Sovereignty Under Siege: Corporate Challenges to Domestic Intellectual Property Decisions

Cynthia M. Ho
{"title":"Sovereignty Under Siege: Corporate Challenges to Domestic Intellectual Property Decisions","authors":"Cynthia M. Ho","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2480202","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Countries face a new threat that strikes at their ability to balance protection of intellectual property rights against other priorities, such as public health. They may have to pay substantial compensation to companies that dislike domestic intellectual property laws. This threat is much more significant than a landmark international agreement concluded twenty years ago in conjunction with the World Trade Organization (WTO) that for the first time required all countries to provide “minimum” levels of intellectual property rights; before that time, countries were not obligated to provide any such rights at all. Since the conclusion of the WTO, policy makers and scholars have strived to preserve domestic flexibilities to consider domestic policies such as public health. However, those flexibilities may quickly evaporate if companies can bring claims against countries for compromising their investments under so-called “investor-state arbitration” claims. This is not a theoretical problem – Eli Lilly is currently seeking $500 million in compensation from Canada because Canadian courts invalidated two of its patents under prevailing law.Although investor-state arbitration claims have been broadly criticized in recent years, there are unique issues associated with expanding this remedy to domestic actions consistent with the WTO agreement. If Eli Lilly’s claim were to succeed, it would disrupt internationally agreed norms that permit countries to have different standards of protection. This Article provides a detailed analysis of Eli Lilly’s case of first impression. In so doing, the Article offers both an explanation of why Eli Lilly’s claims should be rejected, as well as a prediction of other likely impending threats to domestic regulation of public health that intersect with the interests of pharmaceutical companies. This Article ultimately proposes specific language to incorporate in pending agreements to forestall the predicted harms.","PeriodicalId":106035,"journal":{"name":"Human Rights & the Global Economy eJournal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-08-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"10","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Human Rights & the Global Economy eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2480202","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

Abstract

Countries face a new threat that strikes at their ability to balance protection of intellectual property rights against other priorities, such as public health. They may have to pay substantial compensation to companies that dislike domestic intellectual property laws. This threat is much more significant than a landmark international agreement concluded twenty years ago in conjunction with the World Trade Organization (WTO) that for the first time required all countries to provide “minimum” levels of intellectual property rights; before that time, countries were not obligated to provide any such rights at all. Since the conclusion of the WTO, policy makers and scholars have strived to preserve domestic flexibilities to consider domestic policies such as public health. However, those flexibilities may quickly evaporate if companies can bring claims against countries for compromising their investments under so-called “investor-state arbitration” claims. This is not a theoretical problem – Eli Lilly is currently seeking $500 million in compensation from Canada because Canadian courts invalidated two of its patents under prevailing law.Although investor-state arbitration claims have been broadly criticized in recent years, there are unique issues associated with expanding this remedy to domestic actions consistent with the WTO agreement. If Eli Lilly’s claim were to succeed, it would disrupt internationally agreed norms that permit countries to have different standards of protection. This Article provides a detailed analysis of Eli Lilly’s case of first impression. In so doing, the Article offers both an explanation of why Eli Lilly’s claims should be rejected, as well as a prediction of other likely impending threats to domestic regulation of public health that intersect with the interests of pharmaceutical companies. This Article ultimately proposes specific language to incorporate in pending agreements to forestall the predicted harms.
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
主权被围攻:企业对国内知识产权决策的挑战
各国面临着一种新的威胁,威胁到它们在保护知识产权与公共卫生等其他优先事项之间取得平衡的能力。他们可能不得不向不喜欢国内知识产权法的公司支付巨额赔偿。这一威胁比20年前与世界贸易组织(WTO)共同达成的一项具有里程碑意义的国际协议要严重得多,该协议首次要求所有国家提供“最低”水平的知识产权;在此之前,各国根本没有义务提供任何此类权利。自世贸组织成立以来,决策者和学者一直努力保持国内灵活性,以考虑公共卫生等国内政策。然而,如果企业可以根据所谓的“投资者-国家仲裁”要求,对损害其投资的国家提出索赔,那么这些灵活性可能很快就会消失。这不是一个理论上的问题——礼来公司目前正在向加拿大寻求5亿美元的赔偿,因为加拿大法院根据现行法律宣布其两项专利无效。尽管近年来投资者与国家之间的仲裁请求受到广泛批评,但将这种救济扩大到符合WTO协议的国内行动方面存在独特的问题。如果礼来公司的诉讼成功,它将破坏允许各国有不同保护标准的国际惯例。本文对礼来公司的第一印象案例进行了详细的分析。在这样做的过程中,这篇文章既解释了为什么礼来公司的声明应该被驳回,也预测了其他可能对国内公共卫生监管构成的威胁,这些威胁与制药公司的利益相交叉。本文最终提出了具体的语言,以纳入未决协议,以防止预期的危害。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Social Protection Instruments and Women Workers in the Informal Economy: A Southern African Perspective Using the Risk-Based Approach To Curb Modern Slavery in the Supply Chain: The Anglo American and Marks and Spencer Example From Creative Destruction to Destructive Creation Economic Analysis of Ethnic Conflicts Why Is Law Central to Public Policy Process in Global South?
×
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