To Waive or not to Waive: International Patent Protection and the Covid-19 Pandemic

M. Thomas
{"title":"To Waive or not to Waive: International Patent Protection and the Covid-19 Pandemic","authors":"M. Thomas","doi":"10.54648/leie2022002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In 2020, South Africa and India submitted a landmark proposal to the World Trade Organization (WTO) to allow all countries the legal right under international trade rules to choose not to grant or enforce patents and other intellectual property (IP) related to COVID-19 drugs, vaccines, diagnostics and other technologies and materials for the duration of the pandemic. Since then, the proposal for an IP waiver has gained support from 100 WTO members. However, a small number have continued to oppose implementing an IP waiver, maintaining that the current flexibilities under the Agreement on Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) provide a sufficient remedy. The TRIPS flexibility most recommended by waiver opponents is the Compulsory Licensing mechanism which allows government the authority to grant permission to itself or domestic producers to make a patented product without the patent owners’ consent. This article conducts a comparative analysis of the potential IP waiver and the compulsory licensing mechanism’s functioning in relation to facilitating increased production of Covid-19 vaccines by generic pharmaceutical manufacturers.\nCovid-19 vaccine access, international intellectual property regime, TRIPS agreement, access to medicine, intellectual property waiver, compulsory licensing","PeriodicalId":42718,"journal":{"name":"Legal Issues of Economic Integration","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Legal Issues of Economic Integration","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/leie2022002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In 2020, South Africa and India submitted a landmark proposal to the World Trade Organization (WTO) to allow all countries the legal right under international trade rules to choose not to grant or enforce patents and other intellectual property (IP) related to COVID-19 drugs, vaccines, diagnostics and other technologies and materials for the duration of the pandemic. Since then, the proposal for an IP waiver has gained support from 100 WTO members. However, a small number have continued to oppose implementing an IP waiver, maintaining that the current flexibilities under the Agreement on Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) provide a sufficient remedy. The TRIPS flexibility most recommended by waiver opponents is the Compulsory Licensing mechanism which allows government the authority to grant permission to itself or domestic producers to make a patented product without the patent owners’ consent. This article conducts a comparative analysis of the potential IP waiver and the compulsory licensing mechanism’s functioning in relation to facilitating increased production of Covid-19 vaccines by generic pharmaceutical manufacturers. Covid-19 vaccine access, international intellectual property regime, TRIPS agreement, access to medicine, intellectual property waiver, compulsory licensing
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
放弃还是不放弃:国际专利保护和Covid-19大流行
2020年,南非和印度向世界贸易组织(WTO)提交了一项具有里程碑意义的提案,允许所有国家根据国际贸易规则享有合法权利,选择在大流行期间不授予或执行与COVID-19药物、疫苗、诊断方法和其他技术和材料相关的专利和其他知识产权。从那时起,豁免知识产权的提议得到了100个世贸组织成员的支持。然而,少数人继续反对实施知识产权豁免,坚持认为目前《与贸易有关的知识产权协定》(TRIPS)下的灵活性提供了足够的补救措施。豁免反对者最推荐的与贸易有关的知识产权协议灵活性是强制许可机制,该机制允许政府授权自己或国内生产商在未经专利所有人同意的情况下制造专利产品。本文对潜在的知识产权豁免和强制许可机制在促进仿制药制造商增加Covid-19疫苗生产方面的作用进行了比较分析。Covid-19疫苗获取、国际知识产权制度、与贸易有关的知识产权协定、药品获取、知识产权豁免、强制许可
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
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
5
期刊最新文献
The EU’s Anti-coercion Instrument: A Return of Unlawful Unilateral Trade Countermeasures in Disguise? Editorial: Investment Protection in an Integrated Europe – The Non-Enforcement of Intra-EU Investment Arbitration Awards as the Ultimate Test Case for Strasbourg’s Deference Doctrines Why Do (High-Income) Countries Wish to Green Their Trade Agreements? The Application of Regulation 452/2019 in Response to Chinese Foreign Direct Investment The ESM Reform and Its Missing Legitimacy in Non-Euro Area Member States
×
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