About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.
2018 Juristant Badge - MBHB_165
Juristant #4 Overall Rank

E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Contact the Docs

Docs on Twitter


Disclaimer

  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.
Juristat_165
Juristat #8 Overall Rank

Pharma-50-transparent_216px_red

« Patent Profile: Vermillion Announces Allowance of Ovarian Cancer Biomarker Application | Main | International Judges Conference on Intellectual Property Law »

February 19, 2009

Comments

I must have missed the "crisis" in TRIPS-compliant compulsory licenses. A handful have been issued, and USTR overreacted (especially at Thailand and Brazil), but since when do we call something a "crisis" when the rule of law is followed in an international treaty? Can you point to anything in TRIPS that limits compulsory licenses to AIDS? That position was explicitly rejected in TRIPS. See http://ssrn.com/abstract=1090270.

Doha is a threat to PhRMA? Do you mean the Doha par. 6 process, now found in Art. 31 bis? One successful effort in 5 years; Apotex says the process was so cumbersome (at PhRMA insistence) that they'll never do it again. The modest quantity of AIDS drugs went to Rwanda. This is not a threat to patent-based drug companies. See the Paige Goodwin article in the latest volume of the American J. of Law & Medicine.

And then you say: "... the levels of protection may be lower in the post-TRIPS world than they were before the GATT treaty was signed."

Really? I'd love to see the list of PhRMA execs that pine for those halcyon days before TRIPS.

And that's just the first paragraph.

Dear Kevin:

Thanks for your perspective. We've been talking about this for a year or so; the earlier posts are cited in this one.

It wasn't just the USTR that "overreacted," the EU reacted in similar fashion. And it wasn't just Rwanda, it has been Brasil and Indai and Thailand and China. And it isn't just AIDS drugs, it includes Plavix and a number of anticancer drugs.

And the reason those "halcyon" days might be considered to be so is that countries, expecially Brasil, China and India, get the benefit of WTO membership (and the avoidance of tariffs and other barriers to markets like the US) without any real change in their own protectionary practices with regard to Western pharma.

But we realize that there is a problem - indeed, we have suggested (and suggest now, if you read past the first paragraph) that Western companies cannot hide their heads in the sand of the polical reality that LDC governments are doing precisely what they should be doing - acting to protect their citizens. We are not criticizing those countries or their governments; if anything, we have suggested that Western companies need to adapt to the political realities and not act as if TRIPS and GATT give them free reign to enjoy the kind of profits in LDCs that they enjoy in Europe and the US.

So the crisis isn't countries following the rule of law; it's the consequences of countries doing just that, and the crisis is for Western pharmaceutical companies.

Thanks for the comment.

The comments to this entry are closed.

September 2019

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30