Assurance of protection enables the inventor to commercialise
invention either by himself or licensing to a third party with the
financial muscle to do so.
As the technology-driven
economic advancement has gathered steam in recent years, Kenya has been
ranked among the most innovative countries in the world.
More
recently, the Global Innovation Index 2017 has ranked Kenya the third
most innovative country in Africa, after South Africa and Mauritius.
This
is the country that has given the world the life-changing digital money
transfer service, M-Pesa - developed and commercialised on our soil.
Kenyan companies keep winning accolades on the global stage for their
innovative products and processes.
If the
innovativeness of Kenyans, especially the youth, in the field of
information, communications and technology could be matched by relevant
fundamentals of economic development, including political stability,
Kenya could easily join the ranks of middle-income economies well before
2030.
Innovation requires a substantial deployment of brainwork, time and money yet its benefits are enjoyed by society at large.
Millions
of people’s lives have been transformed by M-Pesa, yet none of us
contributed to the cost of its invention or development. The inventor is
not even publicly known or acknowledged as a national hero.
Apart from the moral justification that one should enjoy the
fruits of his labour, the economic rationale for the protection of the
products of intellectual labour is to grant the inventor an exclusive
right to commercialise his invention for a specified period without
competition. This is the nature of rights granted by patent
registration.
The grant of a patent is a bargain
between the inventor and the State. In exchange for protection against
competition for a limited period, the inventor undertakes to disclose
his invention to the State and share its benefit with the society.
This
assurance enables the inventor to commercialise his invention either by
himself or licensing to a third party who has the financial muscle to
do so, in exchange for a royalty or by an outright sale of the patent
rights.
The Industrial Property Act, which governs
the grant of patents and other industrial property rights like
industrial designs, contains elaborate requirements and procedures on
the acquisition of patent rights.
Basic qualification criteria are that the invention must be novel (new), industrially applicable and involve an inventive step.
This
jargon simply means that the invention should not already be known
anywhere in the world, must constitute a significant improvement on the
existing technology and the inventor must describe the invention in a
clear manner to enable any other person schooled in the relevant field
to work the invention without reference to the inventor.
In other words, he must provide an operation manual for the invention.
The
exclusivity granted by a patent is normally limited to a non- renewable
period of 20 years after which the invention falls into the public
domain.
Upon the expiry of this period, the society
begins to benefit from increased supply of goods and the corresponding
reduction in prices due to competition.
The expiry of
patents explains how generic drugs find their way into the market. These
are legitimate drugs produced using inventions whose patents have
expired.
That is why they are significantly cheaper
than patented drugs, which are manufactured during the exclusivity
period when the manufacturer, rather than market forces, dictates the
price.
Generic drugs are not counterfeits as generally
assumed, although they can, of course, be counterfeited in the same way
as patented drugs.
The exclusive rights granted by a
patent are, however, not without exceptions. For instance, in times of
national emergencies or disasters like the HIV/Aids pandemic, the law
suspends patent rights to enable the mass production of life-saving
drugs using patented processes.
The threshold for
patentability is deliberately set at a fairly high level to avoid
clogging the wheels of commerce and industry with exclusive rights
granted to undeserving contraptions or simple improvements on existing
technology.
That is why most of what is generally
considered useful and innovative knowhow does not qualify for patent
protection. To qualify for patent protection, an alleged invention must
provide a solution to an existing technological problem. Further, it
should not have been disclosed anywhere in the world.
The
common trap for many scientists and researchers is that they rush to
publish their inventions in seminars and revered journals to earn
professional prestige but forget to apply for patent protection for an
invention that could potentially contain life changing properties.
Unfortunately,
by the time they realise the value of the invention and try to seek
patent protection, it is often too late. The law, however, grants a
grace period of 12 months from the disclosure of an alleged invention to
the date of filing.
Like most other intellectual
property rights, patent rights are territorial. However, there are legal
mechanisms to obtain protection in multiple jurisdictions by filing one
application within a member state of the Patent Cooperation Treaty or
the African Regional Patent Office (ARIPO).
This ensures that the patent takes effect in all the designated countries.
Know-how
that does not qualify for patent protection but is commercially useful
may still be protected by contract as a trade secret or confidential
information. The benefit of this method is that unlike patents that
expire after twenty years, it can last in perpetuity.
On
the flip side, if the secret is breached, the invention becomes common
fodder. Popular legend has it that Coca-Cola opted for this method for
the protection of its secret formula instead of a patent which would
have expired a couple of centuries ago.
The tragedy
for inventors is that in most cases it is virtually impossible to
predict the commercial viability or value of an invention upfront.
Consequently, many do not bother to seek patent protection.
Others
sell their invention for a song only to die in poverty and depression
upon seeing the phenomenal success of their invention a few years later.
Still others are duped into entering into
exploitative licence contracts which only benefit the licensee. In
matters of intellectual property it is always advisable to err on the
side of caution.
Maema is a Senior Partner in the law firm of Iseme, Kamau & Maema Advocates. wmaema@ikm.co.ke
No comments :
Post a Comment