Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Flexibilities and Public Health: Implementation of Compulsory Licensing Provisions into National Patent Legislation.

IF 4.8 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Milbank Quarterly Pub Date : 2023-12-01 Epub Date: 2023-08-30 DOI:10.1111/1468-0009.12669
Lauren McGIVERN
{"title":"Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Flexibilities and Public Health: Implementation of Compulsory Licensing Provisions into National Patent Legislation.","authors":"Lauren McGIVERN","doi":"10.1111/1468-0009.12669","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Policy Points Given the challenges associated with negotiating the COVID-19 Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Waiver, there are questions as to whether the World Trade Organization is able to effectively address pandemics and global crises under the current architecture. Although the framework set out by the TRIPS Agreement does not view intellectual property (IP) rights as a means to foster public health and development, IP rights should nonetheless be interpreted through a public health lens. Countries should implement compulsory licensing provisions into their patent legislation, which increase access to medicines and allow governments (especially in developing and least-developed countries) to better protect public health.</p><p><strong>Context: </strong>The protection of intellectual property (IP) rights, given international legal effect through the World Trade Organization (WTO) Trade-Related Aspects of IP Rights (TRIPS) Agreement, has long been a contentious issue. In recent years, the long-standing debate on IP rights as a barrier to the access of affordable medicines has been heightened by the global vaccine inequity evidenced during the COVID-19 pandemic. The TRIPS Agreement contains a number of flexibilities that WTO members can exploit in order to accommodate their policy needs. Among these is the mechanism of compulsory licensing, whereby patent licenses may be granted without consent of the patent holder in certain circumstances. TRIPS Article 31bis created a special mechanism for compulsory licenses specifically for the export of pharmaceutical products to countries with insufficient manufacturing capacity.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We analyzed domestic patent legislation for 195 countries (193 UN members and two observers) and three customs territories. We analyzed patent legislation for provisions on compulsory licenses, including those defined in Article 31bis of the TRIPS Agreement.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>We identified 11 countries with no patent legislation. Of the 187 countries with domestic or regional patent laws, 176 (94.1%) had provisions on compulsory licensing and 72 (38.5%) had provisions implementing TRIPS Article 31bis.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The results of this study have highlighted the gap in the implementation of TRIPS flexibilities in countries' national patent legislation, especially in least-developed countries. Although it will not fully solve patent barriers to the access of medicines, implementation of compulsory licensing (and specifically those for the import and export of pharmaceutical products) will provide governments with another tool to safeguard their population's public health. Further discussions are needed to determine whether the WTO can provide effective responses to future pandemics or global crises.</p>","PeriodicalId":49810,"journal":{"name":"Milbank Quarterly","volume":" ","pages":"1280-1303"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10726804/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Milbank Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12669","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/8/30 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Policy Points Given the challenges associated with negotiating the COVID-19 Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Waiver, there are questions as to whether the World Trade Organization is able to effectively address pandemics and global crises under the current architecture. Although the framework set out by the TRIPS Agreement does not view intellectual property (IP) rights as a means to foster public health and development, IP rights should nonetheless be interpreted through a public health lens. Countries should implement compulsory licensing provisions into their patent legislation, which increase access to medicines and allow governments (especially in developing and least-developed countries) to better protect public health.

Context: The protection of intellectual property (IP) rights, given international legal effect through the World Trade Organization (WTO) Trade-Related Aspects of IP Rights (TRIPS) Agreement, has long been a contentious issue. In recent years, the long-standing debate on IP rights as a barrier to the access of affordable medicines has been heightened by the global vaccine inequity evidenced during the COVID-19 pandemic. The TRIPS Agreement contains a number of flexibilities that WTO members can exploit in order to accommodate their policy needs. Among these is the mechanism of compulsory licensing, whereby patent licenses may be granted without consent of the patent holder in certain circumstances. TRIPS Article 31bis created a special mechanism for compulsory licenses specifically for the export of pharmaceutical products to countries with insufficient manufacturing capacity.

Methods: We analyzed domestic patent legislation for 195 countries (193 UN members and two observers) and three customs territories. We analyzed patent legislation for provisions on compulsory licenses, including those defined in Article 31bis of the TRIPS Agreement.

Findings: We identified 11 countries with no patent legislation. Of the 187 countries with domestic or regional patent laws, 176 (94.1%) had provisions on compulsory licensing and 72 (38.5%) had provisions implementing TRIPS Article 31bis.

Conclusions: The results of this study have highlighted the gap in the implementation of TRIPS flexibilities in countries' national patent legislation, especially in least-developed countries. Although it will not fully solve patent barriers to the access of medicines, implementation of compulsory licensing (and specifically those for the import and export of pharmaceutical products) will provide governments with another tool to safeguard their population's public health. Further discussions are needed to determine whether the WTO can provide effective responses to future pandemics or global crises.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
与贸易有关的知识产权灵活性与公共卫生:在国家专利立法中实施强制许可条款。
政策要点 鉴于 COVID-19 《与贸易有关的知识产权协议》(TRIPS)豁免谈判所面临的挑战,人们对世界贸易组织在现有架构下能否有效应对流行病和全球危机提出了质疑。尽管《与贸易有关的知识产权协议》规定的框架并未将知识产权视为促进公共卫生和发展的手段,但仍应从公共卫生的角度来解释知识产权。各国应在其专利立法中实施强制许可条款,以增加获得药品的机会,使政府(尤其是发展中国家和最不发达国家的政府)能够更好地保护公众健康:世界贸易组织(WTO)《与贸易有关的知识产权协议》(TRIPS)赋予知识产权(IP)保护以国际法律效力,长期以来知识产权保护一直是一个有争议的问题。近年来,由于 COVID-19 大流行期间全球疫苗不公平现象的出现,有关知识产权阻碍人们获得负担得起的药品的长期争论更加激烈。与贸易有关的知识产权协议》包含许多灵活性条款,世贸组织成员可加以利用,以满足其政策需要。其中包括强制许可机制,即在某些情况下,可以不经专利持有人同意而授予专利许可。与贸易有关的知识产权协议》第 31 条之二专门为向制造能力不足的国家出口药品设立了强制许可机制:我们分析了 195 个国家(193 个联合国成员国和 2 个观察员国)和 3 个关税区的国内专利立法。我们分析了专利立法中有关强制许可的条款,包括《与贸易有关的知识产权协议》第 31 条之二所定义的条款:我们发现 11 个国家没有专利立法。在 187 个拥有国内或地区专利法的国家中,176 个国家(94.1%)拥有强制许可条款,72 个国家(38.5%)拥有执行《与贸易有关的知识产权协议》第 31 条之二的条款:这项研究的结果突显了各国,尤其是最不发达国家在实施《与贸易有关的知识产权协议》的灵活规定方面存在的差距。虽然强制许可(特别是针对药品进出口的强制许可)并不能完全解决获取药品的专利障 碍,但它将为各国政府提供另一个保障本国人民公共健康的工具。还需要进一步讨论,以确定世贸组织是否能有效应对未来的流行病或全球危机。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Milbank Quarterly
Milbank Quarterly 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
9.60
自引率
3.00%
发文量
37
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Milbank Quarterly is devoted to scholarly analysis of significant issues in health and health care policy. It presents original research, policy analysis, and commentary from academics, clinicians, and policymakers. The in-depth, multidisciplinary approach of the journal permits contributors to explore fully the social origins of health in our society and to examine in detail the implications of different health policies. Topics addressed in The Milbank Quarterly include the impact of social factors on health, prevention, allocation of health care resources, legal and ethical issues in health policy, health and health care administration, and the organization and financing of health care.
期刊最新文献
When the Bough Breaks: The Financial Burden of Childbirth and Postpartum Care by Insurance Type. Launching Financial Incentives for Physician Groups to Improve Equity of Care by Patient Race and Ethnicity. Population Health Implications of Medicaid Prerelease and Transition Services for Incarcerated Populations. Overcoming the Impact of Students for Fair Admission v Harvard to Build a More Representative Health Care Workforce: Perspectives from Ending Unequal Treatment. A Mixed-Methods Exploration of the Implementation of Policies That Earmarked Taxes for Behavioral Health.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1