Saturday, June 06, 2020
Text Size

UUM Journal of Legal Studies (UUMJLS) Vol. 11(2), July 2020

These articles have been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication in UUM JLS, but are pending final changes, are not yet published and may not appear here in their final order of publication until they are assigned to issues. Additionally, titles, authors, abstracts and keywords may change before publication.

1Mohsin Hingun & Rahamatthunnisa Mohamed Nizamuddin
Ahmad Ibrahim Kulliyah of Law, International Islamic University of Malaysia, Gombak, Malaysia
1Corresponding author:
The significance of this study lies in its proposal to insert an appropriate provision into the Patents Act 1983 to embody the provisions of Article 31bis TRIPS Agreement. The methodology adopted in this study is library-based, and relies extensively on primary sources such as the Paris Convention, TRIPS Agreement and Patents Act 1983. This is further supported through secondary sources such as articles, books, websites and newspaper reports. The research question posed in this study aims to identify the most appropriate provision that should be incorporated into the Patents Act 1983 in addressing the public health flexibilities provided under Article 31bis. The purpose of this study is to demonstrate that Article 31bis is best incorporated into the Patents Act 1983, under the right of the government mechanism rather than through the compulsory license mechanism. Furthermore, the scope of this study is limited to issues that address the abuse of monopoly, granted by the patent system, with respect to the dire needs of the public health. Hence, this paper discusses the mechanisms that address abuse of the patent system under Article 5(A) Paris Convention, Articles 31 and 31bis TRIPS Agreement, the relevant corresponding provisions under the Patents Act 1983, and subsequently formulates new proposed amendments to Section 84 Patents Act 1983 to buttress the public health flexibilities provided under Article 31bis. The outcome of this study proposes that the provisions of Article 31bis should be incorporated into the Patents Act 1983 under the right of the government mechanism, by replacing the current Section 84 Patents Act 1983 with a newly proposed Section 84. 
Keywords: Article 31bis, compulsory licence (CL), Patents Act 1983 (PA), rights of government (ROG), TRIPS Agreement.

Ida Madieha Abdul Ghani Azmi
Civil Law Department, International Islamic University Malaysia, 50728 Kuala Lumpur
Corresponding author:
The formulation of the National Policy on Industrial Revolution 4.0 (IR4.0) and Internet of things signals the Malaysian government readiness to come up with the necessary policy framework for the digitalised era. It has been said that universities’ curriculum structure and instructional design must also be revisited to ready the graduate to face the onslaught of technological revolution.  Through content analysis of relevant literature, this paper analyses the myriad ways in which legal education has been impacted by IR4.0 both in terms of the ‘body of knowledge’ as well as the ‘skill sets’ required for law students to survive in the era of automatous systems. The paper is structured to first explain the concept of IR4.0 and how some national countries leverage the digital technology to improve their economy or facilitate social transformation. The paper proceeds with a discussion of how autonomous system, artificial intelligence and data analytics can enhance the instructional design of teaching and researching law. In terms of the body of knowledge, most of the legal principles drawn for the brick and mortar environment are no longer relevant in the IR4.0 era. The paper reveals that the traditional method that focuses on the training of law graduates to think like a lawyer by understanding the reasoning in the judgement of cases or the preparation of conveyancing and court documents are no longer relevant in the IR4.0 era as these activities could easily be undertaken by bots. Instead, law students should be imparted with a multiplicity of human skills that could not be performed by autonomous systems such as those involving conscience, high level thinking, and emotion such as mediation, negotiation, counselling, court prosecution, advocacy, witness examination, plea mitigation as well as social skills, resource management skills, technical skills and most importantly system skills.
Keywords: Industrial Revolution 4.0, Legal Education, Legal Education, Body of Knowledge, Skill sets

UUM Journal of Legal Studies
College of Law, Government and International Studies
06010 UUM Sintok, Kedah Darul Aman, Malaysia.

Creative Commons License

All articles published in UUM Journal of Legal Studies (UUM JLS) are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

All Right Reserved. Copyright © 2016, College of Law Government and International Studies