MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2033328815 · doi:10.1163/17087384-12342030

Pharmaceutical Patents in Developing Nations: Parallel Importation and the Doctrine of Exhaustion

2014· article· en· W2033328815 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sarah McKeith

Bibliographic record

VenueAfrican Journal of Legal Studies · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicIntellectual Property and Patents
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeveloping countryIntellectual propertyDoctrinePatent lawRelevance (law)BusinessBalance (ability)International tradeInternational lawLaw and economicsPublic economicsLawEconomic growthEconomicsMedicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article examines the impact of parallel importation and the doctrine of patent exhaustion on access to pharmaceutical products in developing nations around the world. Parallel importation is of particular relevance to developing countries given that it is in these countries where medicines are often limited and exorbitant prices can be charged for those drugs that are available. Against this backdrop, this article examines the international legal regulation of patent exhaustion and proposes a solution to the difficulties currently experienced by many developing countries in attempting to use parallel importation to promote public health and improve access to medicines. The solution proposed in this article comprises a regional approach to patent exhaustion, which involves the introduction of complimentary legal and policy measures to the regional framework that currently exists in the developing world. It is argued that this proposal strikes an optimal balance between protecting intellectual property rights and increasing access to medicines that works in the best interests of pharmaceutical patent holders and developing country patent users.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.571
Threshold uncertainty score0.159

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.151
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.146 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAfrican Journal of Legal StudiesSame topicIntellectual Property and PatentsFrench-language works237,207