Evolving Patent System: Balancing Exclusivity with Expanding Exemptions Amid Global Challenges

Answer first: The contemporary patent landscape is witnessing a significant rise in exemptions from patent infringement, driven by health, climate, and geopolitical crises. This trend challenges traditional patent exclusivity principles and raises critical questions about maintaining a balanced system that serves both patent holder…

Patents context for IP teams

A defining characteristic of today’s patent system is the simultaneous expansion of patentable subject matter and the rapid emergence of exemptions from patent infringement. These exemptions function as legal mechanisms to balance the interests of patent holders, third parties, and society at large. In recent years, this trend has been underscored by the application of TRIPS flexibilities, including the WTO COVID-19 intellectual property waiver, new exemptions introduced under the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (UPC), and the EU’s supplementary protection certificate (SPC) manufacturing waiver.

Further evidence of this development includes the broadening of subject matter and beneficiary scope, such as revisions to the Bolar exemption under the EU pharmaceutical package, and the territorial extension of existing exemptions exemplified by the newly adopted EU-wide compulsory licensing scheme. These expansions are expected to continue, propelled by intersecting health, climate, and geopolitical crises. They respond to emerging demands for access to medicines, heightened tensions between intellectual property rights and fundamental rights, evolving policy objectives aligned with sustainable development goals, and the challenges posed by artificial intelligence advancements.

Key takeaways for patent system exemptions

• Confirm how the development affects patents ownership, enforcement, licensing, or portfolio records.
• Separate confirmed facts from legal interpretation before advising business teams.
• Map deadlines, affected assets, contracts, and evidence files to the responsible internal owner.
• Use the issue as a prompt for monitoring, filing strategy, dispute preparation, or member education.

Practical analysis

This wave of reforms aimed at limiting patent rights marks a significant evolution—arguably a revolution—in patent law. Traditionally, patent law has prioritized exclusivity and the interests of patentees, with social and third-party interests considered only exceptionally. Currently, the principle of in dubio pro patente (in doubt, favor the patent) increasingly contends with an in dubio societas utilitates (in doubt, favor societal benefits) approach.

This shift raises pivotal questions: Does the growing role of exemptions foster a more balanced patent system that benefits third parties, or does it risk chilling innovation by overly limiting patent holders’ rights? How can the patent system remain balanced while addressing contemporary societal challenges?

Despite active practical debates—such as disputes over pharmaceutical patent exemptions between innovative and generic companies—these issues have yet to gain substantial traction in patent law doctrine. The following reflections and recommendations seek to contribute to this scholarly discourse.

First, to preserve patent exemptions as effective balancing tools while recognizing expanding public and social interests, patent theories require updating towards a stronger socio-centric model. Current dominant theories—reward theory and incentive theory—primarily address the patent system’s economic function and only marginally consider the system as a whole. Disclosure theory partially acknowledges the State’s role and third-party interests in accessing technical knowledge but remains limited.

These theories largely overlook non-economic factors, including research and development, health, and human rights concerns. The proposed “social license theory” aims to strengthen the doctrinal framework by embedding limitations within the core construction of patent exclusivity. This approach would continuously recalibrate patent rights in light of multiple public and social values.

Second, the TRIPS Agreement’s three-step test remains a crucial mechanism for balancing patent monopoly with permitted third-party access. The reimagined patent theory supports promoting a horizontal and individualized application of the three-step test, rather than a vertical and universalized one, aligning with prior legal scholarship proposals.

This approach advocates assessing the objectives and justifications for exemptions at the outset, guided by TRIPS Articles 7 and 8. It facilitates identifying benefits to third parties and society from limiting patent rights, recognizing both individual beneficiaries and affected patent holders. Balancing these interests and evaluating the magnitude of benefits and losses helps determine whether an exemption qualifies as a “limited exemption.”

Such a qualitative standard avoids abstract quantitative assessments detached from the exemption’s purpose and legal nature, thereby preventing “regulatory blind assessment.”

Third, to prevent undermining the patent system through excessive exemptions, any new limitations must be well-justified, clearly defined, and reasonably foreseeable in interpretation and implementation. Careful consideration is essential to identify which patent limitations are necessary and effective in balancing competing interests, avoiding the risk of diluting the system with vague or meaningless exemptions that blur the line between permissible and prohibited activities.

An illustrative example is Article 27(k) of the UPC Agreement, which exempts activities like studying and testing computer programs for decompilation and interoperability, as per EU Directive 2009/24/EC. While intended to prevent patents from obstructing computer program-based inventions, this exemption’s rationale and scope remain unclear.

Notably, computer programs “as such” are excluded from patentability in Europe, raising questions about limiting patent rights related to them. Moreover, Europe does not recognize partial patent infringement, complicating practical application. Existing research exemptions already permit testing and observation, potentially overlapping with this new copyright-based exemption. This cross-over may generate interpretive challenges rather than legal certainty, given the differing scopes and beneficiaries under patent and copyright law. For instance, copyright exclusivity covers reproduction, translation, and modification, whereas patent rights cover making, using, marketing, and importing.

In conclusion, rather than eroding patent protection, a system of well-justified exemptions—guided by updated patent theories and refined legal tests—can foster a more balanced and sustainable patent framework. Such a system would harmonize innovation incentives with public-interest governance, reflecting contemporary societal needs and challenges.

Related IIPLA reading

• Latest IP news
• IP resources library
• IP guide
• IIPLA events and webinars