Ali Imam s AIPLA Quarterly Journal1

AIPLA QUARTERLY JOURNAL

VOLUME 33, NUMBER 4 Page 377 FALL 2005

HOW PATENT PROTECTION HELPS DEVELOPING COUNTRIES Ali Imam*

I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................379 II. PATENT PROTECTION: A CATALYST FOR DEVELOPMENT. ............................380 III. THE TRIPS AGREEMENT AND DEVELOPING COUNTRIES ..............................381 IV. THE NEED FOR STRONGER PATENT PROTECTION

FOR PHARMACEUTICALS..................................................................................383 V. PATENT PROTECTION IMPROVES QUALITY OF HEALTH.................................387 VI. TRANSFER OF TECHNOLOGY AND ITS ROLE IN ECONOMIC GROWTH

THROUGH LICENSING ......................................................................................388 VII. PATENT PROTECTION ENCOURAGES SCIENTISTS TO STAY AND

WORK IN THEIR OWN COUNTRIES..................................................................389 VIII. PATENT PROTECTION AND SOFTWARE‐RELATED INVENTIONS……………. 390 IX. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT OF A

DEVELOPING COUNTRY AND THE FILING OF U.S. PATENT APPLICATIONS ..392 X. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................394

LIST OF CHARTS 1. Chart 1. Developing Countries and International Conventions………………382 2. Chart 2. The Relationship Between Patent Protection and Pharmaceutical and Chemical Inventions.…………………………..383 3. Chart 3. U.S. Patents in Drugs and Bio-Affecting and Body-Treating Compositions Granted to Indian Inventors………………………….387 4. Chart 4. Software Exports from India………………………………………...391 5. Chart 5. The Economic Impact of the Software Industry in Selected Countries in 1996……………………………………………………392

* © 2005 Ali M. Imam. Mr. Imam received his B.E. in electrical engineering from The City College of New York in 1994 and a J.D. from The George Washington University Law School in 2005. He is currently working as a primary patent examiner at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”). The views expressed in this article are those of the author and not those of the PTO. The author wishes to thank Professor Gerald J. Mossinghoff for his thoughtful comments and suggestions and the members of the AIPLA Quarterly Journal staff for their editing assistance. The author is also very thankful to his wife for her support during law school.

378 AIPLA Q.J. Vol. 33:377 6. Chart 6. GDP Per Capita……………………………………………………...393 7. Chart 7. Number of Utility Patent Applications Field in the United States……………………………………………394

2005 How Patent Laws Protect Developing Countries 379

I. INTRODUCTION

The idea of reforming patent protection is a new concept in most developing countries. While developed countries have successfully utilized the benefits of patent protection in fostering their technology‐based economies, most developing countries are yet in the dawn of appreciating its benefits for economic growth and development.

There are several reasons why developing countries are concerned about embracing the patent protection provided by the World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade‐Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (“TRIPS Agreement”). Some scholars have suggested that without implementing legal, economic, and political structures associated with free‐trade systems, developing countries may not reap the economic benefits of patent protection.1 Despite this contention, this article demonstrates that reforming the domestic patent‐protection systems of developing countries is the first step toward meaningful economic growth.

Admittedly, the least‐developed countries would not benefit from patent protection, simply because the cost of reforming or creating a new patent‐protection system outweighs the potential benefits.2 For example, in Bangladesh, a more pressing concern is to reduce unemployment and provide education to about 124.8 million people, only 40.1% of whom are literate.3

This article will focus on developing countries that are nearing the status of developed countries, such as China, India, and Brazil. It will discuss in detail the extent of benefits through stronger patent protection for such developing nations’ economies, as well as for other developing nations’ economies. This article demonstrates that through a stronger patent protection system developing countries can attract foreign direct investment (“FDI”); increase investments in research and development (“R&D”); encourage national scientists to invent new drugs and invest in their national economies, and improve the overall quality of health.

1 Ruth L. Gana, Prospects for Developing Countries Under the TRIPs

Agreement, 29 VAND. J. TRANSNAT’L L. 735, 735 (1996). 2 Carlos M. Correa & Sisule F. Musungu, The WIPO Patent Agenda: The Risks

for Developing Countries 26 (S. Ctr., Trade‐Related Agenda, Development and Equity (T.R.A.D.E.) Working Papers, Paper No. 12, Nov. 2002).

3 World Intellectual Prop. Org., Intellectual Property Profile of the Least Developed Countries 11 (2001).

380 AIPLA Q.J. Vol. 33:377

II. PATENT PROTECTION: A CATALYST FOR DEVELOPMENT

A country’s development depends on numerous factors, including economic growth.4 Some have suggested that protection for intellectual property (and patents, in particular) is a main pillar of modern economic policy and “a catalyst for development.”5 Patent protection would enhance competitiveness in the world market and accelerate economic development for developing countries.6

New technological development is an important tool for improving developing countries’ competitiveness in the world market.7 However, in order to use emerging technologies as a tool for economic development, developing countries have to increase the skills of their workforces. Developing countries can learn from developed countries about teaching and training programs to inspire creativity in their scientists and researchers. Strong patent protection prepares scientists and researchers for developmental activities. They can gain economic benefits by licensing their patented invention or by developing and marketing their patented products on their own.

Developing countries should adhere to the TRIPS Agreement as early as possible to encourage investment inflows from other countries. Some developing countries that have embraced the TRIPS Agreement by reforming their patent‐protection systems have experienced economic growth as a result of FDI; between 1988 and 1995, around $425 billion worth of new factories, supplies, and equipment were invested in developing countries.8 One scholar has noted that, in developing countries, intellectual‐property protection is “a catalyst in social, cultural, and techno‐economic development.”9

4 Shahid Alikhan, Socio‐Economic Benefits of Intellectual Property Protection

in Developing Countries 1 (2000). 5 Id. 6 Id. at 2. 7 Id. at 1. 8 Id. at 3. 9 Id. at 9.


III. THE TRIPS AGREEMENT AND DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

The TRIPS Agreement sets out minimum standards of protection for intellectual‐property rights internationally.10 It emerged from the Uruguay Round negotiations of 1986‐94, which required its signatories to apply the principles of most‐favored‐nation status and national treatment to intellectual property protection.11 The TRIPS Agreement is flexible in national patent‐protection system design.12 For example, the definition of novelty, non‐obviousness, and usefulness of inventions may vary from country to country.13 The TRIPS Agreement also provided a transition period for developing countries to comply with the minimum standards.14 It gave most developing countries a five‐year transitional period for product patents in fields of technology that were not protected at the Agreement’s effective date.15

For the past few decades, developing countries have generally remained on the periphery of the multilateral trading system, showing negative attitudes toward developed countries and demanding compensation from developed countries for the wrongs of colonialism, all without a corresponding commitment to the obligations of membership in the multilateral system.16 Facing TRIPS requirements, however, numerous developing countries have started to reform their patent‐protection systems and align themselves with the multilateral system of trade. As a result, membership of developing countries in World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) Conventions has increased steadily since 1940, as demonstrated in Chart 1.

10 Carlos A. Primo Braga, Trade‐Related Intellectual Property Issues: The Uruguay

Round Agreement and its Economic Implications, in The Uruguay Round and the Developing Countries 341, 344 (Will Martin and L. Alan Winters eds., 1996).

11 Id. at 342‐44. 12 Id. at 344. 13 Carlos A. Primo Braga et al., Intellectual Property Rights and Economic

Development 9 (The World Bank, Discussion Paper No. 412, 2000). 14 Id. 15 Id. 16 Gana, supra note 1, at 737.

382 AIPLA Q.J. Vol. 33:377

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Pre‐1940 1940‐1969 1970‐1984 1985‐1998

Number of Developing Countries party to the ParisConvention and/or Berne Convention

Chart 1 Developing Countries and International Conventions17

This is obviously a positive trend for developing countries in the initial

stage of economic development. Developing countries can learn how to improve their patent‐protection regimes, and developed countries can advise on how best to implement those regimes.

More recent data reveal that the number of Paris Convention members almost doubled from 80 in early 1970 to approximately 144 by 1998.18 As of that same year, there were 197 member states of WIPO.19 Although alternative reasons may explain the increase of developing country membership in the Paris Convention or WIPO (such as the formation of new countries, economic growth, the gradual increase of literacy rates, or political stability), the substantial increase of international patent applications suggests that developing countries are beginning to comprehend the benefits of membership in global IP

17 Braga, supra note 13, at 11. 18 Gerald J. Mossinghoff & Vivian S. Kuo, World Patent System Circa 20XX AD,

38 I.D.E.A. 529, 532 (1998). 19 Id. at 534.


organizations.20 Developing countries have realized that memberships in these multinational organizations serve as a stimulus for their own techno‐economic development. By attending IP meetings held by WIPO and other similar world organizations, developing countries can gain valuable experience that can later be used to restructure their own national patent‐protection systems.

IV. THE NEED FOR STRONGER PATENT PROTECTION FOR PHARMACEUTICALS

The pharmaceutical and chemical industries have always been interested in the development of patent‐protection systems.21 Patents are of greater importance to the pharmaceutical industry than any other industry because of the very high cost of developing a new pharmaceutical product and the ease with which the product can be replicated after it enters the market.22 Development of a typical new drug may cost as much as $800 million.23 Pharmaceutical companies thus fear expanding R&D in countries where patent protection is weak. To attract and sustain such flows of R&D, developing countries therefore should reform their patent‐protection systems.

A study revealed a clear link between the introduction of new pharmaceutical inventions and the patent‐protection system.24 As indicated in Chart 2, Edwin Mansfield has shown that, in the United States between 1981 and 1983, 65% of pharmaceutical inventions would not have been introduced, and 60% would not have been developed, had patent protection not been

20 Press Release, World Intellectual Prop. Org., International Patent Filings

Exceed 110,000 for Third Year Running (Feb. 23, 2004), available at http://www.wipo.int/edocs/prdocs/en/2004/wipo_pr_2004_375.html?printable=true.

21 Jeroen van Wijk & Gerd Junne, Intellectual Property Protection of Advanced Technology, Changes in the Global Technology System: Implications and Options for Developing Countries 27 (The United Nations Univ., Inst. for New Technologies Working Papers, Paper No. 10, Oct. 1993).

22 Id. 23 Press Release, Tufts Ctr. for the Study of Drug Dev., Tufts Center for the

Study of Drug Development Pegs Cost of a New Prescription Medicine at $802 Million (Nov. 30, 2001), available at http://csdd.tufts.edu/NewsEvents/RecentNews.asp?newsid=6.

24 Edwin Mansfield, Patents and Innovation: An Empirical Study, 32 MGMT. SCI. 173, 180 (1986).

384 AIPLA Q.J. Vol. 33:377 obtainable.25 In the chemical sector, according to Mansfield, the respective percentages are 30% and 38%.26

020406080

Percentage ofInventionsthat WouldNot Have

Percentage ofInventionsthat WouldNot Have

Chemicals Pharmaceuticals

Chart 2 The Relationship Between Patent Protection and Pharmaceutical

and Chemical Inventions27

Recent data has proven that patent protection for pharmaceutical companies benefits both developed and developing countries.28 Most transnational corporations (“TNCs”) based in developed countries that operate in pharmaceuticals have extensive international production systems.29 For example, U.S. pharmaceutical TNCs have, on average, 33.8 foreign affiliates per original company – more than any other U.S. manufacturing industry.30

25 Id. at 175. 26 Id. at 180. 27 Id. at 175. 28 Keith E. Maskus, The Role of Intellectual Property Rights in Encouraging

Foreign Direct Investment and Technology Transfer, 9 DUKE J. COMP. & INT’L L. 109, 148‐50 (1998).

29 Id. at 117‐19. 30 Id.


In the wake of fortifying its patent law, Canada saw the ratio of pharmaceutical R&D to sales rise from 6.1% in 1988 to 11% in 1994.31 While most pharmaceutical companies in Canada are multinational, domestic companies are now focusing their interest on R&D because of the protection afforded pharmaceuticals.32 Generic drug manufacturers based in Canada are also growing and successfully expanding abroad.33 After it strengthened pharmaceutical patent protection in 1978, Japan also experienced a substantial increase in U.S. pharmaceutical R&D investment – from $135.8 million in 1985 to $505.5 million in 1994.34

In addition, strong patent protection for pharmaceutical products increases the growth of domestic pharmaceutical industries.35 For example, after instituting stronger patent protection for pharmaceuticals in 1978, Italy saw pharmaceutical R&D quadruple from 123 billion lire in 1978 to about 592.3 billion lire in 1988.36 Some developing countries have achieved similar results after improving their patent‐protection systems. After the enactment of 1991 patent legislation in Mexico, U.S. pharmaceutical investment in the country rose from $17 million in 1990 to $41 million in 1994.37

India, one of the fastest‐growing developing countries, has been unable to attract much foreign‐based pharmaceutical R&D investment because of weak patent protection for pharmaceutical products.38 The India Patents Act of 1970 excludes patent coverage for pharmaceutical products and only admits process

31 Harvey E. Bale, Jr., Senior Vice President Int’l, Pharm. Research and Mfrs. of

America, Patent Protection for Pharmaceuticals: A Platform for Investment, Markets and Improved Health in the Americas (Mar. 1996), available at http://www.sice.oas.org/ip/phrma%5Fe.asp.

32 Id. 33 Id. 34 Gerald J. Mossinghoff, Progress in the Pharmaceutical Industry,

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/intelprp/progress.htm (last visited Oct. 18, 2005).

35 Id. 36 Id. 37 Bale, supra note 31. 38 See generally Heinz Redwood, New Horizons in India: The Consequences of

Pharmaceutical Patent Protection (1994).

386 AIPLA Q.J. Vol. 33:377

patents for a period of 7 years.39 Thus, only 16 of the world’s 30 largest pharmaceutical‐producing countries had a direct investment position in India in 1993.40

Another study suggests that despite India’s strong scientific tradition and knowledge of biochemistry‐manufacturing techniques, India has contributed very little in biomedicine.41 This is likely due to weak protection for patents and related IP in pharmaceuticals.42 Similarly, China, Argentina, Egypt, and other developing countries are falling behind in the race to develop new drugs because of weak patent protection.43 Furthermore, local scientists from those countries, including India, are more likely to move to developed countries, where the rewards for creativity in pharmaceutical inventions are greater.44 Patents granted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) for drugs and bio‐affecting and body‐treating compositions originating in India increased steadily between 2000 and 2003,45 as demonstrated in Chart 3.

39 Id. 40 Id. 41 Harvey E. Bale Jr., Senior Dir. Gen., Int’l Fed’n of Pharm. Mfrs. Ass’ns,

Patents, Patients and Developing Countries: Harmony or Discord? (Sept. 14, 2001), available at http://www.ifpma.org/News/SpeechDetail.aspx?nID=2.

42 Id. 43 Id. 44 Id. 45 Patenting Tech. and Monitoring Div., U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,

Patenting By Geographic Region (INDIA), Breakout By Technology Class, available at http://www.uspto.gov/go/taf/clsstc/inx_stc.htm (last visited Oct. 18, 2005).


0

20

40

60

80

2000 2001 2002 2003

Chart 3 U.S. Patents in Drugs and Bio‐Affecting and Body‐Treating Compositions

Granted to Indian Inventors46

V. PATENT PROTECTION IMPROVES QUALITY OF HEALTH

Professor Mossinghoff states that drugs developed through local R&D can help developing countries fight communicable diseases.47 Communicable diseases take a much higher toll in developing countries than in the U.S., Europe, and Japan.48 For example, in the U.S., Europe, and Japan, there are 15 years lost per 1,000 inhabitants due to communicable diseases, compared to 99 years lost per 1,000 inhabitants in Latin America.49

Developing countries can create additional high‐technology pharmaceutical jobs if foreign and domestic pharmaceutical companies increase investments in R&D. This would allow recent local graduates to find more

46 Id. 47 Mossinghoff, supra note 34. A former commissioner of the PTO and

assistant secretary of commerce, Gerald J. Mossinghoff is senior counsel at the law firm of Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, P.C., and the Armand and Irene Cifelli Professorial Lecturer in Law at The George Washington University Law School. From 1985 to 1996, he served as president of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.

48 Id. 49 Id.

388 AIPLA Q.J. Vol. 33:377

employment and research opportunities. It would also give local researchers opportunities to develop new drugs themselves, rather than rely on developed countries’ patented drugs.

VI. TRANSFER OF TECHNOLOGY AND ITS ROLE IN ECONOMIC GROWTH THROUGH LICENSING

In the global economy, it has become increasingly common to license patents. An inventor may not have enough capital to build a manufacturing plant for a patented product. The inventor can grant to a party an exclusive or non‐exclusive, royalty‐based license to use, make, sell, offer for sale, or import a given patented product. The inventor is enriched economically and can use the profit from the licensing agreement either for the R&D of new products or to improve existing products. On the other side, a licensee may not have enough technical background but may be able to market that product. A licensing agreement with an inventor is an opportunity for a licensee to profit from those business skills.

Licensing agreements may also stimulate the economies of developing countries by creating new employment. Developing countries should pursue licensing agreements with inventors in other countries. Providing strong patent protection will encourage patent holders in developed countries to enter into licensing agreements because production costs in most developing countries are lower than in developed countries.

It may be difficult initially to earn considerable profits from these licensing agreements because of royalty obligations to patent owners. However, in the long term, developing countries could reap generous economic benefits. Providing stronger patent protection could increase economic growth by stimulating trade, FDI, and licensing revenue.

Technology does not solely produce economic benefits. It is an important tool for closing the gap of technological information, which is crucial to the socio‐economic development of developing countries.50 Stronger patent‐protection systems play a crucial role in attracting technological information transfer from developed countries.51 Gaining access to the latest technology will facilitate higher economic growth rates. Providing strong patent protection to the owner of cutting‐edge technology will secure the availability of that technical

50 ALIKHAN, supra note 4, at 116. 51 Id. at 117.


knowledge for developing countries. This produces not just economic benefits but also attendant social benefits.52

VII. PATENT PROTECTION ENCOURAGES SCIENTISTS TO STAY AND WORK IN

THEIR OWN COUNTRIES

Occasionally, due to the lack of patent protection and economic weakness, inventors or researchers in developing countries may lose interest in investing their efforts in their own countries and look for research and business opportunities in such developed countries as the U.S., Great Britain, Australia, and Canada. From 1991 to 1995, approximately 56% of all recipients of doctorates in engineering from U.S. universities were citizens of foreign countries.53 Another study on foreign‐born S&E Ph.D. recipients showed that many non‐U.S.‐citizen doctorate graduates plan to remain in the U.S.54 About 60% are likely to become a member of the American engineering work force within three years of graduation.55 Clearly, foreign‐born doctorate students and graduates contribute to the vitality of American research universities and industries.56

To improve the quality of life and to increase domestic employment opportunities, developing countries should seek to use the initial transfer of technology from developed countries to originate worthwhile technology nationally.57 Developing countries should restructure their patent‐protection systems so that they provide stronger patent protection for foreign inventors and boost the developing countries’ own technology‐based economic growth. In the long run, this will improve quality of life in developing countries, which in turn will encourage talented individuals to stay and work in their home countries and will foster technological developments and investments.

52 Id. 53 National Science Foundation, UNDERGRADUATE ORIGINS OF RECENT (1991‐95)

SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING DOCTORATE RECIPIENTS, http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf96334/htmstart.htm.

54 Comm. on the Int’l Exch. and Movement of Eng’rs, Nat’l Research Council, Foreign and Foreign‐Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues 17 (1988), available at http://books.nap.edu/books/POD292/html.

55 Id. 56 Id. 57 ALIKHAN, supra note 4, at 117.

390 AIPLA Q.J. Vol. 33:377

VIII. PATENT PROTECTION AND SOFTWARE‐RELATED INVENTIONS

Over half of the 176 countries that grant patent protections provide at least some protection for software‐related inventions.58 As a result of the TRIPS Agreement, under which members must provide protection for patents in all fields of technology, there is a worldwide trend toward granting patent protection to such inventions.59 According to the TRIPS Agreement, most developing countries have up to 11 years (ending in 2005) from the signing of the Agreement to amend their national patent laws to provide patent protections to some of the software‐related inventions.60

The “technical effects” doctrine is the most widely followed doctrine for determining the scope of patent protection for software‐related inventions.61 According to this doctrine, software is patentable if it provides some “technical effects.”62 Thus, as Fenwick & West notes, software that controls the timing of an electronic device is patentable, but software that corrects contextual homophone errors (e.g., “there”/“their”) is not.63

Chart 4 shows that, in recent years, many software companies based in developed countries have looked to invest in developing countries that maintain relatively strong economic markets and patent‐protection systems, such as India.64 Software exports to India are expected to rise to about $50 billion by 2008.65 By 2008, experts believe that India can be an information‐technology (“IT”) superpower and add 2.5 million jobs in the sector.66 Prominent IT companies such as IBM, Microsoft, Metamor, Oracle, and Satyam Computer Services have built corporate schools in Hyderabad, India, to provide short‐term

58 FENWICK & WEST, 2004 UPDATE: INTERNATIONAL LEGAL PROTECTION FOR

SOFTWARE 11 (2004), available at http://www.fenwick.com/docstore/publications/IP/Software_Protection_2004.pdf.

59 Id. 60 Id. 61 Id. 62 Id. 63 Id. 64 ALIKHAN, supra note 4, at 61‐63. 65 Id. 66 Id.

2005 How Patent Laws Protect Developing Countries 391 training programs.67 Effective patent protection is key to protecting these IT‐ and software‐related inventions, as well as the interests of their inventors.

225

1,750

2,650

050010001500200025003000

1992‐93 1997‐98 1998‐99

Exports in terms of million US$

Chart 4 Software Exports from India68

Other developing countries have also experienced growth in software

industries. The growth rate of the software industry in China from 2000 to 2005 is expected to be 28% per year.69 As shown in Chart 5, in Singapore, the Philippines, Malaysia, and Indonesia, the software industry generated 4,000, 1,700, 3,700, and 2,600 new jobs, respectively, and $95 million, $26 million, $78.5 million, and $26 million in tax revenues, respectively, in 1996.70 Based on the growth in the technological sector, it is imperative for developing countries to take effective measures to protect patents in software.

67 Id. 68 Id. at 61. 69 Id. at 65. 70 Id. at 65‐68.

392 AIPLA Q.J. Vol. 33:377

418

106

298

143

40

17

26

95

26

37

26

78.5

0 100 200 300 400 500

Singapore

Philippines

Malaysia

Indonesia

Sales in $million Jobs in hundreds Tax Revenues in $million

`

Chart 5 The Economic Impact of the Software Industry in Selected Countries in 199671

IX. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT OF A DEVELOPING COUNTRY AND THE FILING OF U.S. PATENT APPLICATIONS

Chart 6 shows that a developing country’s gross domestic product (“GDP”) positively correlates with the number of patent applications it files with the PTO. For example, in India, per‐capita GDP (in 1990 Geary‐Khamis72 dollars) for 1993‐1999 was 1,385 (1993), 1,465 (1994), 1,538 (1995), 1,625 (1996), 1,678 (1997), 1,746 (1998), and 1,818 (1999).73 As illustrated in Chart 7, during that period, the PTO received the following number of utility patent applications

71 Id. 72 Geary‐Kamis is a method for comparing economic data from one country to

those of another, regardless of differences in currency. See STATISTICS DIV., UNITED NATIONS, HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON

PROGRAMME, available at http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/icp/ipc7_htm.htm.

73 Angus Maddison, The World Economy: A Millennial Perspective 304 (2001).

2005 How Patent Laws Protect Developing Countries 393 from India: 54 (1993), 70 (1994), 91 (1995), 115 (1996), 137 (1997), 180 (1998), and 271 (1999).74

There is no clear‐cut explanation for why patent‐application filings rise as per‐capita GDP rises. But it is likely that in a growing economy inventors want more protection for their inventions, and thus tend to file more patent applications in both national and international patent offices. Therefore, to provide adequate protection to domestic inventors, developing countries should strengthen their patent‐protection system.

‐2,0004,0006,0008,00010,00012,00014,00016,00018,000

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

(1990

Geary‐Kha

mis dollars)

Taiwan IndiaBrazil PhilippinesThailand

Chart 6 GDP Per Capita75

74 Office of Elec. Info. Prods., U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Number of

Utility Patent Applications Filed in the United States, available at http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/appl_yr.htm.

75 MADDISON, supra note 73, at 288, 304.

394 AIPLA Q.J. Vol. 33:377

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Year

Taiwan IndiaBrazil PhilippinesThailand

Chart 7 Number of Utility Patent Applications Filed in the U.S.76

X. CONCLUSION

Development is a gradual process. Incorporating the new rules and regulations of the TRIPS Agreement into the national patent systems of developing countries could be the initial step toward reforming patent‐protection systems. National leaders from developing countries should set up a committee for analyzing the pros and cons of reforming patent protection systems, and then move toward restructuring those systems to promote further development in their growing economies. Developing countries should view the patent‐protection system as a tool for economic development.

It may be costly initially for developing countries to adopt such a system, but in the long term there is the possibility of significant economic growth. By creating stronger patent protection systems, developing countries can reduce the number of innovative scientists fleeing to developed countries to obtain better protection for their inventions. Developing countries can assure appropriate rewards for those scientists through stronger patent protection and help them invest their talents into the local technological market. Additionally, stronger pharmaceutical patent protection would improve the quality of health by

76 Office of Elec. Info. Prods., U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, supra note 74.

2005 How Patent Laws Protect Developing Countries 395 reducing communicable diseases that are largely prevalent in developing countries. Stronger patent protection also helps to generate an increased flow of FDI and R&D investments into the developing countries’ marketplaces. Therefore, developing countries should reform their patent protection structures for their own technological and economic development. Cooperating with developed countries would help to create patent‐protection systems that would fulfill both nations’ demands in protecting intellectual properties and fostering techno‐economic growth.

Documents

Ali Imam s AIPLA Quarterly Journal1