The Patents Act, 1970, and the Patents Rules, 2003, have undergone number of changes in

last one decade or so. The initial changes in the Act and corresponding Rules were mostly
with a vision to make the Indian Patent Laws in conformity to the TRIPS guidelines with the
allowed extent of exemptions. Later on, one can say that the focus of amendments moved
towards making the procedure to apply for and grant of patent more transparent and swift.
We will start with Patent (Amendment) Act, 2005, under which India adopted patent
protection for new technologies especially in chemicals and pharmaceuticals in compliance
with TRIPS agreement of the WTO. The said amendments with effect from 1-Jan-2005.
Some of the salient features of the 2005 Patents amendments were:

1. One of the most important changes was that the earlier provision prohibiting product
patent for food, medicine, drug and chemical processes was removed. In India with effect
from 1st January 2005 product patent is available for medicine, drug, chemical processes
and food.
2. "Mere new use or a known substance" was no more an invention as per Section 3(d) of
the Act. In other words, if the applicant can substantiate that it is a new use for a known
substance with some technical input such new use can be patented.
3. A computer program per se is not patentable but its "technical application to industry or a
combination with hardware" is patentable.
4. If a patent application is field with a provisional specification, the complete specification is
now required to be filed within 12 months of the date of filing.
5. The applications are examined only on a request for examination in a prescribed manner.
Without a request, the
patent applications would not be examined.
6. Provisions relating to Exclusive Marketing Rights (EMR) were removed. EMR provision
was introduced in India in the year 1999 in compliance with TRIPS as product patent for
drug and medicine was not available in the Indian Act. As product patents can now be
granted for Drugs, medicines, food, and chemical processes the EMR provision has become
redundant and has been repealed.
7. Provisions for pre-grant opposition and post-grant were introduced. After publication an
before grant of patent, any person can make a representation to the Controller requesting
him to refuse the application on the prescribed grounds. Further, after the grant of a patent
but before the expiry of one year from the date of publication of grant, any person interested
may give notice of opposition to the Controller.
After 2005, there have been several procedural changes including administration of patent
prosecution and execution of work at IPO. Some of the major changes have been: digital
access of WIPO data with respect to filing of PCT national phase applications, digitization of
entire patent office records with each document from each application and patent being
scanned and made available online, switching to e-Filing system except for original
documentation, making emails as primary mode of communications, centralizing the
examination of patent applications therefore distributing the huge load of pending
applications amongst difference branches of IPO, hearings now being conducted through
video conferencing, etc.
Another set of major amendments came in 2016 by way of The Patents (Amendment) Rules,
2016, which came into force on 16- May-2016. Key highlights of the amended Rules are:

i. Insertion of clause (fb) to Rule 2 defining a new category of applicant namely "Startup"
which needs to pay a discounted official fee.
ii. Provision for expedited examination was introduced for cases where India has been
elected as International Searching Authority or as International Preliminary Examination
Authority; or, if the applicant is a Startup.
iii. Time for putting the application in order for grant is reduced from 1 year to 6 months.
iv. As per sub rule (6) of Rule 28, hearings may also be held through videoconferencing.
v. Provision of request for adjournment of a hearing is introduced, which shall be submitted
with the prescribed official fee at least three days before the date of hearing.
vi. Applicant can now claim refund of 90% of examination fee before the issuance of an
examination report in an application.
vii. Upper cap on official fee is defined w.r.t nucleotide sequence listing pages under Rule
9(3) to a maximum of INR 24000 [upto 150 pages].
With said sequence of changes, rather upgrades from the earlier processes, the Patent
protection procedures in India are evolving for sure. When we compare the Patent Office
practices of USA and European countries, we can definitely say that the Indian Patent Office
have certainly covered the gap in leaps and bounds and are now considered as one of the
pro-active Patent Offices of the world. Having said that, there is, and will always be, scope
for improvements in making the process faster and further improve on the clarity in decision
making, and transparency in procedure.
To talk in terms of evolution of Indian patent jurisprudence per se, we can safely say that the
Indian patent law is mature and the same is considered amongst the "balanced" patent
regimes when it comes to public rights versus the private rights. Indian patent laws have
been regarded as standards by several developing nations because the same has the true
mix of Patentee's exclusionist right along with reasonable restrictions and exceptions carved
out for public necessities.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter.
Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
Compliance of Trips in Indian Patent Law

The Patents Act 1970 sought to ensure that patents were not exploited contrary to the national
interest. It provided for a shortened patent term; it prohibited some product patents like
pharmaceuticals product patents; and it included a strong compulsory licensing regime....

Author Name: rajdeeplaw

The Patents Act 1970 sought to ensure that patents were not exploited contrary to the
national interest. It provided for a shortened patent term; it prohibited some product patents
like pharmaceuticals product patents; and it included a strong compulsory licensing regime....
Chapter --I: TRIPS; the Gateway of the Global Economy
“Everything that can be invented has (already) been invented”. -- Mr. Charles H. Duell,
(Director of
US Patent Office)
The events thereafter proved that inventions are waiting for those who are willing to “think
out of the
box”. Mankinds have moved in to the era of ideas, creativity, inventions and intellectual
properties,
intensively and aggressively in the 21st century and the dawn of the new millennium.
Intellectual
property (IP) has emerged as a key tool in value creation and innovative growth of
communities
and countries in the transition to the 21st century and the birth of the millennium. IP in
knowledge
industry such as pharmaceuticals has become more relevant in the post WTO-TRIPS era.
For many years, international trade was governed by GATT (General Agreement on Trade
and
Tariff). In mid-80’s, the Uruguay Round of GATT, proposed for the inclusion of Intellectual
properties in the trade agenda. Long deliberations and complex negotiations later in 1994,
WTO
(World Trade Organization) was born effective 1st January 1995, where India was also a
founder
signatory. WTO brought in or activated many agreements, treaties and conventions as well as
many new regulations. Important among all of them is, of course the TRIPS (Trade related
aspects
of Intellectual property rights) Agreement. TRIPS has emerged as the most widely impacting
Agreement post WTO leading to harmonization of Intellectual properties among member
states.
Chapter --II: Indian Patent Law and the Socio Economic Structure of India
India, the land of rich culture and heritage always gives priority to it’s traditional approach
towards
the advancement which unfortunately sometimes gives a huge set back to the India’s
progress. The
same happened in India’s progressive attitude to comply with the TRIPS agreement and for
this
reason India suffered a lot for almost a period of 10 long years. The major aspect of TRIPS is
it’s
flexibility (as per DOHA Conference) but such was not taken in a positive manner by India.
Even
the Ex-Prime Minister of India, Late Indira Gandhi once argued in favor of India’s
traditionalistic
approach to deny the grant of Patent Right to the life saving Drugs. It is the population of 1.2
billion,
increasing poverty and the Tag of ‘DEVELOPING NATION’ always act like a barb wire to
the
boundary of achievement and progress.
Chapter --III: The Campaign to ensure Public Health Protection
The process of patent reform in India has been characterized by strong involvement of the
national
pharmaceutical industry and NGOs. The activism of civil society groups help explain why
India was
one of the countries that most strongly opposed the TRIPS Agreement and refused to
implement
product patents on pharmaceuticals until the deadline of January 1, 2005, despite intense
external
pressure. During the TRIPS Agreement negotiations and through the 1990s, Indian national
pharmaceutical firms and NGOs worked together to pressure government and resist changes
to the
national patent system. The national pharmaceutical industry viewed the implementation of
TRIPS
obligations as being detrimental to their interest in generic manufacturing and favoring
foreign firms,
while NGOs were mainly concerned with the effects on access to generic medicines. The
Indian
Drug Manufacturers Association (IDMA) representing generic firms such as CIPLA, and
Ranbaxy
Laboratories Ltd., a large national pharmaceutical firm and generic producer that was part of
IDMA
in the 1990s, in lobbying the government to protect the generic market and support the
domestic
pharmaceutical industry, found common ground with NGOs such as the National Working
Group on
Patent Laws (NWGPL), an informal public interest expert group established in 1988.

Chapter --IV: TRIPS in Indian Patent Act; A Study of compliance and non-compliance
The TRIPS Agreement is one of the fifteen Agreements listed in Annex I of the Marrakesh
Agreement establishing WTO. Though retaining the basic principle of mutuality and quid pro
quo for
patent grant, the TRIPS Agreement has widened the scope, duration, and strength of patent
protection. India actually complied with some major provisions of the TRIPS agreement, i.e.
Article
27.1, Article 33, Article 27.1, Article 27.1, and Article 31.
But provisions like Sec. 3(d) directly go into conflict with the TRIPS agreement. So still now,
even
after the amendment and the modification made to the Indian Patent Act lacunas prevail in
this
context.
Chapter --V: TRIPS Compliance by other nations, in comparison to Indian Patent Act; A
Comparative Study
The TRIPS Agreement basically deals with countries which are developed, developing & less
developed. Being the developed countries, USA, UK, Canada actually incorporated most of
the
TRIPS provisions but countries like India, Singapore, Bangladesh could not do the same
because
of it’s socio-economic conditions. Some countries have had much less amicable reactions to
TRIPS. South Africa and Brazil stand out with regard to the health issue. Both countries have
successfully attempted to chart out a new course, which goes much beyond what would have
been
deemed acceptable under TRIPS until recently. This is remarkable because both legal
regimes
were challenged and the challenge was abandoned in each case. But in reality, the patent law
which was a model for other developing countries like Argentina, Mexico, Egypt, Brazil and
Chile,
has been replaced by the Indian Patent Act, 1999, which is modeled on the basis of the
TRIPS
(Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) text. This amendment seeks to
implement
the obligations that India has taken in the field of patents by signing the TRIPS Agreement.
The bill
generally aims at making the 1970 Patents Act as TRIPS compliant as possible.
Chapter --VI: The Journey of a Decade; India’s attitude towards TRIPS Compliance from
1995-
2005
The Patents Act, 1970 was amended for a second time in 1999, and again in 2002 and 2005.
The
Patent (Third Amendment) Act, 2005, extended product patents to products from all industry
sectors, including pharmaceuticals. It also set the term of patent protection to 20 years to
meet the
TRIPS deadline for January 1, 2005. This closed the option of reverse engineering that
largely
contributed to the growth of the Indian pharmaceutical industry. It will not be possible to
produce
the patented product by adopting a different process. Some safeguard measures and
flexibilities
contained in the TRIPS Agreement were introduced in the patent system to protect public
health,
such as the Commissions on TRIPS that included leading senior former government officials
and
experts as members and held public consultations that recollected the views of experts,
NGOs,
industry associations and government officials. The reports produced by the People’s
Commissions
studied the debates in parliament on amendments to the Patents Act, 1970 and provided
specific
suggestions on changes to ensure the amended Act would prioritize the national interest and
access to medicines.
Chapter --VII: The Reformation; Amendment of the Indian Patent Act -- The patent term is
now 20
years, instead of a previous 7 for food and pharmaceuticals, and 14 for all else.
The law relating to computer software has been clarified. Although software per se is not
patentable, software configured to achieve a particular technical result may be. Previous
practice
was to grant patents only to software coupled with hardware.
Methods of treating plants are now patentable, although processes for treating human beings
and
animals are not. Micro-organisms are now patentable, whereas previously all forms of life
had been

excluded.
Chapter -- VIII: The Revolution came with the Reformation
The amendments in the Patent Act will foster major changes in the Indian health sector.
Indian
companies will not be able to legally produce generic versions of drugs currently protected by
patents. This in turn will have an important impact for companies mainly manufacturing
generic
drugs. From the consumer point of view, some of the main impacts will be the unavailability
of
cheap generic drugs before the 20-year period of protection elapses and the generally higher
prices
of drugs. The availability of product patents on drugs is generally meant to provide further
incentives for private sector R&D in health. While this could theoretically be beneficial to
both
consumers and producers, it has been noted that the availability of patents does not
necessarily
lead to preferential investment in medicines needed by the poor. And after the amendment
Foreign
Investors started to pour their capital in Indian soil which started to give some positive effect
to the
National Income and the National profit in Stock Market.
Chapter -- IX: The Distance covered and to be covered
The present scenario is not altogether as disappointing as it was in the 1970s or 1990s; the
scenario is better than it was before. The new amendment of the Indian Patent Act gave a
crystal
clear view of India’s progressive attitude and intention to enter in the arena of advancement.
Since
the amendment the Global Economic Competition welcomes India as a nation having huge
prospect for investment. The Information era urges before India to wipe out the evils of social
dilemma in regard to granting Patent right India must also take the convenient means to
eradicate
the lacunas in it’s Patent law (e.g., Sec. 3(d) of the Indian Patent Act) to coup up with the
progress
of other nations and achieve the tag of Developed Nation.
Suggestions & Conclusion
The Indian Patent System has geared up to provide a level playing ground for all stake
holders.
The recent amendments have brought the national IP Laws close to the TRIPS norms which
were
the real need to change the scenario prevailed in regard to Patent rights. The 40 years old
system
of limited term process patents for pharmaceutical products is getting abolished by virtue of
the new
Amendment. Multinational Companies are looking at the Indian market more seriously which
will
boost up Indian economy and progress.
The patent bill attempts to put India in compliance with its TRIPS obligations. In the process,
it sets
aside some of the most salient elements of the current legal regime which, together with other
instruments such as the Drugs Price Control Order, have generally served well the interests of
the
country and its inhabitants. It is likely to bring about a legal regime that is less favorable from
the
point of view of access to drugs for the people of this country. Further, TRIPS cannot be
implemented in isolation. India has a number of other international obligations, in particular
in the
field of human rights. As interpreted by UN human rights organs, the right to health requires
that
countries progressively take positive steps towards facilitating access. Dismantling the 1970
regime
may constitute a violation of India's obligations under the covenant on economic, social and
cultural
rights.
Bibliography
# Intellectual Property Rights: Theory & Indian Practice by Garima Gupta & Avih Rastogi
# Changes to India’s patent law – One step closer to TRIPS compliance by Edward Heinkein
# B.L. Wadera, Law relating to Patents, Trademarks, Copyright, Designs & Geographical
Indications (Universal Law Publising Co Ltd, New Delhi, 2nd edn., 1999).
# Correa, C., Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights: A Commentary on the
TRIPS
Agreement 294 (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2007).

# Daniel Gervais, TRIPS Agreement, The Drafting History and Analysis (Sweet & Maxwell,
London,
3rd edn., 2008)
# Intellectual Property Law (3rd Edition) by Lionel Bentley & Brad Sherman
# The TRIPS Agreement
# The Indian Patent Act, 1970
# Patent Reform in India by Dr. Partha Pratim Mitra
# Will the lifeline of affordable medicines for poor countries be cut? Consequences of
medicines
patenting in India (Briefing document) by Médecins Sans Frontières (February 2005)
# Research Question and Hypothesis by Gerrit Muller, Embedded Systems Institute,
Netherland
The author can be reached at: rajdeep.law@legalserviceindia.com

ISBN No: 978-81-928510-1-3

Print this Article
Author Bio: Rajdeep Goswami LL.M (Corporate Law-NLU)
Email: rajdeep.law@legalserviceindia.com
Website: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=57445109&trk=tab_pro

Views: 9861
Comments for treating human
Patent system is a contract between the inventor and authority whereby the inventor gets exclusive rights for a
period of 20 years in return for disclosing full details of the invention. The main purpose of patent system is to
encourage innovation and eventually results in technological development.
The present Patents Act, 1970 came into force in the year 1972, amending and incorporating the existing laws
relating to Patents and Designs act 1911 in India. The Patent (amendment) Act 2005 came into force from 1st
January 2005,which brought changes in the previous patent system of India wherein product patent was
extended to all subjects of technology consisting of food, drugs, chemicals and micro organisms. Moreover,
Section 3(d) introduced in to the said amendment act 2005 and introduces pharmaceutical product patents in
India for the first time. The Patent (amendment) Act 2005 defines what invention is and makes it clear that any
existing knowledge or thing cannot be patented. The provision defines that a ‘novelty’ standard - which, along
with ‘non-obviousness’ or ‘inventive step’ and industrial applicability, are the three prerequisites for
‘patentability’. “Discovery” essentially refers to finding out something which already existed in nature but was
unknown or unrecognised. Therefore, discoveries are excluded from patent protection under section 3 of the
Indian Patent Act 1970.
SECTION 3(D) STIPULATES THAT-
The mere discovery of a new form of a known substance which does not result in the enhancement of the known
efficacy of that substance or the mere discovery of any new property or new use for a known substance or of the
mere use of a known process, machine or apparatus unless such known process results in a new product or
employs at least one new reactant, is not patentable2.
MERE DISCOVERY OF A NEW FORM OF KNOWN SUBSTANCE
A mere discovery of a new property of known substance is not considered patentable. For instance, the
paracetamol has antipyretic property. Further discovery of new property of paracetamol as analgesic can not be
patented. Similarly, ethyl alcohol is used as solvent but further discovery of its new property as anti knocking,
thereby making it usable as fuel, can not be considered patentable. 3
MERE DISCOVERY OF ANY NEW USE OF KNOWN SUBSTANCE
For instance, new use of Aspirin for treatment of the cardio-vascular disease, which was earlier used for
analgesic purpose, is not patentable. However, a new and alternative process for preparing Aspirin is patentable.
Similarly, the new use of methyl alcohol as antifreeze in automobiles is not patentable. The use of methanol as a
solvent is known in the prior art. A new use has been claimed in this claim as antifreeze which is not allowable. 4
The main objective of this section is to prevent several pharmaceutical companies from obtaining patents on old
medicines which are just a mere increment or trivial improvement of the known substances and also a refusal
to the patent on discovery of new form or new use of old drugs.
The most recent case, Novartis AG v Union of India5 decided by Supreme Court of India in 2013 where the
case began in the year 1997 with patent application filed by the petitioner before Chennai patent office related to
drug name GLIVEC which was slightly a different version of their 1993 patent for ANTI LEUKAEMIA drug.
In this case the Assistant Controller of Patent and design, Chennai Patent Office rejected the application under
section 3(d) of the Indian patent act 1970. Consequently the petitioner challenged the constitutionality of section
3(d) before High Court at Madras.
The applicant in the present appeal contented on two issues:

 Section 3(d) is unconstitutional as it violates the provision of the TRIPS agreement.

 The Indian patent act doesn't define the term 'efficacy' and provides unguiede power on the Controller.
Hence it is arbitrary, illogical and vague
In response to the above contention the court held that:

 The WTO's Dispute Settlement provides the exclusive remedy adn a comprehensive dispute
mechanism for violation of TRIPS Agreement. The High Court looked into the conflict between the
international law and municipal law and decided that municipal law prevails in such conflict.
Moreover, in India, international treaties are not directly enforceable.
  The court also rejected the second contention that the provision is providing unguieded power to the
patent controller being arbitrary on the basis of the term 'efficacy' was undefined and therefore the
court observed that "Efficacy means the ability to produce a desired or intended result. Hence, the test
of efficacy in the context of section 3(d) would be different, depending upon the result the product
under consideration is desired or intended to produce. In other words, the test of efficacy would depend
upon the function, utility or the purpose of the product under consideration. Therefore, in the case of
medicine that claims to cure a deisease, the test of efficacy cany only be 'therapeutic efficacy'.

Therefore it is found that the Novartis’patent application for the beta-crystalline form of Imatinib Mesylate
(polymorph B) did not pass the test of section 3(d) as it did not have any enhanced therapeutic efficacy. The
Supreme Court thereby upheld the observation of the High Court and Indian Patent office and rejected the patent
application filed by the petitioner.
The provision under section 3(d) has been approved by WHO Public Health,Innovation and Intellectual
Property
Rights Report, 2006, that countries can adopt legislation and examination guidelines requiring a level of
inventiveness that would prevent ever-greening patents from being granted. The ruling of the Novartis’s case in
Indian patent law represents a major victory for community’s access to inexpensive medicines in developing
countries and influences the access of medicines to the poor. If Novartis had succeeded the case, patenting on
drugs would have likely been approved more widely in India, restricting generic competition and thus also
hindering access to reasonable medicines in the developing world. Moreover the practice is anti competitive in
its effect as the practice will enable pharmaceutical MNCs to eliminate competition from the generic
manufacturers and charge exorbitant prices for their patented drugs. This in turn will cause adverse effect to
public interest in developing countries since many essential drugs become inaccessible to the general public on
account of unaffordable pricing.
CRITICISM OF SECTION 3(D) OF INDIAN PATENT ACT 1970
Section 3(d) specifically disallows patent protection for mere discovery of known substances unless such
substance express substantial efficacy in the known substance. In effect of this provision it expressly excludes
such substances having incremental innovations.The provision is disputed as being violative of TRIPS
agreement not only on the ground that the provision does not provide any specific guidelines for incremental
innovation but also lake the standard protection to all categories of inventions as provided by TRIPS. Novartis’s
case further pointed out that the TRIPS agreement gives WTO members the option of providing patent rights
more generous than the basic criteria mandated by TRIPS but does not allow members to go in the opposite
direction by implementing stricter requirements for obtaining a patent. The court defines the scope of the term
efficacy as therapeutic efficacy. However the scope of the term is unclear as to what count as therapeutic
efficacy. The court fails to give the rationale as to why subject matter lacks enhanced efficacy. Consequently,
because of the interpretation aforesaid mentioned any kind of incremental innovation will not get patent
protection in India6.
CONCLUSION
Notwithstanding the compatibility of section 3(d) with TRIPs agreement, it has been comprehended that the
words of the relevant section is inadequate as it lacks clarification. The act does not specifically define the scope
of enhanced efficacy nor is there any guidelines stated in that effect. Therefore it is important to alter the
wordings of section 3(d) to clarify the meaning of enhanced efficacy. However, the significant provisions in
TRIPS clearly indicate that member nations have been given significant flexibilities to frame patent laws which
reflect their social and economic needs. Article 27.1 of the TRIPS agreement does not provide any definition for
the term invention, inventive steps and industrial application and therefore the member countries are provided
flexibility to establish the criteria of atentability. In the absence of a precise definition of patentability, there is
nothing to prevent the Section 3(d) from using an “efficacy” requirement, i.e. a higher level of inventiveness for
determining patentability of new forms of known substances. Accordingly, in order to acquire patent protection
in India, the substance has to go beyond establishing the novelty,inventive steps,non obviousness and industrial
application test set forth in TRIPS agreement and also fulfill the additional improved efficacy incorporated
under section 3(d). It is concluded that Section 3(d) does not violate the TRIPS mandate rather prevents
frivolous patenting without neglecting valuable incremental innovations in pharmaceuticals and is very well
compatible with TRIPS agreement.
Shraddha Deb, Student of LLB , 5th Year , KIIT Law School, Bhubaneswar, Odisha
The TRIPS Agreement which came into effect on 1 January 1995, is to date the most
comprehensive multilateral agreement on intellectual property. The areas of intellectual
property that it covers are : copyright and related rights (i.e. the rights of performers,
producers of sound recordings and broadcasting organizations); trademarks; geographical
indications; industrial designs; patents, including the protection of new varieties of plants;
and undisclosed information including trade secrets. The Three main features of the
Agreement are : ♦ Standards: In respect of each of the main areas of intellectual property
covered by the TRIPS Agreement sets out the minimum standards of protection to be
provided by each Member. Each of the main elements of protection is defined, namely the
subject-matter to be protected, the rights to be conferred and permissible exceptions to those
rights, and the minimum duration of protection. The Agreement sets these standards by
requiring, first, that the substantive obligations of the main conventions of the WIPO, the
Paris convention for the protection of industrial property ( Paris convention) and the Beme
Convention for the protection of literary and Artistic Works (Beme Convention) in their most
recent versions must be complied 2 with. With the exception of the provisions of the Beme
convention on moral rights, all the main substantive provisions of these conventions are
incorporated by reference and thus become obligations under the TRIPS Agreement between
TRIPS member countries. The relevant provisions are to be found in Articles 2.1 and 9.1 of
the TRIPS Agreement, which relate, respectively, to the paris convention and to the Beme
Convention. Secondly, the TRIPS Agreement adds a substantial number of additional
obligations on matter where the pre-existing conventions are silent or were seen as being
inadequate. The TRIPS Agreement is thus sometimes referred to as a Beme and Paris – Plus
agreement. ♦ Enforcement : The second main set of provisions deals with domestic
procedures and remedies for the enforcement of intellectual property rights. The Agreement
lays down certain general principles applicable to all IPR enforcement procedures. In
addition, it contains provisions on civil an administrative procedures and remedies,
provisional measures, special requirements related to border measures and criminal
procedures, which specify, in a certain amount of detail, the procedures and remedies that
must be available so that right holders can effectively enforce their rights. ♦ Dispute
settlement : The Agreement makes settlement procedures of disputes between WTO members
about the respect of the TRIPS obligation subject to the WTO’s dispute. 3 In addition the
Agreement provides for certain basic principles, such as national and most- favoured-nation
treatment and some general rules to ensure that procedural difficulties in acquiring or
maintaining IPR do not nullify the substantive benefits that should flow from the Agreement.
The obligations under the Agreement will apply equally to all member countries, but
developing countries will have a longer period to phase them in. Special transition
arrangements operate in the situation where a developing country does not presently provide
product patent protection in the area of pharmaceuticals. The TRIPS Agreement is a
minimum standards agreement, which allows members to provide more extensive protection
of intellectual property if they so wish. Members are left free to determine the appropriate
method of implementing the provisions of the Agreement within their own legal system and
practice.