Biotechnology in Brazil: An Industry Overview

2012 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ezequiel Zylberberg ◽  
Claudia Zylberberg ◽  
Asli Ceylan Oner
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Research And Development ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Capital Accumulation ◽  
Industry Growth ◽  
Venture Capital Firms ◽  
Government Involvement ◽  
Biotechnology Sector

Recently becoming the sixth largest economy in the world, Brazil has relied, in large part, on its comparative advantages of resource extraction and agriculture. Sustained long-term growth will require Brazil moves into higher value industries that build of off its comparative advantage. Biotechnology has surfaced as a sector of strategic importance, and government involvement in finance, education and research and development has created an industry on the cusp of global significance. By examining sources of finance, human capital accumulation, research and development, intellectual property rights and supporting institutions, we seek to provide a broad overview of Brazil’s nascent biotechnology sector. Spotlights of the agriculture, human health and reagent industries as well as an analysis of the Minas Gerais biotechnology cluster flesh out biotechnology’s place in Brazil’s economy. An antiquated intellectual property rights regime, an insufficient number of qualified researchers and dearth of venture capital firms and private sources of finance are key bottlenecks that must be addressed in order to promote industry growth and consolidation.

The Impact of Globalization on Agricultural Biotechnology in Iran: A Model for Regional Intellectual Property Rights

2003 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-53
Author(s):  
Peter Phillips ◽  
Morteza Haghiri
Keyword(s):  
Developing Countries ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Research And Development ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Agricultural Practices ◽  
Developed Countries ◽  
Increasing Demand ◽  
Biotechnology Sector ◽  
The Impact

AbstractThe increasing population of developing countries, which creates an increasing demand for food, is severely challenging traditional agricultural practices. Recent scientific developments have introduced biotechnology techniques to agriculture. To increase the benefits from implementing biotechnology, countries need both to continuously invest in research and development in their biotechnology sector and to implement a series of complementary policies. Establishing and enforcing the intellectual property rights of plant breeders are among of these policies. The successful institution of plant breeders' rights is influenced by market institutions and the legal system, which together comprise the environmental structure of the economy. Since property rights are not well established in most developing and developed countries, individual research and innovations cannot be protected from intellectual property piracy. As a result, there is little incentive to continue investment in research and development in biotechnology in those markets. This paper proposes a model of regional intellectual property rights for developing countries where individual intellectual property rights are not enforceable.

Part III Tests of Abuse, 8 The Consumer Harm Test

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nazzini Renato
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Social Welfare ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Product Innovation ◽  
Consumer Welfare ◽  
Competition Rules ◽  
Vertical Foreclosure

This chapter studies the consumer harm test. The consumer harm test asks whether the conduct of the dominant undertaking results in higher prices, lower output, or reduced product innovation. The test is not necessarily the manifestation of a consumer welfare objective of the competition rules but is consistent with the achievement of long-term social welfare. Therefore, the test may be applied under Article 102 even if this provision does not aim at maximizing some measure of consumer welfare but long-term social welfare. The chapter then looks at the consumer harm test in vertical foreclosure, focusing on refusal to supply and margin squeeze. Proof of consumer harm is required in all vertical foreclosure cases and not only when the refusal to supply relates to intellectual property rights.

A Critical Discourse Analysis of Intellectual Property Rights Within NAFTA 1.0: Implications for NAFTA 2.0 and for Democratic (Health) Governance in Canada

2020 ◽  
Vol 50 (3) ◽  
pp. 278-291 ◽  
Author(s):  
Faisal Ali Mohamed ◽  
Claudia Chaufan
Keyword(s):  
Discourse Analysis ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Research And Development ◽  
Critical Discourse Analysis ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Critical Discourse ◽  
Compulsory Licensing ◽  
Drug Prices

In 1993, the Canadian federal government ratified the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Prior to ratification, compulsory licensing was eliminated from Canada’s Patent Act and intellectual property rights (IPRs) were strengthened. Compulsory licensing allows competitors to produce drugs under patent without the consent of the patent holder, challenging drug monopolies and lowering prices, whereas IPRs lengthen patent protections, shielding patent holders from competition and increasing prices. We perform a critical discourse analysis of key provisions in Chapter 17 of NAFTA in light of industry claims that pharmaceutical innovation requires important investments in research and development, justifying high drug prices. We note that since NAFTA, spending in research and development in Canada has decreased and drug prices have increased, becoming a major barrier to equitable access to critically necessary medications. We argue that by modifying the law, the federal government has wronged the Canadian people by discursively appropriating the language of protecting the public good while in practice legitimizing and consolidating private drug development and production, legalizing exorbitant profits, and excluding well-tested publicly financed alternatives. While NAFTA has now been superseded by the Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement, our analysis offers important lessons moving forward.

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