Folklore: Expressions of folklore and the works of the public domain are considered part of the national
culture and heritage of Rwanda according to the IP Law. Works deriving from Rwandan national
folklore enjoy copyright protection as derivative works and collection of works, without prejudice to
any protection of a pre-existing work or expression of folklore incorporated in or utilised for the making
of such a work. The use and any transfer of ownership of work derivative from Rwandan national
folklore for profit making purposes is in return for payment of royalties. 25 per cent of the amounts
collected from works deriving from Rwanda’s national folklore are reserved to activities of creative
works promotion.
Technological Protection Measures (TPMs): The Rwanda IP Law prohibits circumventing TPMs or to
produce, import, distribute, sell, rent, advertise for sale or rental, or possess devices, products,
components or services for commercial purposes that are promoted, advertised or marketed for the
purpose of circumventing TPMs. These provisions will have to be enforced in a balanced manner taking
into account the policy objectives related to access to technology, technological learning and skills
upgrading and access to IP-Based essential products.
(c) Patents
The approach to patents under the Rwanda IP Law follows the standard approach in line with the requirements
of the WTO’s TRIPS Agreement. The statute defines the criteria for patentability, the scope of patentable
subject matter, the rights conferred by a patent and exceptions. While the new law and the planned accession to
the African Regional Intellectual Property Organisation’s (ARIPO) Harare Protocol, accession to the
international Treaties / Agreements on Patent, Industrial Designs, Trademarks, etc. is likely to result in the
increase of patent applications, considering the history of use of patents in Rwanda, this is unlikely to be an
immediate effect. In implementation, the emphasis will, in the short to medium-term, be on ensuring enabling
disclosure where patents are applied for and on exceptions to support the objective of accessing technology by
firms and research institutions and that of access to essential goods and services. In this regard:
The exclusion of pharmaceutical products from patentability in accordance with the WTO Decision
providing transition period for LDCs until, at least, 2016 will be maintained.
Consideration should be given to retaining patent examiners to enforce the requirements of enabling
disclosure under the IP law in key sectors such as agriculture even though Rwanda does not intend to
have routine examination of all patent applications. This will promote technology transfer and
dissemination.
The research and experimental use exception, including for commercial purposes and for public not-forprofit use as contemplated under the IP Law should be encouraged in both public and private sector
institutions. Restricting the exception to not-for-profit entities or activities would be counter-productive.
The exception should be aimed at facilitating a broader set of technological activities related to the
application of knowledge to particular problems.
To support transfer of technology, specialists should be retained to scrupulously examine the terms and
conditions of licensing agreements to ensure that such licenses do not restrict competition or negatively
affect the government’s effort to boost technology transfer and that there are no prohibited clauses as
stipulated in IP Law. Such specialists, who should also perform surveillance functions, could be
attached to MINICOM, RDB or the RSRC. Continuous monitoring of the behaviour of parties is
important since parties might present legally permissible contract to the authorities but later enter into
side agreements that defeat government objectives.
Where applicable, and in appropriate cases, compulsory licenses should also be considered in cases of
dependant patents and to remedy abuse and enforce competition regulations. Guidelines on royalty
18