‘SEIZING’ PHARMACEUTICALS IN TRANSIT: ANALYSING THE WTO DISPUTE THAT WASN'T

2012 ◽  
Vol 61 (2) ◽  
pp. 389-426 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bryan Mercurio
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
Pharmaceutical Products ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
The European Union ◽  
In Transit ◽  
The Eu

AbstractSeveral recent detentions of generic pharmaceutical products transiting through the European Union (EU) for suspected infringements of intellectual property rights raised serious concerns for public health advocates and threatened to expose systemic problems existing in the World Trade Organization's (WTO) Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). The detentions not only garnered international attention, but India and Brazil formally began WTO dispute settlement proceedings against the EU. The parties recently reached a mutually agreed solution to the matter and the proceedings have been halted, leaving unanswered the complex legal and technical questions raised by the detentions of pharmaceuticals in transit. Despite a solution being reached in this dispute, the matter will undoubtedly resurface in the near future for a number of reasons. For instance, the EU is attempting to export its laws to its trading partners through the negotiation of free trade agreements and in other forums such as the recently concluded Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement which increases the likelihood that similar detentions will occur at some point in the future. Moreover, recent trends in international intellectual property law indicate a move towards increased protection and enforcement in at least the short and medium term. The issue therefore offers the opportunity for rich legal analysis into an underexplored, yet increasingly important, aspect of WTO law.

scholarly journals Transatlantic trade and investment partnership (TTIP) and the spill overs effects on the Gulf – cooperation council

2017 ◽  
Vol 59 (1) ◽  
pp. 35-51
Author(s):  
Nadia Naim
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
Global Trade ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Transatlantic Trade ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Trade And Investment ◽  
The Eu

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the transatlantic trade and investment partnership (TTIP). The EU and the USA are negotiating the TTIP, a trade agreement that aims to remove trade barriers across different economic sectors to increase trade between the EU and the USA. The TTIP will have spill over effects on the MENA region, the GCC, Australia and the Asian sub-continent, as it raises key questions for intellectual property and international trade agreements. For instance, will the USA and EU be on an equal footing or will one triumph over the other, will third party countries like the GCC states be expected to adopt new standards. Design/methodology/approach The research design is a paper and online data collection method to find literature to date on intellectual property law development in the GCC states in relation to the three research objectives as set out above. The literature is the population, and this could prove problematic. Different databases have been used to cover all sources where data can be found. Findings As the EU-USA TTIP is aiming to conclude by the end of 2015, the GCC has an opportunity to reassess its relationship with both the EU and GCC. Up until now, the GCC was able to enter into negotiations with the EU and USA relatively independently. However, where the EU and USA can agree, there will be a harmonisation of regulations. This therefore has repercussions for the GCC. The TTIP has three main aims: to increase trade and investment through market access, increase employment and competitiveness and create a harmonised approach to global trade. To harmonise global trade, the EU and USA aim to harmonise their intellectual property rights through an intellectual property rights chapter that deals specifically with enhancing protection and recognition for geographical indications, build on TRIPS and patentability. Research limitations/implications This study is non-empirical. Originality/value The TTIP will have spill over effects for the GCC, as it has yet to finalise the EU-GCC free trade agreement and USA-GCC framework agreement. The power dynamics between the USA and EU will be a deciding factor on the intellectual property chapter in the TTIP in terms of what the provisions for intellectual property will look like and what powers will be available to investors to bring investor-state-dispute settlement claims against foreign countries.

Seeds of kin, kin of seeds: The commodification of organic seeds and social relations in Costa Rica and Latvia

Ethnography ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 490-517 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guntra A. Aistara
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Social Relations ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
Central American ◽  
Genetic Lineage ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Farmer Livelihoods ◽  
And Control

This article employs multi-sited ethnography as a tool to explore the relationships among farmer seed exchange practices, intellectual property rights legislation, and biodiversity. Specifically, it investigates these issues in the historically, ecologically and culturally diverse contexts of the Costa Rican and Latvian organic agriculture movements, as these small countries negotiate their places in the economic trading blocs of the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) and the European Union (EU), respectively. The juxtaposition of two such different cases reveals the micro-processes whereby the imposition of intellectual property rights on seeds replaces the centrality of social kin networks through which seeds are exchanged with bureaucratic transactions. This shift from exchanging seeds among kin to tracing the genetic lineage of seeds is part of a global process of commodification and control of seeds. Increasing efforts to “harmonize” intellectual property rights on seeds and plant varieties throughout the world will have profound impacts on food production, small farmer livelihoods and social networks, and agricultural biodiversity.

Intellectual Property Rights and Integration by Conflict: The Past, Present and Future

2016 ◽  
Vol 18 ◽  
pp. 239-269 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin HUSOVEC
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The Past ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Exceptions And Limitations ◽  
The Eu

AbstractThis paper analyses how the Court of Justice of the European Union resolves conflicting situations surrounding intellectual property rights (IPR). More specifically, it looks into how it approaches clashes of IPR with other fundamental rights and economic freedoms and with what consequences. Building upon previous literature, I advance the argument that the resolution of the conflict, by means of the proportionality interest-balancing exercise, pursues a pro-harmonisation agenda not only in the obvious context of free movement, but also in the setting of fundamental rights. I show that the recent Coty Germany ruling is likely to accelerate this trend because of its recognition of positive obligations of the Member States in the context of fundamental rights. It is argued that this could also be used by national courts to improve an existing IPR framework, in particular by filing preliminary references that question legislators’ choices such as non-implementation of permissible exceptions and limitations. After highlighting the importance of maintaining a separation between different policy levels (secondary law vs Charter), I outline why Coty Germany is a very worrying reading of Article 17(2) of the EU Charter, and suggest that this could be remedied by synchronising its interpretation with the Court’s doctrine of ‘specific subject matter’ in the context of free movement.

scholarly journals Legal Regulation of the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights within the EU Digital Market

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Iryna Yavorska ◽  
Sofiya Boyarska
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
European Parliament ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Domain Name ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Council Directive ◽  
The Eu

The active usage of the technologies, constant exchange of information and its use demanded a clear regulation of relations within the functioning of the digital market. In the context of the implementation of the Association Agreements between Ukraine and the EU, it seems necessary to study the positive experience of regulating relations and protecting intellectual property rights within the European Union digital market. The article explores such EU secondary law acts as directives and regulations that determine the foundations and features of the functioning of EU digital market actors. In particular, it examined Directive (EU) 2019/789 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 laying down rules on the use of copyright and related rights applicable to certain online broadcasting and retransmission of broadcasting programs and amending Council Directive 93/83 EEC (2019), which regulates the principles governing the transboundary transmission of television and radio broadcasting via the satellite network; Directive (EU) 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market and amending Directives 96/9/EC and 2001/29/2019, which amended and expended 7 existing Directives governing relevant issues, Regulation (EU) 2019/517 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2019 on the implementation and operation of the .eu top-level domain name and amending and repealing Regulation (EU) No 733/2002, and repealing Commission Regulation (EC) No 874/2002 (2019), which provides a number of important innovations for the .eu top-level domain name and Regulation (EU) No 2017/1128 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the cross-border movement of Internet content services in the internal market, which identifies legitimate access to portable internet-Content. Not only when they are in their own country, but also when moving within the EU. Key words: digital market; legal regulation of EU digital market functioning; .eu top-level domain name; portable internet content; cross-border transmission.

scholarly journals Criminal Enforcement and International Intellectual Property Law

2014 ◽  
pp. 134-153
Author(s):  
Siddharth Partap Singh
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
Trips Agreement ◽  
Property Law ◽  
Intellectual Property Law ◽  
Global Consensus ◽  
Standard Set

There is a global consensus that domain of Intellectual Property should be subjected to criminal enforcement in order to secure the rights of owners of such Intellectual Property Rights. The TRIPS Agreement was, to some extent, successful in crystallizing the consensus as regards the criminal measures to be taken by States in the event of the infringement of Intellectual Property Rights through article 61. However, the standard set by the provision by minimal, to say the least. The advent of Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement has broader obligations, while also addressing some unsettled issues that have surfaced in disputes such as the China-IPRs case.

Article 262 TFEU

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bernhard Schima
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
European Parliament ◽  
The Other ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Legislative Procedure

Article 229a EC Without prejudice to the other provisions of the Treaties, the Council, acting unanimously in accordance with a special legislative procedure and after consulting the European Parliament, may adopt provisions to confer jurisdiction, to the extent that it shall determine, on the Court of Justice of the European Union in disputes relating to the application of acts adopted on the basis of the Treaties which create European intellectual property rights. These provisions shall enter into force after their approval by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

1. Introduction

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Bently ◽  
B. Sherman ◽  
D. Gangjee ◽  
P. Johnson
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
European Economic Area ◽  
Property Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Intellectual Property Law ◽  
The Uk

This introduction provides an overview of topics covered in this book which relate to all areas of intellectual property law, including the justifications that have been put forward for granting intellectual property rights. It also considers the key international and regional developments that have influenced intellectual property law in the UK, such as the creation of the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO), the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) negotiations, and European Union law. The chapter also discusses the ways in which the European Union is involved in intellectual property law, such as its involvement in negotiating and signing treaties. Finally, it looks at the European Economic Area and non-EU regional initiatives on intellectual property, as well as the implications of Brexit.

Ch.3 International Exhaustion of Rights

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Correa Carlos Maria
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Foreign Market ◽  
Trips Agreement ◽  
Parallel Imports ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Domestic Law

This chapter focuses on the issue of exhaustion of rights. Article 6 disclaims any intent in the Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement to limit the Members’ freedom to regulate the issue of exhaustion of rights with regard to all types of intellectual property rights (IPRs). It declares the admissibility of the international exhaustion of rights, that is, the possibility of legally importing into a country a product protected by intellectual property rights, after the product has been legitimately put on the market in a foreign market. These imports—made by a party without the authorization of the title-holder but equally legal—are generally known as ‘parallel imports’. Moreover, Article 6 of the TRIPS Agreement has left Member countries freedom to incorporate the principle of exhaustion of rights into their domestic law with a national, regional, or international reach. The issue as such cannot be the subject matter of a dispute settlement under the Agreement.

Intellectual Property Protection for Biologics: Why the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Trade Agreement Fails to Deliver

2016 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristina M Lybecker
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Research And Development ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
The United States ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights Protection ◽  
Data Exclusivity ◽  
Property Rights Protection

Biopharmaceutical research and development is overwhelmingly focused in the U.S. becasue here it is incentivized and encouraged through a robust intellectual property rights protection environment.  Across the board, the United States provides the most comprehensive, effective intellectual property rights protections for biopharmaceuticals.  As a result, the industry locates here, researches here, and thrives here.  With an acknowledgement of the importance of intellectual property rights as well as the wider benefits of biopharmaceutical research and development, it's tremendously disappointing that the recently negotiated Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Trade Agreement fails to deliver sufficient IP protections for biologics.  This article explores the importance of a rigorous intellectual property environemtn for the biopharmaceutical industry through an examination of the importance of data exclusivity provisions.  Such protection is critical as the number, complexity and cost of clinical trials increases.  Technology inevitably evolves faster than the legal architecture that surrounds it.  As technology evolves, making the development of new biologic vaccines and therapies possible, society's commitment to incentivize innovation and protect it must be enshrined in the intellectual property protections of agreements such as the TPP.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document