Author(s)

Fardeen Bin Abdullah

Affiliation(s)

Department of Law, University of Rajshahi, Rajshahi 6205, Bangladesh.

Corresponding Author

Fardeen Bin Abdullah

ABSTRACT

The Bangladesh Patents Act 2023 marks a pivotal reform in the nation’s intellectual property framework, replacing outdated laws to align with modern standards. This research provides a comparative analysis of the Act, focusing on its potential to foster innovation while safeguarding public interests. The study identifies strengths and limitations in the legislation by comparing Bangladesh's framework with the patent systems of India, the United Kingdom, Australia, Pakistan, and the United States.

Key provisions, including patentable subject matter, compulsory licensing, and patent duration, are assessed against international best practices. The analysis highlights the Act’s emphasis on novelty, inventive steps, and industrial applicability while identifying gaps such as insufficient safeguards against "evergreening" and weak procedural mechanisms for opposition.

Although the Act introduces measures to address public health concerns and support innovation, its implementation and institutional capacity remain challenges. This article argues that stronger compulsory licensing frameworks, enhanced opposition procedures, and stricter patentability criteria are crucial. It concludes with recommendations to reform Bangladesh’s patent system, ensuring it supports economic growth, public health, and global competitiveness.

KEYWORDS

Bangladesh Patents Act 2023; Intellectual property rights; Comparative patent analysis; Patent law reform; Innovation and public health; Compulsory licensing

CITE THIS PAPER

Fardeen Bin Abdullah. Bangladesh's Patent Act– aligning with global standards or falling short? A comparative study. World Journal of Sociology and Law. 2024, 2(3): 25-35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.61784/wjsl3008.

REFERENCES

[1] Bhaghamma G. A Comparative analysis of Doctrinal and Non-Doctrinal Legal Research. ILE Journal of Governance and Policy Review, 2023, 1(1): 88-94.

[2] Fardeen Bin Abdullah. Bangladesh Patent Act, 2023 (English Version), 2023, 28 (1). 10.5281/zenodo.14162125.

[3] Fardeen Bin Abdullah. Bangladesh Patent Act, 2023 (English Version), 2023, 28 (2). 10.5281/zenodo.14162125.

[4] Fardeen Bin Abdullah. Bangladesh Patent Act, 2023 (English Version), 2023, 28 (4). 10.5281/zenodo.14162125.

[5] Fardeen Bin Abdullah. Bangladesh Patent Act, 2023 (English Version), 2023, 28 (5). 10.5281/zenodo.14162125.

[6] Fardeen Bin Abdullah. Bangladesh Patent Act, 2023 (English Version), 2023, 28 (6). 10.5281/zenodo.14162125.

[7] An Act to amend and consolidate the law relating to patents, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, 1970. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/1392?sam_handle.

[8] Kulkarni K, Foy H. India cancer ruling opens door for cheaper drugs, 2012. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-india-drugs/analysis-india-cancer-ruling-opens-door-for-cheaper-drugs-idUSBRE82C0IN20120313/.

[9] Gupta A, Raza A. Patent Law and Compulsory Licensing: Indian Perspective. Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 2024: 5–17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.56042/jipr.v29i1.602.

[10] Mehta A, Sonkala S, Kumar A K. Harmonizing Access to Medicine: Exploring India’s Process Patent in Intellectual Property Rights amid Global Pressures. The International Tinnitus Journal, 2024: 60–64. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5935/0946-5448.20240011.

[11] Asian Regional Course for Judges on Intellectual Property and Public Health 2021. The South Center, 2021. https://ipaccessmeds.southcentre.int/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Excclusions-and-Exceptions.pdf.

[12] Arfat Y, Hussain N. Compulsory licenses against patented medicines under TRIPS: A case study of Pakistan in comparison of other countries. Pakistan Journal of International Affairs, 2022, 5(4): 303–316.

[13] Technical study on disclosure requirements in patent systems related to genetic resources and traditional knowledge. World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), 2004.

[14] Feikert-Ahalt C. Restrictions on genetically modified organisms: England and Wales. Law Library of Congress, 2014. https://maint.loc.gov/law/help/restrictions-on-gmos/england-wales.php.

[15]  Stief M. The European Research and Bolar exemptions ? background, status quo and a look at the agreement on a Unified Patent Court (UPCA) and the EU Commssion’s new draft directive for the Reform of Pharmaceutical Legislation. GRUR International, 2024, 73(9): 824–837. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/grurint/ikae094.

[16] Secretariat. Intellectual property rights, innovation and public health. Geneva: WHO, 2003,14.9, A56/17.

[17] Australian Government. An outline of the patent system. Australian Law Reform Commission, 2010. https://www.alrc.gov.au/publication/genes-and-ingenuity-gene-patenting-and-human-health-alrc-report-99/2-the-patent-system/an-outline-of-the-patent-system/.

[18] Research Affiliates LLC v. Commissioner of Patents, 2014, FCAFC 150.

[19] Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. Misuse of market power, 2024. https://www.accc.gov.au/business/competition-and-exemptions/misuse-of-market-power.

[20] Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, 2012, Inc., 566 U.S. 66.

[21] Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, 2014, 573 U.S. 208.

[22] Patent and Trademark Law Amendments Act, Pub. L, 1980: 96-517.

[23] Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act, Pub. L, 1984, No. 98-417.

[24] Whittaker S, Johnson R, Walker A. Pharmaceutical patent term extension: An overview. Alacrita Pharma & Biotech Consulting. https://www.alacrita.com/whitepapers/pharmaceutical-patent-term-extension-an-overview.