scholarly journals Power and innovative capacity: Explaining variation in intellectual property rights regulation across trade agreements

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-26
Author(s):  
Andreas Dür ◽  
Christoph Mödlhamer
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Danielle Trachtenberg ◽  
Warren A. Kaplan ◽  
Veronika J. Wirtz ◽  
Kevin P. Gallagher

AbstractThis paper develops new indicators that measure the strength of intellectual property rights (IPR) provisions in Chile’s free trade agreements (FTAs). We use these new indicators to examine the extent to which FTAs with strong IPR provisions impact the volume, unit value and overall value of imported biologic medicines into Chile. We find that FTAs with more stringent IPR provisions increase both the volume and the unit value of imported biologics, suggesting greater availability of imported biologics at a higher price. Further research, however, is necessary to determine whether the increases in volume and unit prices of imports lead to greater universal access to biologics or greater inequity in access to these medicines.


Author(s):  
Zeleke Temesgen Boru

The World Trade Organization brought Intellectual Property Rights into the multilateral trading system. The adoption of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), which formed part of the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, established a minimum level of protection with respect to various forms of Intellectual Property Rights. However, in the aftermath of its adoption, several Free Trade Agreements, which include Intellectual Property Rights provisions of different potency, have come into existence. These Free Trade Agreements have given rise to what is commonly known as TRIPS-plus IP provisions. The provisions may renege on States’ obligation to promote access to biologics, medicines which are derived from proteins through biotechnological process. In this light, one recent Free Trade Agreement is the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, which requires its Parties to implement a number of TRIPS-plus obligations, including data exclusivity and patent linkage. Against the aforementioned backdrop, this article focuses on patent linkage and explores whether the provision allows the Trans-Pacific Partnership Parties to utilize TRIPS flexibilities to promote the right to biologics. In doing so, the article provides potential responses to the question, does patent linkage deter the realization of the right to biologic? With the purpose to do so, while the first section provides a concise introduction into the agreement, the second section discusses the TRIPS standard on patent. While the third part demonstrates the nature of obligations enshrined in the Trans-Pacific Partnership’s rule on patent linkage, the fourth section investigates the obligations’ implication on the right to biologics. The last section provides the conclusion.


2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sangita M. Baxi ◽  
Reed Beall ◽  
Joshua Yang ◽  
Tim K. Mackey

Abstract In 2015, the World Health Organization (WHO) Expert Committee approved the addition of 16 cancer medicines to the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines (EML), bringing the total number of cancer medicines on the list to 46. This change represented the first major revision to the EML oncology section in recent history and reinforces international recognition of the need to ensure access and affordability for cancer treatments. Importantly, many low and middle-income countries rely on the EML, as well as the children’s EML, as a guide to establish national formularies, and moreover use these lists as tools to negotiate medicine pricing. However, EML inclusion is only one component that impacts cancer treatment access. More specifically, factors such as intellectual property rights and international trade agreements can interact with EML inclusion, drug pricing, and accessibility. To better understand this dynamic, we conducted an interdisciplinary review of the patent status of EML cancer medicines compared to other EML noncommunicable disease medicines using the 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th, and 21st editions of the list. We also explored the interaction of intellectual property rights with the international trade regime and how trade agreements can and do impact cancer treatment access and affordability. Based on this analysis, we conclude that patent status is simply one factor in the complex international environment of health systems, IPR policies, and trade regimes and that aligning these oftentimes disparate interests will require shared global governance across the cancer care continuum.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document