Argentina and the PCT: Can a Patent Treaty Bridge the Gap Between Science and Innovation in Biotechnology?
A Conceptual Essay on Patents, Biotechnology, and Development
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.26422/RIPI.2026.2400.sarKeywords:
Argentina, Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), patents, biotechnology, intellectual property, Technology Transfer, innovation, productive development, public policy, impactAbstract
This essay examines whether Argentina’s potential accession to the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) could help narrow the gap between scientific capabilities and innovation. Using a conceptual and interdisciplinary approach, it brings together legal and parliamentary sources, official documents from the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), and literature on intellectual property, biotechnology, technology transfer, and development. The PCT streamlines international filing, provides early information on potential patentability, and defers costly decisions. However, it neither creates a worldwide patent, guarantees that a patent will be granted, nor alters national patentability standards. This essay argues that its effects depend on the type of technology, the business model, and institutional capabilities. This heterogeneity is particularly relevant in biotechnology, where long development cycles, technical risk, regulatory requirements, and capital-intensive investment intersect with considerations of access and public health. The central argument is that accession to the Treaty may reduce transaction costs and broaden internationalization options, but cannot, by itself, generate innovation or development. Patent applications, patents, startups, investment, and positions in international rankings reflect activity or growth, but not necessarily impact. Impact requires a causal chain involving scientific, regulatory, productive, financial, and technology-transfer capabilities. The essay concludes that the PCT can help narrow the gap only if it is embedded in a broader policy framework capable of translating knowledge into products, collective learning, access, and sustainable productive capabilities.
Downloads
References
Audretsch, D. B., Rocha, H., Aggarwal, S. y Bramanti, A. (2024). Do entrepreneurial ecosystems foster sustainable development? International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 20(1), 1-37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-023-00916-8
Codner, D. G., Becerra, P. y Díaz, A. (2012). Blind technology transfer or technological knowledge leakage: A case study from the South. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 7(2), 184-195. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-27242012000200015
Codner, D. G. y Perrota, R. M. (2018). Blind technology transfer process from Argentina. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 13(3), 47-53. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-27242018000300047
Correa, C. M. (2016). Guidelines for pharmaceutical patent examination: Examining pharmaceutical patents from a public health perspective. United Nations Development Programme. https://lix.li/Lk9dVB
Ferguson, S. M. y Kaundinya, U. S. (2020). Licensing the technology: Biotechnology commercialization strategies using university and federal labs. En Shimasaki, C. (Ed.), Biotechnology entrepreneurship: Leading, managing and commercializing innovative technologies (2ª ed., pp. 199-222). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-815585-1.00015-2
Goldstein, J. (2025). Patenting life: Tales from the front lines of intellectual property and the new biology. Georgetown University Press.
Heller, M. A. y Eisenberg, R. S. (1998). Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research. Science, 280(5364), 698-701. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.280.5364.698
Kim, Y. K. y Oh, J. B. (2017). Examination workloads, grant decision bias and examination quality of patent office. Research Policy, 46(5), 1005-1019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.03.007
Kolchinsky, P. (2020). The great American drug deal: A new prescription for innovative and affordable medicines. Evelexa Press.
Mailänder, L. (19 de marzo de 2018). Lessons learned from analyses of PCT national phase examination and backlog processing in several jurisdictions [Presentación]. Organización Mundial de la Propiedad Intelectual. https://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/doc_details.jsp?doc_id=438975
McDermott, G. A. y Rocha, H. O. (2010). Clusters and upgrading: A purposeful approach. Organizations and Markets in Emerging Economies, 1(1), 24-50. https://doi.org/10.15388/omee.2010.1.1.14304
Organización Mundial de la Propiedad Intelectual. (s.f.-a). Contracting parties/signatories: Patent Cooperation Treaty. WIPO Lex. https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/treaties/ShowResults?treaty_id=6
Organización Mundial de la Propiedad Intelectual. (1972). Records of the Washington Diplomatic Conference on the Patent Cooperation Treaty, 1970. https://doi.org/10.34667/tind.28694
Organización Mundial de la Propiedad Intelectual. (2013). PCT yearly review: The international patent system. https://doi.org/10.34667/tind.28718
Organización Mundial de la Propiedad Intelectual. (2025a). Argentina ranking in the Global Innovation Index 2025. https://www.wipo.int/edocs/gii-ranking/2025/ar.pdf
Organización Mundial de la Propiedad Intelectual. (2025b). Global Innovation Index 2025: Innovation at a crossroads. https://doi.org/10.34667/tind.58864
Organización Mundial de la Propiedad Intelectual. (2026). PCT FAQs. https://www.wipo.int/en/web/pct-system/faqs/faqs
Rocha, H. O. (2004). Entrepreneurship and development: The role of clusters. Small Business Economics, 23(5), 363-400. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-004-3991-8
Rocha, H. O. (2013). Dominant development paradigms: A review and integration. Journal of Markets & Morality, 16(1), 7-24.
Rocha, H. O. (2015). Do clusters matter to firm and regional development and growth? Evidence from Latin America. Management Research: The Journal of the Iberoamerican Academy of Management, 13(1), 83-123. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRJIAM-12-2013-0534
Rocha, H., Kunc, M. y Audretsch, D. B. (2020). Clusters, economic performance, and social cohesion: A system dynamics approach. Regional Studies, 54(8), 1098-1111. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2019.1668550
Seijas Ramírez, M. (2026). La Resolución Conjunta 1/2026 y el nuevo paradigma de patentabilidad: Tensiones entre innovación, salud pública y seguridad jurídica. ADLA, 2026(8), 60. TR LA LEY AR/DOC/1416/2026.
Shimasaki, C. (Ed.). (2020a). Biotechnology entrepreneurship: Leading, managing and commercializing innovative technologies (2ª ed.). Academic Press.
Shimasaki, C. (2020b). Understanding biotechnology product sectors. En Shimasaki, C. (Ed.), Biotechnology entrepreneurship: Leading, managing and commercializing innovative technologies (2ª ed., pp. 119-136). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-815585-1.00010-3
Sztulwark, S. y Lavarello, P. (2025). Biotechnology as the basis for an endogenous core in Argentina. CEPAL Review, 2025(146), 131-145. https://doi.org/10.18356/16840348-2025-146-8
Vázquez, L. (9 de agosto de 2026). Loreto Bresky: “La Argentina tiene capital humano y muy buenas universidades, pero está 77 en el ranking de innovación global; Chile está 51”. La Nación. https://lix.li/CBhT4
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Ignacio Sartori
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
This license allows the copy, distribution, exhibition and representation of the work provided authorship is acknowledged and the work is properly quoted. Commercial use of the original work or the generation of derived works are not allowed.
The authors hereby guarantee the right to the first publication of the work to the Revista Iberoamericana de la Propiedad Intelectual.
