Letter & Annex A - Intellectual Property Office of Singapore

Annex Aand medical hub initiatives in mind), whether it is necessary to move away from ourcomfort zone and consider instead the US approach.7.11 Another possibility is that we remain status quo. If the amendments in the UK PatentsAct 2004 on medical treatment codified the European practice existing then, onequestions whether the practice can continue to apply to provisions prior to the UK2004 amendments, similar to our current Section 14(7).7.12 Yet another possibility is not to allow patent protection for second or subsequent newmedical uses. This stems from fears that such protection may encourage activitiesakin to the advent of “evergreening” practices, where the patent term is extended byobtaining new patents relating to modifications of the original product, therebyextending the patent holder’s monopoly. One may argue that we can leave it to caselaw to determine as to what extent second or subsequent new medical uses areallowable but the flipside to this argument is that uncertainty arises in the absence ofany written laws to the contrary.Invitation 121. We welcome views over whether Singapore should :-(a) follow the European approach,(b) follow the US approach,(c) remain status quo, or(d) not to allow patent protection for second or subsequent new medical uses.It would be helpful to the Registry if such comments and feedback are accompanied bycomprehensive reasons and, where available, examples or situations in support.IPOS takes a long term view on whether it should build its own local S&E capability, asubject matter that is reviewed regularly. It should be noted that the consideration ofbuilding Singapore’s own local search and examination capability is not part of this publicconsultation. Any feedback received will be used for future review on the subject.Page 31 of 31