From Mr J. Gatt
I refer to the letter by Mr Galea and Ms McKenna of 23 January, where they denied that our country’s patent structure is “shaky” due to the legal provisions of the Patents and Designs Act of 2002.
The backbone of patent law, in virtually all of the democratic, free market economies in the world, is the Patent Co-operation Treaty (PCT). This patent registration system is further consolidated in the European zone, by the European Patent Convention (EPC).
Malta is a notable exception among democratic countries, and especially among EU members, in that it has failed to realise the paramount importance to its industrial base of either of these two treaties.
As Malta has kept itself out of the jurisdiction of both these two critical global patent registration systems, Malta’s patent environment is consequently utterly spineless, out of date, and mired in its own pathetic isolation, the Patents and Designs Act notwithstanding.
Galea and McKenna write: “Malta’s competitive advantage for manufacturers of generics hinges largely on the fact that historically the ‘well-heeled brand name manufacturers’ overlooked our islands and did not register their innovative medicines (nor New Chemical Entities – NCEs) with our patents office.”
May I point out that the sole direct cause why foreign innovators continue to largely overlook our national patents office, consists of nothing else but our wretched patent environment, characterised as it is by our self-enforced isolation from international patent registration systems. This is fully revealed in an ACCESS Euro Consulting report, which renders the following projections:
“If Malta were to adopt the EPC/PCT, the number of patent applications filed with the Industrial Property Office will increase, from less than 100 in 1999, to an estimated annual figure of between 5,000 and 20,000. This is forecast is in line with the expectations of the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) and what has actually happened in Cyprus.”
Hence it is logically clear that the advantage that Galea and McKenna see for generics is a direct consequence of our evasion of PCT and EPC rules, i.e., of our own absurd insular patent limitations – in other words, Malta’s “shaky patent structure”.
I fear that Galea and McKenna, as well as the generics industry, know of this logical connection all too well. Time is money – the more this country delays in ratifying what is in its own best commercial interests, the more money and talent these islands successfully burn and waste.
McKenna and Galea assert that Malta Enterprise is not opposed to the strengthening of intellectual property rights in Malta. May I therefore ask Malta Enterprise: how about proving that Malta Enterprise really has nothing against the strengthening of intellectual property rights by declaring outright that Malta Enterprise is in favour of Malta’s immediate accession to the PCT and EPC?
Our patent limitations are a boon to the generic copycats. That is why McKenna and Galea, in their Journal of Generic Medicine, have in truth concerned themselves almost exclusively with the benefits accruing to the generics industry from our country’s spineless and inward-looking patent legislation. After all, in their paper they had actually stated explicitly: “The patent climate in Malta is one of the major factors underpinning the location decisions of generic pharmaceuticals manufacturers.”
Malta Enterprise, please do not continue trying to pull wool over our eyes with unconvincing denials!
Joseph Gatt
PIETA
ACCESS Euro Consulting’s “Study on accession to the European Patent Convention (EPC) and the Patent Co-operation Treaty (PCT): Full report”, chapter 8, page 47