Africa: Uganda exercises TRIPS flexibilities for pharmaceutical products

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Africa: Uganda exercises TRIPS flexibilities for pharmaceutical products

The Ugandan Patent Office has recently objected to the grant of patents for pharmaceutical inventions following notification of grant by the African Regional Intellectual Property Organisation (ARIPO), where Uganda is a designated state. This objection is based on the national patent law of Uganda as it relates to the flexibilities regarding the application of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement) to pharmaceutical products in least developed countries (LDCs).

The Harare Protocol was adopted in 1982. As a result of this, ARIPO is empowered to grant patents on behalf of its contracting states. Currently, there are 18 contracting states that may be designated in an ARIPO patent application. When filing an ARIPO application, an applicant is required to designate the member states where protection is required. The official fees payable, as well as renewal fees (which are also paid on pending ARIPO applications) are directly linked to the number of member states designated.

A patent granted by ARIPO has, in each designated state, the same effect as a patent granted under the applicable national law. Once the ARIPO office decides to grant a patent, each designated member country is notified of the decision and has a six month period in which to notify ARIPO that the patent will have no effect in its territory due to the invention not being patentable under the provisions of the Harare Protocol, or the national law of the member country because of the nature of the invention.

According to the Harare Protocol, claims related to medical indications or use must be drafted in one or more of the prescribed formats. The protocol makes it clear that claims directed to methods of medical treatment or diagnosis performed on the human or animal body are not permissible. However, the prescribed formats do allow for the patentability of substances or compositions for use in such methods, as well as so-called Swiss-type claims.

Recently, in response to a notification of a decision to grant issued by ARIPO, the Ugandan Patent Office has indicated that patents directed to pharmaceutical inventions are excluded from patent protection and will not be granted in Uganda based on Section 8(3)(f) of the Ugandan Industrial Property Act 2014, which reads:

"8(3) The following shall not be regarded as inventions and shall be excluded from patent protection-

(f) pharmaceutical products and test data until 1st January 2016 or such other period as may be granted to Uganda or least developed countries by the Council responsible for administering the Agreement on trade related aspects of intellectual property under the World Trade Organization."

The Council of the World Trade Organization, which administers the TRIPS Agreement, has agreed that LDCs have the option to exclude pharmaceutical products from patent protection and has extended the period to exercise this exclusion until 1 January 2033.

It is clear that Uganda is exercising its right to exclude patent protection for pharmaceutical products. It is thus recommended that Uganda is not designated in an ARIPO application concerning pharmaceutical products.

truluck-chyreene.jpg

Chyreene Truluck


Spoor & Fisher South Africa

11 Byls Bridge BoulevardBuilding No. 14Highveld Ext 73Centurion, Pretoria0157 South AfricaTel: +27 12 676 1272Fax: + 27 12 676 1100info@spoor.co.ukwww.spoor.com

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Brian Paul Gearing brings technical depth, litigation expertise, and experience with Japanese business culture to Pillsbury’s IP practice
News of InterDigital suing Amazon in the US and CMS IndusLaw challenging Indian rules on foreign firms were also among the top talking points
IP lawyers at three firms reflect on how courts across Australia have reacted to AI use in litigation, and explain why they support measured use of the technology
AJ Park’s owner, IPH, announced earlier this week that Steve Mitchell will take the reins of the New Zealand-based firm in January
Chris Adamson and Milli Bouri of Adamson & Partners join us to discuss IP market trends and what law firm and in-house clients are looking for
Noemi Parrotta, chair of the European subcommittee within INTA's International Amicus Committee, explains why the General Court’s decision in the Iceland case could make it impossible to protect country names as trademarks
Inès Garlantezec, who became principal of the firm’s Luxembourg office earlier this year, discusses what's been keeping her busy, including settling a long-running case
In the sixth episode of a podcast series celebrating the tenth anniversary of IP Inclusive, we discuss IP Futures, a network for early-career stage IP professionals
Rachel Cohen has reunited with her former colleagues to strengthen Weil’s IP litigation and strategy work
McKool Smith’s Jennifer Truelove explains how a joint effort between her firm and Irell & Manella secured a win for their client against Samsung
Gift this article