Ipr In Trips-Compliant Frameworks For Digital Health Ip.
1. Overview: IPR under TRIPS for Digital Health
The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), enforced under the WTO, sets global standards for protecting intellectual property (IP). In the context of digital health, IP covers:
Patents: Software algorithms, medical devices, AI systems, telemedicine platforms, and biotech innovations.
Copyrights: Digital health software, apps, electronic health records (EHRs), and AI-generated content.
Trade Secrets: Patient data algorithms, AI training data, proprietary medical databases.
Trademarks: Branding of digital health apps or telemedicine platforms.
TRIPS Compliance ensures member countries:
Recognize patents for inventions in all fields of technology, including medical devices and digital health.
Protect copyright in software and digital content.
Maintain enforcement mechanisms for IP infringement.
Allow exceptions for public health emergencies (Article 31 – Compulsory Licensing).
Digital health IP is tricky because it merges software, medical devices, and data, making patentability, copyrightability, and licensing highly nuanced.
2. Patentability in Digital Health under TRIPS
TRIPS Article 27:
“Patents shall be available for any inventions, whether products or processes, in all fields of technology, provided they are new, involve an inventive step, and are capable of industrial application.”
In digital health:
AI-driven diagnostic tools can be patented if they produce a technical effect.
Telemedicine software might face challenges if seen as an abstract idea (non-patentable under some jurisdictions).
Key Points for Digital Health IP:
Patent scope must be technical and innovative, not just an algorithm or business method.
TRIPS allows member countries flexibility in defining exclusions (like computer programs “as such” in Europe).
3. Key Case Laws in Digital Health and TRIPS Framework
Here are more than five important case examples, focusing on patents, copyright, and software/IPR disputes relevant to health tech:
Case 1: Diamond v. Chakrabarty (1980, US)
Facts: The US Supreme Court allowed a patent for a genetically engineered bacterium capable of breaking down crude oil.
Relevance: Established that living organisms and biotech inventions are patentable. In digital health, this principle extends to bioinformatics software or AI-driven genomics tools.
Outcome: Patent granted. The decision supports TRIPS Article 27 by allowing biotech innovations critical for digital health diagnostics.
Case 2: Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International (2014, US)
Facts: Alice Corp. claimed a patent on a computerized system for mitigating financial risk. The patent was challenged for being an abstract idea.
Relevance: This case is crucial for digital health software, showing that purely algorithmic solutions without a technical effect may not be patentable.
Outcome: The Supreme Court invalidated the patent. Lesson: Health software patents must demonstrate a technical contribution beyond mere implementation on a computer.
Case 3: Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories (2012, US)
Facts: Prometheus claimed a patent for a diagnostic method measuring metabolite levels to adjust drug dosage.
Relevance: Demonstrates patent eligibility for medical diagnostics under TRIPS-compliant frameworks.
Outcome: Patent invalidated for claiming a natural law.
Lesson: Digital health AI algorithms predicting health outcomes must transform data into actionable, technical steps to be patentable.
Case 4: European Patent Office – IBM AI Health Diagnostic Tool (Hypothetical Precedent)
Facts: IBM filed patents for AI diagnostic tools in Europe. EPO initially rejected for “computer program as such” exclusion.
Relevance: EPO’s approach emphasizes technical effect. Software assisting diagnosis can be patentable if it improves medical treatment or device performance.
Outcome: Patents granted after showing the AI reduced diagnostic errors.
Lesson: Technical contribution is key in TRIPS-compliant jurisdictions.
Case 5: Novartis AG v. Union of India (2013, India)
Facts: Novartis tried to patent a modified cancer drug (Glivec). India rejected, citing lack of enhanced efficacy (Section 3(d) of Indian Patents Act).
Relevance: TRIPS allows flexibility for public health concerns. Digital health innovations in India may face similar scrutiny regarding incremental improvements.
Outcome: Patent denied.
Lesson: TRIPS-compliant frameworks can balance IP with public health and affordability.
Case 6: SAS Institute Inc. v. World Programming Ltd. (2012, EU)
Facts: SAS claimed copyright infringement for a competitor replicating its software functionality.
Relevance: Important for digital health platforms, ensuring IP protection for software interfaces and functionality replication.
Outcome: EU court ruled software functionality is not copyrightable, but code implementation is.
Lesson: Protect digital health software via copyright on code, not algorithms alone.
Case 7: Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research v. US (2012, US)
Facts: Similar to Prometheus case, focusing on patents for diagnostic tests.
Relevance: Reinforces the principle that medical algorithms and digital diagnostics must have technical application.
Outcome: Patent eligibility denied for naturally occurring correlations.
Lesson: For AI health apps, merely analyzing health data is insufficient; must create a practical application.
4. TRIPS Flexibilities in Digital Health
TRIPS provides flexibilities to balance IP and public health:
Compulsory Licensing (Article 31) – Governments can allow local companies to use patented health technologies during emergencies.
Research Exceptions – Using patented digital health tools for research without infringement liability.
Parallel Importation – Legal import of cheaper patented products (e.g., health devices or diagnostic tools).
These flexibilities are vital in digital health, where cost-effective AI diagnostics or apps are critical for public health.
5. Key Takeaways
Digital health IP sits at the intersection of software, medical devices, and biotech, making TRIPS compliance nuanced.
Patentability requires a technical contribution, not just an algorithm.
Copyright protects software code, not ideas or methods.
TRIPS flexibilities allow member states to promote public health while respecting IP rights.
Case law like Alice, Mayo, Chakrabarty, Novartis illustrates how courts interpret technical innovation, natural laws, and public health exceptions.
RELATED Blog
comments