Panel Report Canada - Patent Protection of Pharmaceutical Products (WT/DS114/R)

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Panel Report Canada - Patent Protection of Pharmaceutical Products (WT/DS114/R)"

Transcription

1 WorldTradeLaw.net Dispute Settlement Commentary (DSC) Panel Report Canada - Patent Protection of Pharmaceutical Products (WT/DS114/R) Parties Complainant: EC Respondent: Canada Third Parties: Australia, Brazil, Colombia, Cuba, India, Israel, Japan, Poland, Switzerland, Thailand, U.S. Panelists Mr. Robert Hudec (Chairperson), Mr. Mihály Ficsor, Mr. Jaime Sepúlveda Timeline of Dispute Panel Request: November 11, 1998 Panel Established: February 1, 1999 Panel Composed: March 25, 1999 Interim Report Issued: January 21, 2000 Final Report Circulated: March 17, 2000 Adoption: April 7, 2000 Table of Contents BACKGROUND...2 SUMMARY OF PANEL'S FINDINGS...3 PROCEDURAL AND SYSTEMIC ISSUES...3 Principles of Treaty Interpretation...3 Burden of Proof - TRIPS Agreement Article SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES...3 TRIPS Agreement Articles 28.1 and 30 - Canada's Stockpiling Provision...3 TRIPS Agreement Articles 28.1 and 30 - Canada's Regulatory Review Provision...5 TRIPS Agreement Article Canada's Regulatory Review Provision...7 COMMENTARY...9 TRIPS Agreement Article 30 - Exceptions to Rights Conferred...9 TRIPS Agreement Article De Facto Discrimination...9 Members' Representations/Pledges to the Panel...10 Key Findings The "regulatory review provision" of Canada's Patent Act satisfies all three conditions of the exception set out in TRIPS Agreement Article 30. Because the conditions of Article 30 are satisfied, Canada's regulatory review provision is not inconsistent with TRIPS Agreement Article The "stockpiling provision" of Canada's Patent Act is inconsistent with TRIPS Agreement Article Moreover, the stockpiling provision does not satisfy the first condition of TRIPS Agreement Article 30 because it is not a "limited exception." Therefore, the inconsistency of the stockpiling provision with TRIPS Agreement Article 28.1 cannot be justified. The European Communities failed to prove, under TRIPS Agreement Article 27.1, that the regulatory review provision results in discrimination against a particular "field of technology," in this case pharmaceuticals WorldTradeLaw.net LLC

2 BACKGROUND This dispute concerns two aspects of Canada's Patent Act which grant exceptions to the exclusive rights accorded to patent holders. The main provisions at issue in this case are the following: Patent Act, Section 55.2(1): "It is not an infringement of a patent for any person to make, construct, use or sell the patented invention solely for uses reasonably related to the development and submission of information required under any law of Canada, a province or a country other than Canada that regulates the manufacture, construction, use or sale of any product." Patent Act, Section 55.2(2): "It is not an infringement of a patent for any person who makes, constructs, uses or sells a patented invention in accordance with subsection (1) to make, construct or use the invention, during the applicable period provided for by the regulations, for the manufacture and storage of articles intended for sale after the date on which the term of the patent expires." Certain regulations relating to Section 55.2(2) were also at issue. The provisions at issue permit non-right holders to use patented inventions during the life of the patent, as follows. Section 55.2(1) is known as the "regulatory review provision." In the case of pharmaceuticals, the provision effectively permits generic manufacturers to complete the time-consuming marketing approval process prior to the expiration of the patent (it takes from one to two and a half years). Specifically, it allows the generic manufacturer to produce samples of the patented product for use during the regulatory review process. In this way, assuming the generic manufacturer obtains regulatory approval, it is able to begin selling its product immediately upon expiration of the patent. (This process should be compared with that for manufacturers of new pharmaceutical products, i.e., the original patent applicants. These producers are required to develop and gain regulatory approval during the patent period. This development and approval process can take up to 12 years, such that manufacturers of new products effectively lose to this process one-half of the term of market exclusivity conferred by a patent.) Section 55.2(2) is known as the "stockpiling provision." This provision, along with related regulations, allows generic producers to make the drugs and begin stockpiling them six months prior to the expiration of the patent. Thus, it allows the generic producer to have on hand a stockpile of products that it can sell as soon as the patent expires. The stockpiling provision is available only to those who have also invoked the regulatory review provision. (Paras ) The European Communities argued that the provisions of the Canadian Patent Act at issue violate TRIPS Agreement Article 28.1 (in conjunction with Article 33 with respect to the stockpiling provision) and Article 27.1 (for reasons of judicial economy, the Panel found it unnecessary to examine the stockpiling provision under TRIPS Agreement Articles 27.1 or 33) WorldTradeLaw.net LLC 2

3 SUMMARY OF PANEL'S FINDINGS Principles of Treaty Interpretation PROCEDURAL AND SYSTEMIC ISSUES The Panel noted the interpretive guidance of Articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties ("VCLT"). The Panel further noted that in the framework of the TRIPS Agreement, the "context" for purposes of interpretation includes the provisions of the international instruments on intellectual property protection incorporated into the TRIPS Agreement, as well as any agreement between the parties relating to these agreements, within the meaning of VLCT Article 31(2). Similarly, if the Panel were to resort to the negotiating history of the TRIPS Agreement provisions at issue under VCLT Article 32, it considered that it may go beyond the negotiating history of the TRIPS Agreement itself and also inquire into that of the incorporated international instruments on intellectual property. In particular, for this case, the Panel noted the importance of Article 9(2) of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (1971) ("Berne Convention"). (Paras ) Burden of Proof - TRIPS Agreement Article 30 The Panel considered that Canada, for all practical purposes, conceded that its provisions violate TRIPS Agreement Article It reached this decision because Canada relied on the exception contained in TRIPS Agreement Article 30 as a justification for the provisions at issue, without developing rebuttal arguments under Article The Panel noted that because Article 30 is an exception to TRIPS Agreement obligations, the burden is on Canada to demonstrate that the patent provisions at issue comply with the criteria established in that provision. (Para. 7.16) SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES TRIPS Agreement Articles 28.1 and 30 - Canada's Stockpiling Provision The Panel began its analysis with the EC claim that the stockpiling provision violates TRIPS Agreement Article 28.1, and Canada's defense that the measure is justified as an exception under TRIPS Agreement Article 30. (Para. 7.17) The Panel found that the stockpiling provision is not justified under Article 30, and it therefore violates Article It began by examining the text of the relevant provisions. TRIPS Agreement Article 28.1, titled "Rights Conferred," provides: A patent shall confer on its owner the following exclusive rights: (a) Where the subject-matter of a patent is a product, to prevent third parties not having the owner's consent from the acts of making, using, offering for sale, selling, or importing for these purposes that product; Thus, Article 28.1 sets out five legal rights that stem from a patent: making, using, offering for sale, selling and importing. There was no dispute that the stockpiling provision violates this provision, as it infringes upon these exclusive rights; the only question was whether it is justified under an exception to these requirements WorldTradeLaw.net LLC 3

4 The Panel then examined TRIPS Agreement Article 30, which provides an exception to the obligation in Article Article 30, titled "Exceptions to Rights Conferred," states: Members may provide limited exception to the exclusive rights conferred by a patent, provided that such exceptions do not unreasonably conflict with the normal exploitation of the patent and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the patent owner, taking account of the legitimate interests of third parties. (Para. 7.19) The Panel considered that Article 30 "establishes three criteria that must be met in order to qualify for an exception: (1) the exception must be 'limited'; (2) the exception must not 'unreasonably conflict with normal exploitation of the patent'; (3) the exception must not 'unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the patent owner, taking account of the legitimate interests of third parties.'" Moreover, the Panel noted that the three conditions are cumulative. (Para. 7.20) The Panel interpreted this provision in light of the parties' arguments, which began with a discussion of the object and purpose of the TRIPS Agreement. Canada pointed to Articles 7 and 8 of the TRIPS Agreement as relevant to the object and purpose of Article 30. (Para. 7.23) Article 7, titled "Objectives," states: The protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights should contribute to the promotion of technological innovation and to the transfer and dissemination of technology, to the mutual advantage of producers and users of technological knowledge and in a manner conducive to social and economic welfare, and to a balance of rights and obligations. Article 8, titled "Principles," provides in relevant part: 1. Members may, in formulating or amending their laws and regulations, adopt measures necessary to protect health and nutrition, and to promote the public interest in sectors of vital importance to their socioeconomic and technological development, provided that such measures are consistent with the provisions of this Agreement. (Para. 7.23, emphasis added by Panel) Canada argued that these provisions together "call for a liberal interpretation of the three conditions stated in Article 30 of the Agreement, so that governments would have the necessary flexibility to adjust patent rights to maintain the desired balance with other important national policies." The European Communities countered that Articles 7 and 8 describe a balancing that had already taken place during the TRIPS Agreement negotiations and they are not intended to allow a Member to "renegotiate" the overall balance. The Panel considered both views and stated that the words of Articles 7 and 8 should be borne in mind in terms of context, but that the three limiting conditions of Article 30 make clear that the TRIPS Agreement negotiators did not intend for a re-negotiation of the basic balance of the Agreement. (Paras ) With these principles in mind, the Panel turned to an interpretation of the three criteria in Article 30. It began with the first criterion, that any exception be a "limited" one. The Panel held that the term "limited exception" must connote a "narrow exception - one which makes only a small diminution of the rights in question." (Para. 7.30) 2001 WorldTradeLaw.net LLC 4

5 The Panel agreed with the EC argument that the term "limited" should be "measured by the extent to which the exclusive rights of the patent owner have been curtailed." By this, the panel referred to the legal rights at issue, rather than size or extent of the economic impact. However, the Panel disagreed with the EC methodology of "counting" the number of legal rights impaired, and instead articulated a standard under which "the extent to which the patent owner's rights have been curtailed must be measured." (Emphasis added) The Panel pointed out that a very small act could potentially violate all five rights conferred under Article 28.1, but for all practical purposes leave the owner's rights intact. In this regard, the Panel rejected Canada's argument that the focus should be on whether the right to "sell" has been infringed, pointing out that "making" and "using" are also essential patent rights. (Paras ) The Panel concluded that the stockpiling provision violates the "limited exception" criterion. In particular, the Panel pointed to the fact that there are no limitations on the quantity of production for stockpiling. Moreover, the Panel stated that a patent right contains a corollary right to a "short period of extended market exclusivity after the patent expires." A third-party right to "make" or "use" the patented invention during the patent period would eliminate that benefit of extended market exclusivity. While the Panel refrained from defining exactly what level of curtailment would be disqualifying under the "limited exception" standard, the Panel concluded, "an exception which results in a substantial curtailment of this dimension cannot be considered a 'limited exception.'" (Emphasis added) In addition, the panel rejected Canada's argument that the stockpiling provision is "limited" because it applies only to products which require regulatory approval, holding that "each exception must be evaluated with regard to its impact on each affected patent, independently." (Paras ) For these reasons, the Panel found that the stockpiling provision in the Canadian Patent Act does not constitute a "limited exception" under TRIPS Agreement Article 30. As a result, the Panel concluded that the stockpiling provision constitutes a "substantial curtailment of the exclusionary rights" granted to patent holders under TRIPS Agreement Article 28.1, and is therefore inconsistent with TRIPS Agreement Article The Panel considered it unnecessary to examine the stockpiling provision under the second and third criteria of Article 30, given that it had already found that the provision fails to meet the first criterion. (Paras. 7.36, 7.38) TRIPS Agreement Articles 28.1 and 30 - Canada's Regulatory Review Provision Neither party disputed that, on its face, the regulatory review provision of the Canadian Patent Act violates Article Therefore, as with the stockpiling provision, the issue became whether the provision falls within the exception provided under Article 30. (Para. 7.39) The Panel examined each of the three Article 30 conditions individually. Turning to the first criterion required under Article 30, the Panel recalled its interpretation of the phrase "limited exception" above, i.e., that the words "express a requirement that the exception make only a narrow curtailment of the legal rights which Article 28.1 requires to be granted to patent owners, and that the measure of that curtailment was the extent to which the affected legal rights themselves had been impaired." (Para. 7.44) (Emphasis added) The Panel found that Canada's regulatory review provision meets this criterion. It considered that "[a]s long as the exception is confined to conduct needed to comply with the requirements of the regulatory review process, the extent of the acts unauthorized by the right holder that are permitted by it will be small and narrowly bounded." (Paras. 7.45) With regard to Canada's arguments that both the negotiating history of Article 30 and the "subsequent practices of certain WTO Member governments" supported the view that Article 30 was understood to permit regulatory review exceptions, the Panel said it "did not accord any weight to either of those arguments because there was no documented evidence of the claimed negotiating understanding, and because the subsequent acts by individual countries did not constitute 'practice in the application of the treaty which establishes the agreement of the parties regarding its interpretation' within the meaning of Article 31.3(b) of the Vienna 2001 WorldTradeLaw.net LLC 5

6 Convention." (Para. 7.47) The Panel concluded that the regulatory review exception is a "limited exception" within the meaning of Article 30. (Para. 7.50) The Panel then turned to the second criterion of Article 30, which prohibits exceptions that "unreasonably conflict with a normal exploitation of the patent." The parties essentially agreed that "exploitation" involves "the extraction of commercial value from the patent by 'working' the patent," either by selling the product or licensing others to do so. The parties differed, however, on the meaning of "normal." (Para. 7.51) The Panel articulated a definition of "exploitation" as referring to "the commercial activity by which patent owners employ their exclusive patent rights to extract economic value from their patent." Moreover, the Panel found that the term "normal," as used in Article 30, combines two possible meanings: either an "empirical conclusion" about what is common within a relevant community, or a "normative standard" pertaining to the concept of "entitlement." The Panel explained that the normal practice of exploitation by patent owners "is to exclude all forms of competition that could detract significantly from the economic returns anticipated from a patent's grant of market exclusivity." It noted that the forms of exploitation change with developments in competition due to technological advances and the evolution of marketing practices. In this regard, the Panel rejected Canada's argument that post-expiration market exclusivity (i.e., exclusivity that continues to flow to the former patent holder after expiration of the patent, as a result of the time it takes competitors to bring a competing product onto the market) can never meet the definition of "normal exploitation" per se. The Panel explained that there is nothing "abnormal" about the period of market exclusivity that occurs after a patent has expired. (Para ) However, the Panel considered Canada's argument to be on "firmer ground" when, as in this case, the post-expiration market exclusivity is the result of a government's regulatory process. The Panel agreed with Canada that a right to this type of protection falls outside the bounds of "normal." The Panel concluded: The additional period of market exclusivity in this situation is not a natural or normal consequence of enforcing patent rights. It is an unintended consequence of the conjunction of the patent laws with product regulatory laws, where the combination of patent rights with the time demands of the regulatory process gives a greater than normal period of market exclusivity to the enforcement of certain patent rights. The Panel also found it relevant that the lengthy regulatory demands at issue here are not applicable to the vast majority of patented products. (Para. 7.57) For these reasons, the Panel concluded that the regulatory review provision does not conflict with a normal exploitation of patents under TRIPS Agreement Article 30. (Para. 7.59) Finally, the Panel considered the third criterion of Article 30, which states that the proposed exception must not "unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the patent owner, taking into account the legitimate interests of third parties." The Panel noted that the focus would be on the issue of whether patent owners can claim a "legitimate interest" in the economic benefits that can be derived from an additional period of post-expiration exclusivity and whether the regulatory review provision "unreasonably prejudice[s]" that interest. (Paras ) The Panel noted the dictionary definition of "legitimate" and concluded that this term "must be defined in the way that it is often used in legal discourse - as a normative claim calling for protection of interests that are 'justifiable' in the sense that they are supported by relevant public policies or other social norms." (Para. 7.69) To further develop the meaning of the phrase, the Panel also looked to the negotiating 2001 WorldTradeLaw.net LLC 6

7 history of this provision, in particular, that of Berne Convention Article 9(2). This negotiating history confirmed the Panel's interpretation. In this way, the Panel attributed to the phrase a broader definition than only "legal interests," as argued by the European Communities. (Para ) Next, the Panel considered the European Communities' normative claim that generic producers should not be given an advantage over the patent holders in terms of time to develop the product (i.e., while the patent holder typically loses one-half of the patent period to obtain marketing approval for the drug, under the regulatory review provision, the generic companies are able to deal with the burdensome process during the patent period, and thereby lose no time in marketing the drug as soon as the patent expires). (Paras ) The Panel rejected the EC claim that this situation creates a "legitimate interest" for the patent holders. In particular, the Panel found that this interest was "neither so compelling nor so widely recognized" to constitute a "policy norm" that falls within TRIPS Agreement Article 30. Moreover, the Panel found it "significant that concerns about regulatory review provisions in general, although well known at the time of the TRIPS negotiations, were apparently not clear enough, or compelling enough, to make their way explicitly into the recorded agenda of the TRIPS negotiations." Ultimately, the Panel explained that it did not want to use the concept of "legitimate interests" in Article 30 to decide a normative policy issue that still requires political debate. (Para. 7.82) Therefore, the Panel concluded that Canada had demonstrated that the regulatory review provision does not prejudice "legitimate interests" of affected patent owners within the meaning of Article 30. (Para. 7.83) Having found that Canada's regulatory review provision meets all three conditions contained in TRIPS Agreement Article 30, the Panel concluded that the provision is not inconsistent with Canada's obligations under TRIPS Agreement Article (Para. 7.84) TRIPS Agreement Article Canada's Regulatory Review Provision The European Communities also claimed that the regulatory review provision of the Patent Act violates TRIPS Agreement Article (Para. 7.85) Article 27.1, titled "Patentable Subject Matter," provides: Subject to the provisions of paragraphs 2 and 3, patents shall be available for any inventions, whether products or processes, in all fields of technology, provided that they are new, involve an inventive step and are capable of industrial application. Subject to paragraph 4 of Article 65, paragraph 8 of Article 70 and paragraph 3 of this Article, patents shall be available and patent rights enjoyable without discrimination as to the place of invention, the field of technology and whether products are imported or locally produced. (Para. 7.85, emphasis added). Specifically, the European Communities argued that under this provision, any exceptions to the basic TRIPS Agreement rights must be non-discriminatory. Here, it argued, Canada's regulatory review provision discriminates based on "the field of technology" (i.e., against pharmaceutical products), in both a de jure manner, based on the legislative history of the provision, and a de facto manner, in that the measure is effectively limited to pharmaceuticals. (Paras. 7.86, ) The Panel rejected the EC claims. As a threshold matter, however, the Panel rejected Canada's argument that Article 27.1 does not apply to exceptions granted under Article 30. Specifically, Canada argued that Article 27.1 prevents discrimination only as to the enjoyment of "patent rights," and that measures which fall within Article 30 are explicitly described as "exceptions to the exclusive rights," such that they are not subject to the non-discrimination requirement of Article The Panel considered that Article 30 contains no indication that any exemption from non-discrimination rules is intended. Moreover, 2001 WorldTradeLaw.net LLC 7

8 it explained, "[a] discriminatory exception that takes away enjoyment of a patent right is discrimination as much as is discrimination in the basic rights themselves." The Panel also found significant the "acknowledged fact" that the exception for compulsory licenses and government use under TRIPS Agreement Article 31 is "understood to be subject to the non-discrimination rule of Article 27.1." (Paras ) Next, the Panel considered whether Canada's regulatory review provision discriminates as to the field of technology, within the meaning of Article The Panel began its analysis by considering the meaning of the term "discrimination." It recognized that this term is "normative" in nature and "pejorative" in connotation, and that it extends beyond the concept of "differential treatment." Moreover, it recognized that discrimination can result from explicitly different treatment (de jure discrimination), or from the application of formally identical treatment, which, due to differences in circumstances, produces differentially disadvantageous effects (de facto discrimination). (Para. 7.94) With regard to de jure discrimination, the European Communities argued that pharmaceuticals were the only products mentioned in Canada's legislative debates on the enactment of the regulatory review provision. The Panel found this evidence insufficient to overcome 1) the words of the provision, which do not discriminate based on technology or product, and 2) the fact that Canada represented to the Panel that the "meaning" of the regulatory review provision is not limited to only pharmaceuticals. Therefore, the Panel found that the measure does not constitute de jure discrimination against pharmaceutical products. Nonetheless, the Panel warned that this finding of conformity "would no longer be warranted" if Canada's representations were to prove wrong. (Paras ) The Panel then turned to the EC claim regarding de facto discrimination. First, the Panel presented an explanation of its understanding of de facto discrimination: de facto discrimination is a general term describing the legal conclusion that an ostensibly neutral measure transgresses a non-discrimination norm because its actual effect is to impose differentially disadvantageous consequences on certain parties, and because those differential effects are found to be wrong or unjustifiable. Two main issues figure in the application of that general concept in most legal systems. One is the question of de facto discriminatory effect - whether the actual effect of the measure is to impose differentially disadvantageous consequences on certain parties. The other, related to the justification for the disadvantageous effects, is the issue of purpose - not an inquiry into the subjective purposes of the officials responsible for the measure, but an inquiry into the objective characteristics of the measure from which one can infer the existence or non-existence of discriminatory objectives. (Para ) Thus, according to the Panel, there are two elements to a finding of de facto discrimination -- discriminatory effect and discriminatory purpose (based on objective characteristics of the measure, as opposed to subjective purposes of government officials). Applying this interpretation to the facts of this case, the Panel rejected the EC claim of de facto discrimination against pharmaceutical products. First, the Panel noted that the European Communities failed to provide any "systematic information on the range of industries" that use the regulatory review provision so as to demonstrate the actual effects of the provision under a de facto analysis. As such, the European Communities failed to prove that the regulatory review provision has had a "discriminatory effect" against pharmaceutical products. Second, on the issue of purpose, the Panel found that the mere fact that there was a focus on pharmaceuticals during the Canadian legislative debates on the provision does not 2001 WorldTradeLaw.net LLC 8

9 demonstrate a purpose of discriminating against pharmaceuticals. The Panel recognized that it is often the case that a preoccupation with the effects of a statute in one area can serve as the "driving force behind legislative actions of broader scope." Therefore, the Panel found no evidence of de facto discrimination against pharmaceutical products. (Paras ) For these reasons, the Panel found that none of the evidence in the record raised a plausible claim of discrimination against a particular "field of technology" under TRIPS Agreement Article 27.1, and, as a result, it concluded that the regulatory review provision does not violate Canada's obligations under that provision. (Para ) For further reading on this dispute, see: COMMENTARY Frederick M. Abbott, "Bob Hudec as Chair of the Canada-Generic Pharmaceuticals Panel The WTO Gets Something Right," 6 JIEL 3, (2003). Robert Howse, "The Canadian Generic Medicines Panel a Dangerous Precedent in Dangerous Times," Journal of World Intellectual Property (July 2000). TRIPS Agreement Article 30 - Exceptions to Rights Conferred It is interesting to note that the language of TRIPS Agreement Article 30, which relates to patents, is in part based on Berne Convention Article 9(2), which actually governs copyrights. Thus, it is no surprise that the conditions set forth in Article 30 are very similar to the conditions of the analogous exception provision dealing with copyrights in Section 1 of Part II of the TRIPS Agreement, namely TRIPS Agreement Article 13. Similar to the language in Article 30, Article 13 states as follows: "Members shall confine limitations or exceptions to exclusive rights to certain special cases which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the right holder." Article 13 was applied by the panel in U.S. - Copyright. For further discussion of the standards contained in Article 13, see DSC for U.S. - Copyright (Panel). Moreover, similar limited exception provisions are provided in TRIPS Agreement Articles 17 (trademarks) and 26.2 (industrial designs). TRIPS Agreement Article De Facto Discrimination The Panel's discussion of de facto discrimination under TRIPS Agreement Article 27.1 is noteworthy. The Panel asserted that de facto discrimination is comprised of two essential elements: 1) empirical differential treatment ("discriminatory effect"), and 2) a discriminatory purpose based on the measure's objective characteristics. The Panel did not provide much explanation of its basis for taking this approach to the concept of de facto discrimination. It simply noted that these two elements are used in "most legal systems" when applying the concept of de facto discrimination. However, the Panel's approach appears to mirror the "so as to afford protection" analysis used by the Appellate Body under GATT Article III:2, second sentence, one of the provisions applying the principle of national treatment. This case was not appealed, so the Appellate Body did not have the opportunity to express an opinion as to how de facto discrimination under TRIPS Agreement Article 27.1 should be judged. In the GATT context, the Appellate Body has expressed different views, depending on the provision at issue, about whether non-discrimination provisions require an examination of both discriminatory effect and discriminatory purpose, so it is unclear how it would view the Panel's approach. For further discussion of 2001 WorldTradeLaw.net LLC 9

10 the application of the core GATT "anti-discrimination" provisions, Articles I and III, see DSC for EC - Asbestos (AB), DSC for Chile - Alcohol (AB), DSC for Japan - Alcohol (AB) and DSC for Canada - Autos (AB). Members' Representations/Pledges to the Panel The Panel found that the regulatory review provision does not discriminate against pharmaceutical products as compared to other fields of technology under TRIPS Agreement Article In its examination of whether the Canadian measure discriminates in a de jure manner (discrimination "in law"), the Panel noted representations made to the Panel by the Canadian Government that, in fact, the regulatory review provision is not limited to only pharmaceuticals. The Panel relied on these representations in reaching its determination that the measure is not limited to pharmaceutical products, warning that its finding would no longer be warranted if Canada's representations proved wrong. The Panel's acceptance of the Canadian Government's pledge reflects the fact that in determining the meaning of a domestic law, panels, to a certain degree, must rely on and respect the interpretations offered by WTO Members. The panel in U.S. - Section 301 relied, in a similar manner, on "undertakings" by the U.S. Government as to the manner in which the United States would interpret the measure at issue in that case. See DSC for U.S. - Section 301 (Panel). On the other hand, in India - Patents (U.S.), the panel, as upheld by the Appellate Body, refused to accept representations made by the Indian Government as to the operation of its patent system and commitments/pledges by the Indian Government that it would implement its system in conformity with its WTO obligations. See DSC for India - Patents (AB). There are some critics who have questioned the disparate treatment of the three governments' representations in these cases. However, a key distinguishing factor that may help explain the different treatment may be that India's law contained a mandatory requirement that its Patent Office violate WTO rules. As a result, the panel and the Appellate Body considered that the WTO-inconsistent rules could, in theory, be enforced by Indian courts, regardless of the pledges made by the Indian Executive to the panel. By contrast, the measures at issue in Canada - Pharmaceuticals and U.S. - Section 301 both arguably provided the governments with the discretion to carry out the rules in a WTO-consistent manner. As such, other branches of government could not force the Executive to act in a WTO-inconsistent manner WorldTradeLaw.net LLC 10

19 Progressive Development of Protection Framework for Pharmaceutical Invention under the TRIPS Agreement Focusing on Patent Rights

19 Progressive Development of Protection Framework for Pharmaceutical Invention under the TRIPS Agreement Focusing on Patent Rights 19 Progressive Development of Protection Framework for Pharmaceutical Invention under the TRIPS Agreement Focusing on Patent Rights Research FellowAkiko Kato This study examines the international protection

More information

2.5.2 NON-DISCRIMINATION (ARTICLE 27.1)

2.5.2 NON-DISCRIMINATION (ARTICLE 27.1) 2.5.2 NON-DISCRIMINATION (ARTICLE 27.1) Article 27.1: Patentable Subject Matter... patents shall be available and patent rights enjoyable without discrimination as to the place of invention, the field

More information

PATENT PROTECTION FOR PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS IN CANADA CHRONOLOGY OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS

PATENT PROTECTION FOR PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS IN CANADA CHRONOLOGY OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS PRB 99-46E PATENT PROTECTION FOR PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS IN CANADA CHRONOLOGY OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS Margaret Smith Law and Government Division 30 March 2000 Revised 31 May 2000 PARLIAMENTARY RESEARCH BRANCH

More information

COMPLIANCE OF CANADA S UTILITY DOCTRINE WITH INTERNATIONAL MINIMUM STANDARDS OF PATENT PROTECTION

COMPLIANCE OF CANADA S UTILITY DOCTRINE WITH INTERNATIONAL MINIMUM STANDARDS OF PATENT PROTECTION COMPLIANCE OF CANADA S UTILITY DOCTRINE WITH INTERNATIONAL MINIMUM STANDARDS OF PATENT PROTECTION Jerome H. Reichman Duke Law School April 11, 2014 1 E. Richard Gold & Michael Short The Promise of the

More information

TRIPS, FTAs and BITs: Impact on Domestic IP- and Innovation Strategies in Developing Countries

TRIPS, FTAs and BITs: Impact on Domestic IP- and Innovation Strategies in Developing Countries Innovation, Creativity and IP Policy: An Indo-European Dialogue TRIPS, FTAs and BITs: Impact on Domestic IP- and Innovation Strategies in Developing Countries Henning Grosse Ruse NUJS & MPI Collaborative

More information

The TRIPS Agreement and Patentability Criteria

The TRIPS Agreement and Patentability Criteria WHO-WIPO-WTO Technical Workshop on Patentability Criteria Geneva, 27 October 2015 The TRIPS Agreement and Patentability Criteria Roger Kampf WTO Secretariat 1 Trilateral Cooperation: To Build Capacity,

More information

TRIPS Post Grant Flexibilities: Key Exceptions to Patent Holders' Rights. David Vivas Eugui

TRIPS Post Grant Flexibilities: Key Exceptions to Patent Holders' Rights. David Vivas Eugui TRIPS Post Grant Flexibilities: Key Exceptions to Patent Holders' David Vivas Eugui dvivas@ictsd.ch OVERVIEW OF PRESENTATION Patent holders rights Article 30 TRIPS Agreement on patent exceptions The scientific

More information

Historical Background, General Provisions and Basic Principles of the TRIPS Agreement and Transitional Arrangements*

Historical Background, General Provisions and Basic Principles of the TRIPS Agreement and Transitional Arrangements* J:mrnal ofinoollectual Property Rights Vol 3 March 1998 pp 68-73 Historical Background, General Provisions and Basic Principles of the TRIPS Agreement and Transitional Arrangements* Mart Leesti Former

More information

TRAINING SEMINAR PHARMACEUTICALS AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ACCESS TO MEDICINE: Exploitation of pharmaceutical patents: compulsory licences SESSION 4

TRAINING SEMINAR PHARMACEUTICALS AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ACCESS TO MEDICINE: Exploitation of pharmaceutical patents: compulsory licences SESSION 4 TRAINING SEMINAR PHARMACEUTICALS AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY 1 12 14 March 2012 Pretoria, South Africa SESSION 4 ACCESS TO MEDICINE: COMMERCIALISATION, DISTRIBUTION, COMPETITION ----------------- Exploitation

More information

Topic 2: Patent-related Flexibilities in Multilateral Treaties and Their Importance for Developing Countries and LDCs

Topic 2: Patent-related Flexibilities in Multilateral Treaties and Their Importance for Developing Countries and LDCs Topic 2: Patent-related Flexibilities in Multilateral Treaties and Their Importance for Developing Countries and LDCs McLean Sibanda Chief Executive Officer - The Innovation Hub Second WIPO Inter-Regional

More information

Dr. Biswajit Dhar Professor, Jawaharlal Nehru University, India and Member DA9 Advisory Board

Dr. Biswajit Dhar Professor, Jawaharlal Nehru University, India and Member DA9 Advisory Board Dr. Biswajit Dhar Professor, Jawaharlal Nehru University, India and Member DA9 Advisory Board Intellectual Property Rights in Preferential Trade Agreements Many Preferential Trade Agreements (PTAs) adopted

More information

THE LEGALITY OF LOCAL PATENT WORKING REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE TRIPS AGREEMENT

THE LEGALITY OF LOCAL PATENT WORKING REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE TRIPS AGREEMENT THE LEGALITY OF LOCAL PATENT WORKING REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE TRIPS AGREEMENT Chia-Ling Lee * J.D. Graduate of Class 2013 Washington University in St. Louis School of Law ABSTRACT The balance between the

More information

Protecting Intellectual Property under TRIPS, FTAs and BITs: Conflicting Regimes or Mutual Coherence?

Protecting Intellectual Property under TRIPS, FTAs and BITs: Conflicting Regimes or Mutual Coherence? Protecting Intellectual Property under TRIPS, FTAs and BITs: Conflicting Regimes or Mutual Coherence? Henning Große Ruse International Investment Treaty Law and Arbitration Conference Sydney, 19-20 February

More information

Regional Seminar on the Effective Implementation and Use of Several Patent-Related Flexibilities

Regional Seminar on the Effective Implementation and Use of Several Patent-Related Flexibilities DEPARTMENT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY MINISTRY OF COMMERCE Regional Seminar on the Effective Implementation and Use of Several Patent-Related Flexibilities Topic 12: Which are Valid Grounds for a Compulsory

More information

_ To: The Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks Bhoudhik Sampada Bhavan, Antop Hill, S. M. Road, Mumbai

_ To: The Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks Bhoudhik Sampada Bhavan, Antop Hill, S. M. Road, Mumbai Philips Intellectual Property & Standards M Far, Manyata Tech Park, Manyata Nagar, Nagavara, Hebbal, Bangalore 560 045 Subject: Comments on draft guidelines for computer related inventions Date: 2013-07-26

More information

Flexibilities in the Patent System

Flexibilities in the Patent System Flexibilities in the Patent System Dr. N.S. Gopalakrishnan Professor, HRD Chair on IPR School of Legal Studies, Cochin University of Science & Technology, Cochin, Kerala 1 Introduction The Context Flexibilities

More information

The 45 Adopted Recommendations under the WIPO Development Agenda

The 45 Adopted Recommendations under the WIPO Development Agenda The 45 Adopted Recommendations under the WIPO Development Agenda * Recommendations with an asterisk were identified by the 2007 General Assembly for immediate implementation Cluster A: Technical Assistance

More information

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Carnegie Endowment for International Peace How the U.S. and India could Collaborate to Strengthen Their Bilateral Relationship in the Pharmaceutical Sector Second Panel: Exploring the Gilead-India Licensing

More information

Establishing a Development Agenda for the World Intellectual Property Organization

Establishing a Development Agenda for the World Intellectual Property Organization 1 Establishing a Development Agenda for the World Intellectual Property Organization to be submitted by Brazil and Argentina to the 40 th Series of Meetings of the Assemblies of the Member States of WIPO

More information

Question Q 159. The need and possible means of implementing the Convention on Biodiversity into Patent Laws

Question Q 159. The need and possible means of implementing the Convention on Biodiversity into Patent Laws Question Q 159 The need and possible means of implementing the Convention on Biodiversity into Patent Laws National Group Report Guidelines The majority of the National Groups follows the guidelines for

More information

WIPO Development Agenda

WIPO Development Agenda WIPO Development Agenda 2 The WIPO Development Agenda aims to ensure that development considerations form an integral part of WIPO s work. As such, it is a cross-cutting issue which touches upon all sectors

More information

Submission to the Productivity Commission inquiry into Intellectual Property Arrangements

Submission to the Productivity Commission inquiry into Intellectual Property Arrangements Submission to the Productivity Commission inquiry into Intellectual Property Arrangements DECEMBER 2015 Business Council of Australia December 2015 1 Contents About this submission 2 Key recommendations

More information

PROTECTION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

PROTECTION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Chapter 12 PROTECTION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OVERVIEW OF RULES In today s economic environment, intangible assets are becoming increasingly important. These assets, which are the result of human intellectual

More information

Comments of the AMERICAN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW ASSOCIATION. Regarding

Comments of the AMERICAN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW ASSOCIATION. Regarding Comments of the AMERICAN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW ASSOCIATION Regarding THE ISSUES PAPER OF THE AUSTRALIAN ADVISORY COUNCIL ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONCERNING THE PATENTING OF BUSINESS SYSTEMS ISSUED

More information

1999 Council for Trade in Services, - D R A F T, Interim Report on Electronic Commerce including for meeting on 9/2/1999

1999 Council for Trade in Services, - D R A F T, Interim Report on Electronic Commerce including for meeting on 9/2/1999 1998 Meeting minutes Several delegations said that it was important to affirm the technological neutrality of the GATS but some delegations wished to see more discussion of this notion. 1998 General Council

More information

United States Small Business Administration Office of Hearings and Appeals

United States Small Business Administration Office of Hearings and Appeals Cite as: Matter of Accent Services Co., Inc., SBA No. BDP-421 (2011) United States Small Business Administration Office of Hearings and Appeals IN THE MATTER OF: Accent Services Co., Inc., Petitioner SBA

More information

IPRs and Public Health: Lessons Learned Current Challenges The Way Forward

IPRs and Public Health: Lessons Learned Current Challenges The Way Forward Local Pharmaceutical Production in Africa International Conference Cape Town, 4-6 April 2011 IPRs and Public Health: Lessons Learned Current Challenges The Way Forward Roger Kampf WTO Secretariat 1 Acknowledging

More information

LAW ON TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER 1998

LAW ON TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER 1998 LAW ON TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER 1998 LAW ON TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER May 7, 1998 Ulaanbaatar city CHAPTER ONE COMMON PROVISIONS Article 1. Purpose of the law The purpose of this law is to regulate relationships

More information

Exhaustive Training module for new Patent examiners

Exhaustive Training module for new Patent examiners Exhaustive Training module for new Patent examiners In continuation with last month's appointment of 9 examiners by the Indian Patent Office, 8 more candidates have now been appointed as examiners. All

More information

Lexis PSL Competition Practice Note

Lexis PSL Competition Practice Note Lexis PSL Competition Practice Note Research and development Produced in partnership with K&L Gates LLP Research and Development (R&D ) are under which two or more parties agree to jointly execute research

More information

GENEVA WIPO GENERAL ASSEMBLY. Thirty-First (15 th Extraordinary) Session Geneva, September 27 to October 5, 2004

GENEVA WIPO GENERAL ASSEMBLY. Thirty-First (15 th Extraordinary) Session Geneva, September 27 to October 5, 2004 WIPO WO/GA/31/11 ORIGINAL: English DATE: August 27, 2004 WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERT Y O RGANI ZATION GENEVA E WIPO GENERAL ASSEMBLY Thirty-First (15 th Extraordinary) Session Geneva, September 27 to October

More information

B) Issues to be Prioritised within the Proposed Global Strategy and Plan of Action:

B) Issues to be Prioritised within the Proposed Global Strategy and Plan of Action: INTERGOVERNMENTAL WORKING GROUP ON PUBLIC HEALTH, INNOVATION AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY EGA Submission to Section 1 Draft Global Strategy and Plan of Action The European Generic Medicines Association is

More information

TRIPs & PATENTS. In 1899, Mr. Charles H. Duell, Director of US Patent office said Everything that can be invented, has (already) been invented.

TRIPs & PATENTS. In 1899, Mr. Charles H. Duell, Director of US Patent office said Everything that can be invented, has (already) been invented. TRIPs & PATENTS Dr.Gopakumar G. Nair In 1899, Mr. Charles H. Duell, Director of US Patent office said Everything that can be invented, has (already) been invented. The events thereafter proved that inventions

More information

Statement by the BIAC Committee on Technology and Industry on THE IMPACT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION ON INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT

Statement by the BIAC Committee on Technology and Industry on THE IMPACT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION ON INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT Business and Industry Advisory Committee to the OECD OECD Comité Consultatif Economique et Industriel Auprès de l l OCDE Statement by the BIAC Committee on Technology and Industry on THE IMPACT OF INTELLECTUAL

More information

Guidance for Industry

Guidance for Industry Guidance for Industry Formal Dispute Resolution: Scientific and Technical Issues Related to Pharmaceutical CGMP U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug

More information

WIPO NATIONAL WORKSHOP FOR PATENT LAWYERS

WIPO NATIONAL WORKSHOP FOR PATENT LAWYERS ORIGINAL: English DATE: May 1997 GOVERNMENT OF THE FEDERAL DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF ETHIOPIA WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATION WIPO NATIONAL WORKSHOP FOR PATENT LAWYERS organized by the World Intellectual

More information

REVIEW OF ARTICLE 27.3(B)

REVIEW OF ARTICLE 27.3(B) C ENTER FOR I NTERNATIONAL E NVIRONMENTAL L AW REVIEW OF ARTICLE 27.3(B) BY MATTHEW STILWELL 1 JUNE, 2001 1 The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessary reflect those of CIEL, South

More information

TOWARDS A FULL REVIEW OF THE WTO S TRIPS AGREEMENT UNDER ARTICLE 71.1

TOWARDS A FULL REVIEW OF THE WTO S TRIPS AGREEMENT UNDER ARTICLE 71.1 C ENTER FOR I NTERNATIONAL E NVIRONMENTAL L AW TOWARDS A FULL REVIEW OF THE WTO S TRIPS AGREEMENT UNDER ARTICLE 71.1 BY MATTHEW STILLWELL AND ELISABETH TUERK APRIL, 2001 Acknowledgements CIEL would like

More information

An Essential Health and Biomedical R&D Treaty

An Essential Health and Biomedical R&D Treaty An Essential Health and Biomedical R&D Treaty Submission by Health Action International Global, Initiative for Health & Equity in Society, Knowledge Ecology International, Médecins Sans Frontières, Third

More information

Guidelines on Standardization and Patent Pool Arrangements

Guidelines on Standardization and Patent Pool Arrangements Guidelines on Standardization and Patent Pool Arrangements Part 1 Introduction In industries experiencing innovation and technical change, such as the information technology sector, it is important to

More information

TRIPS and Access to Medicines. The Story so far

TRIPS and Access to Medicines. The Story so far TRIPS and Access to Medicines The Story so far TRIPS and Access to Medicines : A brief history 1981: HIV first clinically observed 1982-83: Named AIDS 1984: Discovery that it is caused by a virus 1986:

More information

p. 21 p. 45 p. 87 p. 89

p. 21 p. 45 p. 87 p. 89 Preface Treaties Relating to Food and Protection of Biotechnology p. 1 Introduction p. 3 General Outline p. 3 Structure of the Study p. 9 Delimitations p. 10 Food, Biotechnology and Intellectual Property

More information

TRIPS and Access to Medicines. WR Briefing

TRIPS and Access to Medicines. WR Briefing TRIPS and Access to Medicines WR Briefing Outline What is TRIPS How does it affect access to medicines What are the TRIPS flexibilities? What are extra-trips provisions? How do the extra-trips provisions

More information

THE ASEAN FRAMEWORK AGREEMENT ON ACCESS TO BIOLOGICAL AND GENETIC RESOURCES

THE ASEAN FRAMEWORK AGREEMENT ON ACCESS TO BIOLOGICAL AND GENETIC RESOURCES Draft Text 24 February 2000 THE ASEAN FRAMEWORK AGREEMENT ON ACCESS TO BIOLOGICAL AND GENETIC RESOURCES The Member States of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) : CONSCIOUS of the fact

More information

(1) A computer program is not an invention and not a manner of manufacture for the purposes of this Act.

(1) A computer program is not an invention and not a manner of manufacture for the purposes of this Act. The Patent Examination Manual Section 11: Computer programs (1) A computer program is not an invention and not a manner of manufacture for the purposes of this Act. (2) Subsection (1) prevents anything

More information

strong patents, weak patents and evergreening: should patents for drugs be challenged more often? Giancarlo Del Corno Studio Legale Sena e Tarchini

strong patents, weak patents and evergreening: should patents for drugs be challenged more often? Giancarlo Del Corno Studio Legale Sena e Tarchini strong patents, weak patents and evergreening: should patents for drugs be challenged more often? 1 definition of strong vs. weak patent evergreening patents in terms of validity; in terms of extent of

More information

The Application of TRIPs to the Authorisation by Health Authorities of the Using, Making and Selling of Pharmaceutical Drugs

The Application of TRIPs to the Authorisation by Health Authorities of the Using, Making and Selling of Pharmaceutical Drugs WÖSS: APPLICATION OF TRIPS TO THE USING, MAKING AND SELLING OF PHARMACEUTICAL DRUGS: [2002] Int.T.L.R. 79 The Application of TRIPs to the Authorisation by Health Authorities of the Using, Making and Selling

More information

In explanation, the e Modified PAR should not be approved for the following reasons:

In explanation, the e Modified PAR should not be approved for the following reasons: 2004-09-08 IEEE 802.16-04/58 September 3, 2004 Dear NesCom Members, I am writing as the Chair of 802.20 Working Group to request that NesCom and the IEEE-SA Board not approve the 802.16e Modified PAR for

More information

International IP. Prof. Eric E. Johnson. General Principles

International IP. Prof. Eric E. Johnson. General Principles International IP Prof. Eric E. Johnson ericejohnson.com General Principles territoriality Dependence, independence, central attack Procedural harmonization Substantive agreements National treatment Minima

More information

MEDICINE LICENSE TO PUBLISH

MEDICINE LICENSE TO PUBLISH MEDICINE LICENSE TO PUBLISH This LICENSE TO PUBLISH (this License ), dated as of: DATE (the Effective Date ), is executed by the corresponding author listed on Schedule A (the Author ) to grant a license

More information

ABF SYSTEM REGULATIONS

ABF SYSTEM REGULATIONS ABF SYSTEM REGULATIONS 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 General Systems are classified according to the characteristics of their opening and overcalling structures, and will be identified by colour coding. In determining

More information

Public Hearings Concerning the Evolving Intellectual Property Marketplace

Public Hearings Concerning the Evolving Intellectual Property Marketplace [Billing Code: 6750-01-S] FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION Public Hearings Concerning the Evolving Intellectual Property Marketplace AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice of Public Hearings SUMMARY:

More information

Flexibilities in the Patent System

Flexibilities in the Patent System Flexibilities in the Patent System Joseph Straus, Munich WIPO Colloquium on Selected Patents Issues Geneva, February 16, 2007 J. Straus 2007 1 Topics to Consider Facts First Pre-TRIPS-Regime TRIPS & Mandatory

More information

AN OVERVIEW OF THE UNITED STATES PATENT SYSTEM

AN OVERVIEW OF THE UNITED STATES PATENT SYSTEM AN OVERVIEW OF THE UNITED STATES PATENT SYSTEM (Note: Significant changes in United States patent law were brought about by legislation signed into law by the President on December 8, 1994. The purpose

More information

Standing Committee on the Law of Trademarks, Industrial Designs and Geographical Indications

Standing Committee on the Law of Trademarks, Industrial Designs and Geographical Indications E SCT/39/3 ORIGINAL: ENGLISH DATE: FEBRUARY 22, 2018 Standing Committee on the Law of Trademarks, Industrial Designs and Geographical Indications Thirty-Ninth Session Geneva, April 23 to 26, 2018 COMPILATION

More information

( ) Page: 1/15 NON-VIOLATION AND SITUATION NULLIFICATION OR IMPAIRMENT UNDER THE TRIPS AGREEMENT

( ) Page: 1/15 NON-VIOLATION AND SITUATION NULLIFICATION OR IMPAIRMENT UNDER THE TRIPS AGREEMENT 27 May 2015 (15-2741) Page: 1/15 Council for Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Original: English/Spanish NON-VIOLATION AND SITUATION NULLIFICATION OR IMPAIRMENT UNDER THE TRIPS AGREEMENT

More information

Market Access and Environmental Requirements

Market Access and Environmental Requirements Market Access and Environmental Requirements THE EFFECT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES ON MARKET ACCESS Marrakesh Declaration - Item 6 - (First Part) 9 The effect of environmental measures on market access,

More information

IN THE MATTER OF THE ANTI-CONTERFEITING TRADE AGREEMENT. Docket No.: USTR COMMENTS OF PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE

IN THE MATTER OF THE ANTI-CONTERFEITING TRADE AGREEMENT. Docket No.: USTR COMMENTS OF PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE IN THE MATTER OF THE ANTI-CONTERFEITING TRADE AGREEMENT Docket No.: USTR-2010-0014 Introduction COMMENTS OF PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE Public Knowledge submits these comments in the above-mentioned docket. As the

More information

DERIVATIVES UNDER THE EU ABS REGULATION: THE CONTINUITY CONCEPT

DERIVATIVES UNDER THE EU ABS REGULATION: THE CONTINUITY CONCEPT DERIVATIVES UNDER THE EU ABS REGULATION: THE CONTINUITY CONCEPT SUBMISSION Prepared by the ICC Task Force on Access and Benefit Sharing Summary and highlights Executive Summary Introduction The current

More information

Counterfeit, Falsified and Substandard Medicines

Counterfeit, Falsified and Substandard Medicines Meeting Summary Counterfeit, Falsified and Substandard Medicines Charles Clift Senior Research Consultant, Centre on Global Health Security December 2010 The views expressed in this document are the sole

More information

Invention SUBMISSION BROCHURE PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING BEFORE SUBMITTING YOUR INVENTION

Invention SUBMISSION BROCHURE PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING BEFORE SUBMITTING YOUR INVENTION Invention SUBMISSION BROCHURE PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING BEFORE SUBMITTING YOUR INVENTION The patentability of any invention is subject to legal requirements. Among these legal requirements is the timely

More information

Policy Contents. Policy Information. Purpose and Summary. Scope. Published on Policies and Procedures (http://policy.arizona.edu)

Policy Contents. Policy Information. Purpose and Summary. Scope. Published on Policies and Procedures (http://policy.arizona.edu) Published on Policies and Procedures (http://policy.arizona.edu) Home > Intellectual Property Policy Policy Contents Purpose and Summary Scope Definitions Policy Related Information* Revision History*

More information

The Promotion of Health and Environmental Policies in the Jurisprudence of the WTO. Prof. Fabio Morosini Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul

The Promotion of Health and Environmental Policies in the Jurisprudence of the WTO. Prof. Fabio Morosini Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul The Promotion of Health and Environmental Policies in the Jurisprudence of the WTO Prof. Fabio Morosini Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul General initial remarks Right to regulate in IEL Trade and

More information

Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources: Relationship with Relevant International Instruments

Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources: Relationship with Relevant International Instruments South Unity, South Progress. Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources: Relationship with Relevant International Instruments Viviana Munoz Tellez Coordinator Development, Innovation and Intellectual

More information

Functionality of the Nagoya ABS Protocol with a view to AnGR and a side-look to Anti- Conterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)

Functionality of the Nagoya ABS Protocol with a view to AnGR and a side-look to Anti- Conterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) Functionality of the Nagoya ABS Protocol with a view to AnGR and a side-look to Anti- Conterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) Morten Walløe Tvedt Senior research fellow International Technical Expert Workshop

More information

ADDENDUM D COMERICA WEB INVOICING TERMS AND CONDITIONS

ADDENDUM D COMERICA WEB INVOICING TERMS AND CONDITIONS Effective 08/15/2013 ADDENDUM D COMERICA WEB INVOICING TERMS AND CONDITIONS This Addendum D is incorporated by this reference into the Comerica Web Banking Terms and Conditions ( Terms ). Capitalized terms

More information

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT INFORMATION QUALITY GUIDELINES

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT INFORMATION QUALITY GUIDELINES BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT INFORMATION QUALITY GUIDELINES Draft Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of Information Disseminated by the Bureau of Land

More information

Guide to Assist Land-use Authorities in Developing Antenna System Siting Protocols

Guide to Assist Land-use Authorities in Developing Antenna System Siting Protocols Issue 2 August 2014 Spectrum Management and Telecommunications Guide to Assist Land-use Authorities in Developing Antenna System Siting Protocols Aussi disponible en français Contents 1. Introduction...

More information

25 July 2017 Without prejudice [PROVISIONS IN RELATION TO TRADE IN GOODS ALREADY INCLUDED IN THE EU TEXT PROPOSAL FOR THE TRADE IN GOODS CHAPTER]

25 July 2017 Without prejudice [PROVISIONS IN RELATION TO TRADE IN GOODS ALREADY INCLUDED IN THE EU TEXT PROPOSAL FOR THE TRADE IN GOODS CHAPTER] 25 July 2017 Without prejudice This document is the European Union's (EU) proposal for legal text provisions on energy and raw materials in the EU-Indonesia FTA. It will be tabled for discussion with Indonesia.

More information

Standing Committee on the Law of Patents Twenty-Sixth Session

Standing Committee on the Law of Patents Twenty-Sixth Session Standing Committee on the Law of Patents Twenty-Sixth Session Marco M. ALEMAN Director, Patent Law Division, WIPO Geneva, July 3 to 6, 2017 SCP/26/5 CONSTRAINTS FACED BY DEVELOPING COUNTRIES AND LEAST

More information

THE AMERICA INVENTS ACT NEW POST-ISSUANCE PATENT OFFICE PROCEEDINGS

THE AMERICA INVENTS ACT NEW POST-ISSUANCE PATENT OFFICE PROCEEDINGS THE AMERICA INVENTS ACT NEW POST-ISSUANCE PATENT OFFICE PROCEEDINGS By Sharon Israel and Kyle Friesen I. Introduction The recently enacted Leahy-Smith America Invents Act ( AIA ) 1 marks the most sweeping

More information

Virtual Mentor American Medical Association Journal of Ethics December 2006, Volume 8, Number 12:

Virtual Mentor American Medical Association Journal of Ethics December 2006, Volume 8, Number 12: Virtual Mentor American Medical Association Journal of Ethics December 2006, Volume 8, Number 12: 834-838. Health law Intellectual property and access to medicine for the poor by Tara Leevy, LLB, LLM India

More information

THE LABORATORY ANIMAL BREEDERS ASSOCIATION OF GREAT BRITAIN

THE LABORATORY ANIMAL BREEDERS ASSOCIATION OF GREAT BRITAIN THE LABORATORY ANIMAL BREEDERS ASSOCIATION OF GREAT BRITAIN www.laba-uk.com Response from Laboratory Animal Breeders Association to House of Lords Inquiry into the Revision of the Directive on the Protection

More information

Pharmaceutical Sector Inquiry

Pharmaceutical Sector Inquiry EUROPEAN COMMISSION Competition DG Pharmaceutical Sector Inquiry Preliminary Report (DG Competition Staff Working Paper) Executive Summary 28 November 2008 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. Introduction and Overview

More information

Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance. Responses to the issues raised in the Discussion Paper on the Utility Model

Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance. Responses to the issues raised in the Discussion Paper on the Utility Model Responses to the issues raised in the Discussion Paper on the Utility Model 30 June 2011 1 PREFACE The Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Ministry of Commerce has published a Discussion Paper

More information

1.2 CATEGORIES OF IP EMBRACED BY TRIPS: INCORPORATION OF PRE-EXISTING CONVENTIONS (ARTICLES 1:2 AND 2)

1.2 CATEGORIES OF IP EMBRACED BY TRIPS: INCORPORATION OF PRE-EXISTING CONVENTIONS (ARTICLES 1:2 AND 2) 1.2 CATEGORIES OF IP EMBRACED BY TRIPS: INCORPORATION OF PRE-EXISTING CONVENTIONS (ARTICLES 1:2 AND 2) Article 1 *** Nature and Scope of Obligations 2 For the purposes of this Agreement, the term intellectual

More information

Patent Working Requirements Historical and Comparative Perspectives

Patent Working Requirements Historical and Comparative Perspectives Patent Working Requirements Historical and Comparative Perspectives Marketa Trimble Professor of Law William S. Boyd School of Law Patent Sovereignty and International Law UC Irvine School of Law October

More information

TBT Provisions in RTAs: Do they go beyond the TBT Agreement?

TBT Provisions in RTAs: Do they go beyond the TBT Agreement? TBT Provisions in RTAs: Do they go beyond the TBT Agreement? Xinyi Li Trade Policies Review Division, WTO Secretariat 12 th ARTNeT Capacity Building Workshop December 2016 1 Motives and Objectives TBT

More information

Some Regulatory and Political Issues Related to Space Resources Exploration and Exploitation

Some Regulatory and Political Issues Related to Space Resources Exploration and Exploitation 1 Some Regulatory and Political Issues Related to Space Resources Exploration and Exploitation Presentation by Prof. Dr. Ram Jakhu Associate Professor Institute of Air and Space Law McGill University,

More information

NEW TREATY DEVELOPMENT AND HARMONIZATION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW

NEW TREATY DEVELOPMENT AND HARMONIZATION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW NEW TREATY DEVELOPMENT AND HARMONIZATION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW The prolonged negotiation of the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs Agreement) might have suggested

More information

Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) Decision notice

Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) Decision notice Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) Decision notice Date: 21 June 2017 Public Authority: Address: NHS Guildford and Waverley Clinical Commissioning Group 3 rd Floor Dominion House Woodbridge Road Guildford

More information

NEW 2LDS ADVISORY PANEL. RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE auda BOARD, AUGUST In December 2009 the auda board established the New 2LDs Advisory Panel to:

NEW 2LDS ADVISORY PANEL. RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE auda BOARD, AUGUST In December 2009 the auda board established the New 2LDs Advisory Panel to: NEW 2LDS ADVISORY PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE auda BOARD, AUGUST 2010 BACKGROUND In December 2009 the auda board established the New 2LDs Advisory Panel to: evaluate proposals for the creation of new

More information

MONETARY AGREEMENT between the European Union and the Vatican City State (2010/C 28/05)

MONETARY AGREEMENT between the European Union and the Vatican City State (2010/C 28/05) 4.2.2010 Official Journal of the European Union C 28/13 MONETARY AGREEMENT between the European Union and the Vatican City State (2010/C 28/05) THE EUROPEAN UNION, represented by the European Commission

More information

THE UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CREATED BY STAFF AND STUDENTS POLICY Organisation & Governance

THE UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CREATED BY STAFF AND STUDENTS POLICY Organisation & Governance THE UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CREATED BY STAFF AND STUDENTS POLICY Organisation & Governance 1. INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES 1.1 This policy seeks to establish a framework for managing

More information

International Patent Regime. Michael Blakeney

International Patent Regime. Michael Blakeney Patent Regime Michael Blakeney Patent related treaties WIPO administered treaties Paris Convention (concluded 1883) Patent Cooperation Treaty (1970) Strasbourg Agreement (1971) Budapest Treaty (1977) Patent

More information

"consistent with fair practices" and "within a scope that is justified by the aim" should be construed as follows: [i] the work which quotes and uses

consistent with fair practices and within a scope that is justified by the aim should be construed as follows: [i] the work which quotes and uses Date October 17, 1985 Court Tokyo High Court Case number 1984 (Ne) 2293 A case in which the court upheld the claims for an injunction and damages with regard to the printing of the reproductions of paintings

More information

FEE Comments on EFRAG Draft Comment Letter on ESMA Consultation Paper Considerations of materiality in financial reporting

FEE Comments on EFRAG Draft Comment Letter on ESMA Consultation Paper Considerations of materiality in financial reporting Ms Françoise Flores EFRAG Chairman Square de Meeûs 35 B-1000 BRUXELLES E-mail: commentletter@efrag.org 13 March 2012 Ref.: FRP/PRJ/SKU/SRO Dear Ms Flores, Re: FEE Comments on EFRAG Draft Comment Letter

More information

CBD Request to WIPO on the Interrelation of Access to Genetic Resources and Disclosure Requirements

CBD Request to WIPO on the Interrelation of Access to Genetic Resources and Disclosure Requirements CBD Request to WIPO on the Interrelation of Access to Genetic Resources and Disclosure Requirements Establishing an adequate framework for a WIPO Response 1 Table of Contents I. Introduction... 1 II. Supporting

More information

THE trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights (TRIPS) are a relatively

THE trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights (TRIPS) are a relatively The Developing Economies, XXXIX-1 (March 2001): 49 84 TRADE-RELATED ASPECTS OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS AND DEVELOPING COUNTRIES HUALA ADOLF I. INTRODUCTION THE trade-related aspects of intellectual

More information

S 0342 S T A T E O F R H O D E I S L A N D

S 0342 S T A T E O F R H O D E I S L A N D LC000 01 -- S 0 S T A T E O F R H O D E I S L A N D IN GENERAL ASSEMBLY JANUARY SESSION, A.D. 01 A N A C T RELATING TO PUBLIC UTILITIES AND CARRIERS - SMALL CELL SITING ACT Introduced By: Senators DiPalma,

More information

FÉDÉRATION INTERNATIONALE DES CONSEILS EN PROPRIÉTÉ INDUSTRIELLE. 24 February 2011 Via electronic filing

FÉDÉRATION INTERNATIONALE DES CONSEILS EN PROPRIÉTÉ INDUSTRIELLE. 24 February 2011 Via electronic filing FÉDÉRATION INTERNATIONALE DES CONSEILS EN PROPRIÉTÉ INDUSTRIELLE Julian Crump Secretary General 24 February 2011 Via electronic filing Julie Dennett Committee Secretary Senate Standing Committees on Legal

More information

Practical Strategies for Biotechnology and Medical Device Companies to Manage Intellectual Property Rights

Practical Strategies for Biotechnology and Medical Device Companies to Manage Intellectual Property Rights Practical Strategies for Biotechnology and Medical Device Companies to Manage Intellectual Property Rights Matt Jonsen Dorsey & Whitney LLP Angie Morrison Dorsey & Whitney LLP Intellectual Property Patents

More information

IN THE MATTER OF 2013 SPECIAL 301 REVIEW: IDENTIFICATION OF COUNTRIES UNDER SECTION 182 OF THE TRADE ACT OF Docket No.

IN THE MATTER OF 2013 SPECIAL 301 REVIEW: IDENTIFICATION OF COUNTRIES UNDER SECTION 182 OF THE TRADE ACT OF Docket No. IN THE MATTER OF 2013 SPECIAL 301 REVIEW: IDENTIFICATION OF COUNTRIES UNDER SECTION 182 OF THE TRADE ACT OF 1974 Docket No. USTR - 2012-0022 COMMENTS OF PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE Public Knowledge (PK) appreciates

More information

WIPO-IFIA INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON THE COMMERCIALIZATION OF INVENTIONS IN THE GLOBAL MARKET

WIPO-IFIA INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON THE COMMERCIALIZATION OF INVENTIONS IN THE GLOBAL MARKET ORIGINAL: English DATE: December 2002 E INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF INVENTORS ASSOCIATIONS WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATION WIPO-IFIA INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON THE COMMERCIALIZATION OF INVENTIONS

More information

The TRIPS Tightrope public health, innovation, incentives and access

The TRIPS Tightrope public health, innovation, incentives and access International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers & Associations The TRIPS Tightrope public health, innovation, incentives and access Helsinki, 6 September 2013 1 IFPMA 2013 Definitions (I) Doha

More information

An overview of India's approach to key IP issues at home and abroad. Dr. Bona Muzaka King s College London

An overview of India's approach to key IP issues at home and abroad. Dr. Bona Muzaka King s College London An overview of India's approach to key IP issues at home and abroad Dr. Bona Muzaka King s College London valbona.muzaka@kcl.ac.uk Why Intellectual Property? Why India? UNITAID (patent pools since 2008,

More information

TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER IN THE UNFCCC AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL LEGAL REGIMES:

TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER IN THE UNFCCC AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL LEGAL REGIMES: TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER IN THE UNFCCC AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL LEGAL REGIMES: THE CHALLENGE OF SYSTEMIC INTEGRATION 1 2010, International Council on Human Rights Policy Not for public distribution, attribution

More information

World Trade Organization Panel Proceedings

World Trade Organization Panel Proceedings World Trade Organization Panel Proceedings Australia Certain Measures Concerning Trademarks, Geographical Indications and other Plain Packaging Requirements Applicable to Tobacco Products and Packaging

More information

SF Certified International Shipping Customer Agreement V1.0

SF Certified International Shipping Customer Agreement V1.0 SF Certified International Shipping Customer Agreement V1.0 SF Certified International Shipping (further referred as SF CIS ) is a service provided by S.F. Express Co., Ltd. (further referred as SF ) to

More information

Access to Medicines, Patent Information and Freedom to Operate

Access to Medicines, Patent Information and Freedom to Operate TECHNICAL SYMPOSIUM DATE: JANUARY 20, 2011 Access to Medicines, Patent Information and Freedom to Operate World Health Organization (WHO) Geneva, February 18, 2011 (preceded by a Workshop on Patent Searches

More information