http://www.ip-watch.org/2011/02/17/brazil-and-the-defence-of-public-health-do-as-i-say-not-as-i-do/ Original news and analysis on international IP policy Wed, 19 Jun 2013 21:01:06 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1 http://www.ip-watch.org/2011/02/17/brazil-and-the-defence-of-public-health-do-as-i-say-not-as-i-do/comment-page-1/#comment-3871621 ks Wed, 23 Feb 2011 08:41:40 +0000 http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/?p=14470#comment-3871621 Denying market authorizations, whatever its merit as a strategy here might be (subject for another post), is ANVISA’s role, as Benny Spiewak says, but it’s not it’s only role. The fact of the matter is that the Brazilian patent law requires ANVISA to approve patents — not just address health risks in granting/denying market authorizations for products that are ready to be placed on the market, but also to assess patents. These are two different roles (of course ANVISA has many more roles than these two, as well). The debate then is over how ANVISA should examine patents, if it should apply standard criteria of novelty and inventiveness or if it should be examining health risks. The AGU’s ruling is for the latter. I don’t understand how, other than in exceptional cases, it is possible to examine health risks at the time of patent application. When the applicant applies for a patent and INPI approves and then passes the application along to ANVISA for “prior consent,” the information that ANVISA receives is not the sort of information that would allow it to make a determination of health risk. If someone could please explain that to me, I’d be very grateful.

]]> http://www.ip-watch.org/2011/02/17/brazil-and-the-defence-of-public-health-do-as-i-say-not-as-i-do/comment-page-1/#comment-3854110 Benny Spiewak Thu, 17 Feb 2011 16:41:31 +0000 http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/?p=14470#comment-3854110 ANVISA is always entitled to keep denying market authorizations for health-related products. That’s actually its role and it should focus on it, so ensure efficacy and safety of products. There’s no need to have ANVISA reviewing INPI’s patent work. ANVISA could easily implement a training program, if it really thought that INPI misses state of the art education when it comes to analyzing health-related patents. Education is not the problem. It never was and it will never be. The duck-behind-health routine is not fooling anyone, anymore.

]]> http://www.ip-watch.org/2011/02/17/brazil-and-the-defence-of-public-health-do-as-i-say-not-as-i-do/comment-page-1/#comment-3853662 Tweets that mention Brazil And The Defence Of Public Health: Do As I Say, Not As I Do | Intellectual Property Watch -- Topsy.com Thu, 17 Feb 2011 15:12:10 +0000 http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/?p=14470#comment-3853662 [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Omar Kaminski, IP-Watch, Scott Feldman Esq., dccartier, Brazil and others. Brazil said: Brazil And The Defence Of Public Health: Do As I Say, Not As I Do: Source: http://www.ip-watch.org — Thursday, Februa… http://bit.ly/evEd70 [...]

]]>