Medical Procedure and patent policy: Comparative Study in US, UK and India

Abstract

The debate surrounding the relationship between patents and medical procedures is a long-standing one. The growing controversy pertaining to individual claims on medical procedures has contributed to many countries prohibiting the patenting of medical procedures, including surgical, diagnostic, and therapeutic. The research question this study seeks to address is whether the grant of patents is justifiable in light of patent policy, in regard to medical procedures, and what are its implications? While some have undertaken this step, others are still looking for a justification or moral and ethical grounds. The dominant explanation for this trend is the existence of a duty on a medical professional to distribute new knowledge and inventions to all other members for the common good and larger benefit of the society. Previous research also demonstrates other reasons such as ethical societal concerns, unwarranted economic benefits, licensing, and its effects on doctor-patient relationships for the exclusion of medical procedures from patenting. With the existing data, this paper seeks to examine the origin of medical procedures and their relationship with patent policies through a comparative study between three countries – India, the United States, and the United Kingdom – and how it locates medical procedures within the patent policies. Further through this paper, the author will try to understand and critically analyze the paradigmatic shift from the acceptance of medical procedures as patentable to its logical exclusion by decomposing the many reasons in favor and against this policy.