WTO Panel

India: Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Chemical Products, WT/DS79

WT/DS79/R (1998); see also WT/DS5019981 min read
The case in brief30-second read
Facts
India relied on an administrative 'mailbox' practice to receive pharmaceutical and agrochemical patent applications during its transition period under TRIPS, and had no system for exclusive marketing rights.
Issue
Whether India complied with TRIPS Arts.70.8 and 70.9.
Held
India's administrative mailbox did not give a legally secure basis to preserve novelty and priority, and India had no system to grant exclusive marketing rights, in breach of Arts.70.8 and 70.9. India implemented the rulings by the Patents (Amendment) Ordinance of 1999.
Principle
Transitional TRIPS obligations must be met by legally secure measures, not administrative practice.
Cite this

Facts

  • India relied on an administrative 'mailbox' practice to receive pharmaceutical and agrochemical patent applications during its transition period under TRIPS, and had no system for exclusive marketing rights.

Issue

  1. Whether India complied with TRIPS Arts.70.8 and 70.9.

Held

  • India's administrative mailbox did not give a legally secure basis to preserve novelty and priority, and India had no system to grant exclusive marketing rights, in breach of Arts.70.8 and 70.9. India implemented the rulings by the Patents (Amendment) Ordinance of 1999.

Cite this

Citation

India: Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Chemical Products, WT/DS79 WT/DS79/R (1998); see also WT/DS50

Reported: https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds79_e.htm (WTO dispute; not on IK or SCI). This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.