[Ip-health] Critique of Mashelkar II Report

[Baker, Brook]

--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
MASHELKAR REPORT II UNDERESTIMATES INDIA=92S RIGHT TO DEFINE PATENTABILITY =
STANDARDS
Professor Brook K. Baker
Northeastern U. School of Law, Program on Human Rights and the Global Econo=
my;
Health GAP (Global Access Project)
October 9, 2009

For the second time, the Mashelkar Committee has misinterpreted India=92s f=
lexibility under international law to limit patents of pharmaceutical produ=
cts to new chemical entities, or new medical entity involving one or more i=
nventive steps.  Although it has slightly modified and extended its analysi=
s, the Committee has made three fundamental mistakes:  (1) it still incorre=
ctly analyzes India=92s flexibilities under TRIPS to define pro-health stan=
dards of patentability, (2) it fails to analyze key TRIPS-minimum patent st=
andards, especially novelty and inventive step, and (3) it incorrectly conc=
ludes that a NCE-only standard of patentability for pharmaceutical products=
 would constitute discrimination against a field of technology and in doing=
 so misinterprets and misapplies the expert analysis of Professor Carlos Co=
rrea, an internationally renowned IP specialist.

Mashelkar II Report Critique: http://www.healthgap.org/analysis-of-mashelka=
r-report.htm


Professor Brook K. Baker
Health GAP (Global Access Project)
Northeastern U. School of Law
Program on Human Rights and the Global Economy
400 Huntington Ave.
Boston, MA 02115 USA
(w) 617-373-3217
(cell) 617-259-0760
(fax) 617-373-5056
b.baker@neu.edu