafting History and Analysis, 3rd ed., London: Thomson Reuters

    Google Scholar 

  • Gopalakrishnan, N.S. (2002), Protection of Traditional Knowledge: The Need for a Sui Generis Law in India, 5 J. W. Intell. Prop. 2002, 725, Malden: John Wiley & Sons

    Google Scholar 

  • Grosse Ruse-Khan, H. (2011), Assessing the Need for a General Public Interest Exception in the TRIPS Agreement, in A. Kur & M. Levin (Eds.), Intellectual Property Rights in a Fair World Trade System: Proposals for Reform of TRIPS, pp. 167-207, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar

    Google Scholar 

  • Haugen, H.M. (2007), The Right to Food and the TRIPS Agreement: With a Particular Emphasis on Developing Countries’ Measures for Food Production and Distribution, Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers

    Google Scholar 

  • Haugen, H.M. (2009), Human Rights and TRIPS Exclusion and Exception Provisions, 11 J. W. Intell. Prop. 2009, 345, Malden: John Wiley & Sons

    Google Scholar 

  • Haugen, H.M., Muller M.R. & Narashiman S.M. (2011), Food Security and Intellectual Property Rights: Finding the Linkages, in T. Wong & G. Dutfield (Eds.), Intellectual Property and Human Development: Current Trends and Future Scenarios, pp. 103-138, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Helfer, L.R. & Austin, G.W. (2011), Human Rights and Intellectual Property: Mapping the Global Interface, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Hubicki, S. & Sherman, B. (2005), Terminator Genes as “Technical” Protection Measures for Patents?, in C. Heath & A. Kamperman Sanders (Eds.), New Frontiers of Intellectual Property Law: IP and Cultural Heritage, Geographical Indications, Enforcement and Overprotection, pp. 267-289, Oxford/Portland, Oregon: Hart Publishing

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaeger, T. (2015), The EU Approach to IP Protection in Partnership Agreements, in C. Antons & R.M. Hilty (Eds.), Intellectual Property and Free Trade Agreements in the Asia-Pacific Region, pp. 171-210, Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanniah, R. & Antons, C. (2012), Plant Variety Protection and Traditional Agricultural Knowledge in Southeast Asia, 13 Australian J. Asian L. 2012, 1, Annandale, NSW: The Federation Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Kur, A. (2011), Limitations and Exceptions under the Three-Step Test – How much Room to Walk the Middle Ground?, in A. Kur & M. Levin (Eds.), Intellectual Property Rights in a Fair World Trade System: Proposals for Reform of TRIPS, pp. 208-261, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar

    Google Scholar 

  • Leskien, D. & Flitner, M. (1997), Intellectual Property Rights and Plant Genetic Resources: Options for a Sui Generis System, IPGRI, Issues in Genetic Resources No. 6

    Google Scholar 

  • Llewelyn, M. (2003), Which Rules in World Trade Law – Patents or Plant Variety Protection?, in T. Cottier & P.C. Mavroidis (Eds.), Intellectual Property: Trade, Competition and Sustainable Development, pp. 303-339, Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Louwaars, N. et al. (2009), Breeding Business: The Future of Plant Breeding in the Light of Developments in Patent Rights and Plant Breeder’s Rights, Wageningen: Centre for Genetic Resources

    Google Scholar 

  • Misati, E. & Adachi, K. (2010), The Research and Experimentation Exceptions in Patent Law: Jurisdictional Variations and the WIPO Development Agenda, Geneva, UNCTAD-ICTSD, Policy Brief Number 7, March 2010

    Google Scholar 

  • Ng-Loy, W.L. (2015), IP and FTAs of Singapore: Ten Years On, in C. Antons & R.M. Hilty (Eds.), Free Trade Agreements and Intellectual Property in the Asia-Pacific Region, pp. 337-353, Heidelberg/Berlin: Springer

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. & Hess, C. (2007), A Framework for Analyzing the Knowledge Commons, in C. Hess & E. Ostrom (Eds.), Understanding Knowledge as a Commons: From Theory to Practice, pp. 41-81, Cambridge, Mass./London: The MIT Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Prifti, V. (2013), The Breeding Exemption in Patent Law: Analysis of Compliance with Article 30 of the TRIPS Agreement, 16 J. W. Intell. Prop. 2013, 218, Malden: John Wiley & Sons

    Google Scholar 

  • Ragavan, S. & Mayer, J. (2007), Has India Addressed Its Farmers Woes? A Story of Plant Protection Issues, 20 Geo. Int’l Envtl. L. Rev. 2007, 97, Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Law Center

    Google Scholar 

  • Rimmer, M. (2013), Patent-Busting: The Public Patent Foundation, Gene Patents and the Seed Wars, in C. Lawson & J. Sanderson (Eds.), The Intellectual Property and Food Project: From Rewarding Innovation and Creation to Feeding the World, pp. 201-249. Farnham, Surrey/Burlington, VT: Ashgate

    Google Scholar 

  • Roffe, P. (2008), Bringing Minimum Intellectual Property Standards into Agriculture: The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), in G. Tansey & T. Rajotte (Eds.), The Future Control of Food, pp. 48-68, London: Earthscan

    Google Scholar 

  • Sagar, R. (2005), Intellectual Property, Benefit-Sharing and Traditional Knowledge: How Effective is the Indian Biological Diversity Act, 2002?, 8 J. W. Intell. Prop. 2005, 383, Malden: John Wiley & Sons

    Google Scholar 

  • Sell, S.K. (2003), Private Power, Public Law: The Globalization of Intellectual Property Rights, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Smeltzer, S. (2008), The Message is the Market: Selling Biotechnology and Nation in Malaysia, in J. Nevins & N.L. Peluso (Eds.), Taking Southeast Asia to Market: Commodities, Nature, and People in the Neoliberal Age, pp. 191-205, Ithaca/London: Cornell University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Strandburg, K.J. (2004), What does the Public get? Experimental Use and the Patent Bargain, Wis. L. Rev. 2004, 81, Madison: University of Wisconsin Law School

    Google Scholar 

  • Strandburg, K.J. (2009), Evolving Innovation Paradigms and the Global Intellectual Property Regime, 41 Conn. L. Rev. 2009, 861, Hartford: University of Connecticut School of Law

    Google Scholar 

  • Tobin, B. (2013), Open Access Seeds and Breeds: The Role of the Commons in Protecting Farmers’ and Livestock Keeper’s Rights and Food Security, in C. Lawson & J. Sanderson (Eds.), The Intellectual Property and Food Project: From Rewarding Innovation and Creation to Feeding the World, pp. 75-100. Farnham, Surrey/Burlington, VT: Ashgate

    Google Scholar 

  • Trojan, C.G. (2012), Problem-solving Approaches to the Issue of the Overlap between Patent Law and Breeders’ Rights in the Plant Breeding Sector. Report submitted to the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation, available at the website of the International Association of Horticultural Producers, http://www.aiph.org/site/index.cfm?act=download.mod&doc…trojan (accessed 30 September 2014)

  • UNCTAD-ICTSD (2005), Resource Book on TRIPS and Development, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Vandergeest, P. & Wittayapak, C. (2010), Decentralization and Politics, in C. Wittayapak & P. Vandergeest (Eds.), The Politics of Decentralization: Natural Resource Management in Asia, pp. 1-20, Chiang Mai: Mekong Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Kooij, P. (2010), Towards a Breeder’s Exemption in Patent Law?, 32 EIPR 2010, 545, London: Sweet & Maxwell

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Overwalle, G. (2006), The Implementation of the Biotechnology Directive and its After-Effects: The Introduction of a New Research Exemption and a Compulsory Licence for Public Health, 37 IIC 2006, 889, Munich/Berlin: C.H. Beck/Springer

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Overwalle, G. (2008), Biotechnology and Patents: Global Standards, European Approaches and National Accents, in D. Würger & T. Cottier (Eds.), Genetic Engineering and the World Trade System, pp. 77-108, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Watal, J. (2000), Intellectual Property Rights in the WTO and Developing Countries, London/The Hague/Boston: Kluwer Law International

    Google Scholar 

  • Winge, T., Andersen, R. & Ramanna Pathak, A. (2013), Combining Farmers’ Rights and Plant Variety Protection in Indian Law, in R. Andersen & T. Winge (Eds.), Realising Farmers’ Rights to Crop Genetic Resources: Success Stories and Best Practices, pp. 54-61, Abingdon, UK: Routledge

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittayapak, C. & Vandergeest, P. (2010), The Politics of Decentralization: Natural Resource Management in Asia, Chiang Mai: Mekong Press

    Google Scholar 

  • World Intellectual Property Organization (2010), Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP), Patent Related Flexibilities in the Multilateral Legal Framework and their Legislative Implementation at the National and Regional Levels, WIPO Doc. CDIP/5/4 Rev. of 18 August 2010, available at: http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/doc_details.jsp?doc_id=131629 (accessed 30 September 2014)

Download references

Acknowledgement

This research was supported under the Australian Research Council’s Discovery Project’s funding scheme (project number DP130100213).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Business and Law, School of Law, Deakin University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

    Christoph Antons

Authors
  1. Christoph Antons
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christoph Antons .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich, Germany

    Hanns Ullrich

  2. Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich, Germany

    Reto M. Hilty

  3. Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich, Germany

    Matthias Lamping

  4. Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich, Germany

    Josef Drexl

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Antons, C. (2016). Article 27(3)(b) TRIPS and Plant Variety Protection in Developing Countries. In: Ullrich, H., Hilty, R., Lamping, M., Drexl, J. (eds) TRIPS plus 20. MPI Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law, vol 25. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-48107-3_12

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation