The appropriate scope of property rights in patents

• Pages: 67-91
• Author: Du Bois, M.
• Published date: 24 May 2019
• Citation: (2018) IPLJ 67
• Date: 24 May 2019

THE APPROPRIATE SCOPE OF

PROPERTY RIGHTS IN PATENTS



Associate Professo r, Department of Mercantile Law, Scho ol of Law, University of

South Africa

 

The purpose of this article is to show that patents give rise to property rights

which are both protected and limited by the constitutional property clause

(section 25 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa , 1996), just like

any other kind of property. In other words, like other categories of property,

such as movable or immovable tangible propert y, the scope of patent rights as

delimited by any legislative limitat ions needs to be in li ne with the constit utional

property clause and may also be affected by other constitutional rights. It is

therefore necessary to restate the rights attaching to a patent to highlight the

property aspects that could be protected by the property clause and indicate

under which circumstances protection would be suitable. It is a requirement

for constitutional property protection that a particular property interest must

be vested. In the case of patent r ights, there are several requirements t hat must

be met before the property interest in an invention becomes vested. For this

reason, the next section of this a rticle describes the patentabilit y requirements

and the concomitant rights (and built-in restrictions) that a patent application

and registration provide to t he patent holder.

After this, the article provides a more detailed explanation of the

constitutional aspects that surround patent rights, including consideration of

the right to property and the right to health(care), particularly where patent

rights affect the welfare of users. It is not possible to consider all possible

constitutional issues in one article, so some pressing issues were selected.

To demonstrate the working of the constitutional property clause and other

constitutional rights in the context of patents, the compulsory licence

provisions in the South Afr ican Patents Act and the application of the doctrine

of exhaustion of rights are discussed. The compulsory licence provisions are

subjected to a constitut ional property analysis to demonstr ate the balance that

LLB LLD (Stellenbosch Un iversity). This article w as first present ed at the Association for Law,



the Netherlands. The Unisa School of Law Research and Innovation Fund made this visit to



Prof. Dr. Christ ine Godt, University of Oldenbu rg, who inspired me to consid er in more detail

the doctri ne of internation al exhaustion of pate nt rights and its implic ations for this ar ticle. I had

an additional opportunity for comments when the article was presented at the South African

Association of Intellectual Property Law and Information Technology Law Teachers and

Researchers C onference in July 2018 at the Universi ty of Pretoria.

67

(2018) IPLJ 67

© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd

must be found between the State’s obligation to protect proper ty rights (in this

case the exclusive rights pertaining to a registered patent) and its mandate to

promote other human rig hts (for example advancing the right to healthcar e by

use of compulsory licence provisions to make affordable essential medicines

more accessible).

 





The Patents Act 57 of 1978 governs South African patent law. A patent may

be granted for a new invention involving an inventive step, capable of use in

trade, indust ry or agriculture.1 If an invention complies with the re quirements

of the Patents Act, a patent is granted, which entails the exclusive right to

make, use, exercise, dispose of, offer to dispose of and import products

embodyi ng the invention. 2 Like other intellectual proper ty rights, patent rights

have certain ‘built-in’ restrictions. The 20-year patent term3 a nd territoriality

limit the extent of the rights granted, 4 so patent rights are not absolute, just

like other propert y rights. After expiry of the ter m, the claimed invention and

its concomitant technology fal l in the public domain or intellectual commons

and the public can make use of the invention. With pharmaceutical patents,

this means that generic substitutes may be sold (frequently at a lower price)

because the original monopoly has lapsed (and the competitor supplying the

generic medicine did not have to spend as much on re search and development

as the patentee). At this point, it must be noted that the purpose for which

patent rights were origi nally devised was to grant inventors lim ited monopoly

rights in exchange for making t he valuable knowledge available to the public.

This quid pro quo theory ju stifying the limited prop erty rights must be kept in

1 Se ction 25(1) of the Patents Act 57 of 1978. For further read ing on the patent requir ements, see

T Grant ‘Chapte r 5 Patents’ in O Dean an d H Dyer (eds) Dean & Dyer intr oduction to inte llectual

property law (2014) 237-282 at 245-252.

2 Section 45(1) of the Patents Act 57 of 1978.

3 Section 46(1) of the Patents Act 57 of 1978. See T Grant ‘Chapter 5 Patents’ in O Dean and

H Dyer (eds) Dean & Dyer int roduction to intelle ctual property la w (2014) 237-282 at 239, 259.

Law of intellectual

property i n South Africa 2 ed (2016) 357-427 at 390 on the effec t and term of a patent . While other

countries s uch as the United Stat es and select Europe an jurisdict ions provide for the exten sion of

the patent ter m or extension of protection for t he product (through a Suppleme ntary Protection

Certificate) for products where regulatory approval caused delays in commercialisation of

patented products, South Africa provides no such supplementary protection and it would

arguably be u ndesirable to do so: D Cochrane and Y Na icker ‘Extension of patent protection’

(2015) Sep Without Prejudice 50.

4 Section 45(1) of the Patents Act 57 of 1978. Territor iality means t hat the patent is li mited in effect

to South Afr ica. See TD Burrell Bu rrells South African p atent and design law 4 ed (2016) para

[1.1], [1.3] –[1.4].

68 South African Intellectual Property Law Journal (2018) 6

© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd