SUBSCRIBE TODAY!
Subscribing entitles a reader to complete stories on all topics released as they happen, special features, confidential documents and access to the complete, searchable story archive online back to 2004.
IP-Watch Briefs

Inside Views

Contribute your views! Submit an Inside Views idea to info [at] ip-watch [dot] ch.

We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website.

By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party or which you know is under a confidentiality obligation preventing its publication and that you will request removal of the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, that amounts to spamming or that is otherwise inappropriate. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence are also prohibited. Furthermore, you may not impersonate others.

2. You understand and agree that Intellectual Property Watch is not responsible for any content posted by you or third parties. You further understand that IP Watch does not monitor the content posted. Nevertheless, IP Watch may monitor the any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent nor notice. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site. IP Watch is not in any manner endorsing the content of the discussion forums and cannot and will not vouch for its reliability or otherwise accept liability for it.

3. By submitting any contribution to IP Watch, you warrant that your contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to IP Watch for all purposes and you agree to indemnify IP Watch, its directors, employees and agents against all damages, legal fees and others expenses that may be incurred by IP Watch as a result of your breach of warranty or of these terms.

4. You further agree not to publish any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example telephone number or home address). If you add a comment to a blog, be aware that your email address will be apparent.

5. IP Watch will not be liable for any loss including but not limited to the following (whether such losses are foreseen, known or otherwise): loss of data, loss of revenue or anticipated profit, loss of business, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill or injury to reputation, losses suffered by third parties, any indirect, consequential or exemplary damages.

6. You understand and agree that the discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.

7. You acknowledge and agree that you use and/or rely on any information obtained through the discussion forums at your own risk.

8. For any content that you post, you hereby grant to IP Watch the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive and fully sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part, world-wide and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

9. These terms and your posts and contributions shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Switzerland (without giving effect to conflict of laws principles thereof) and any dispute exclusively settled by the Courts of the Canton of Geneva.

Call For Transparency In The Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiation

In this post, three US law professors explain a recent call by over 30 legal scholars for the US Trade Representative to increase transparency for the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement intellectual property chapter, and their response to Ambassador Kirk’s response that he is “strongly offended” by the suggestion that the negotiation is not adequately transparent already.





Latest Comments
  • David, thank you for the note. It appears there is... »
  • The link to the US proposal seems to be broken, an... »

  • For IPW Subscribers
    A guide to Geneva-based public health and intellectual property organisations. Read More >

    Monthly Reporter

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter, published from 2004 to January 2011, is a 16-page monthly selection of the most important, updated stories and features, plus the People and News Briefs columns.

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter is available in an online archive on the IP-Watch website, available for IP-Watch Subscribers.

    Access the Monthly Reporter Archive >


    International Health Groups Warn WHO, WTO On Medicines Seizures

    Published on 21 February 2009 @ 5:47 pm

    By , Intellectual Property Watch

    Leading international public health advocates have sent letters to the heads of the World Health Organization and World Trade Organization calling on them to act to prevent possible circumvention of international trade rules for intellectual property rights relating to shipments of legal generic drugs bound for developing countries.

    The concern arose after the governments of India and Brazil spoke out at a high-level WTO meeting about intercepted shipments of such drugs by Dutch authorities.

    The letters dated 18 February also were sent to the heads of the World Customs Organization (WCO), World Intellectual Property Organization, WTO General Council and WTO Council for TRIPS (Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights).

    The letters, available on the Knowledge Ecology International (KEI) website, assert that between October and December there were four shipments seized and held by the Netherlands as they were passing through the country. The issue is ripe to explode as generics exports are seen as vital to economies such as India’s, are critical to the survival of patients in developing and least-developed nations, and fears have been stoked that developed-nation pharmaceutical industries and governments are working to construct new ways to slow generics trade that competes with their brand-name markets.

    As stated in the letters, the concern has cropped up in several national and international contexts, including WHO’s foray against counterfeit medicines, WTO’s past attempts to amend its intellectual property rules, and the WCO’s rocky effort to increase customs involvement against counterfeit and pirated goods. Also on the forefront are national efforts, new custom rules being developed by the European Union, and the fast-tracked negotiation of an Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement led by the nations holding the majority of the world’s IP rights – the United States, Europe and Japan. KEI recently released text it claimed is part of ACTA, showing possible stronger customs measures for IP enforcement. There also is talk of strengthening enforcement activities at WIPO.

    For developed nations, new measures are needed to slow ever-rampant global piracy and counterfeiting. But to developing countries, the anti-counterfeiting initiatives being undertaken by the rich, rights-holding nations are seen as a potential source of new restrictions and trade barriers to products and services from poorer trading partners. The delay of legitimate generics passing through a country like the Netherlands out of concern that they might be counterfeit is exactly the sort of action that might confirm developing country fears.

    India and Brazil told the WTO General Council in early February (IPW, WTO/TRIPS, 3 February 2009) that under international rules, transit countries do not have the right to block goods passing through. They cited Article V of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which the letters quote as defining any territory that goods pass through as “in transit”, which the nongovernmental groups say are exempt from normal restrictions associated with patents or other intellectual property rights when in route to a legitimate market. Holland violated that notion when it seized generics from India heading to Colombia, Peru and Brazil, they claim.

    “The European Union rules and actions are clearly in conflict with WHO resolution WHA61.21, which states that ‘international negotiations on issues related to intellectual property rights and health should be coherent in their approaches to the promotion of public health’,” the letter to WHO Director General Margaret Chan said. It also cites a provision in the resolution to take into account the impact on public health of adopting measures reaching beyond the TRIPS agreement, which they argue the EU measure does.

    They further raised concern about the risks to the work of development and public health agencies such as WHO, UNAIDS, the Global Fund, and UNITAID. They urged WHO to “immediately undertake an assessment of the risks to public health programs” from such seizures and “goods-in-transit” provisions in current or proposed trade agreements. WHO is called upon to interview developing country governments, UN agencies and others. And if WHO determines EU regulations to contain threats to public health, it should communicate its concerns and provide technical advice to the EU, with the request that the EU re-examine its provisions.

    The other letter to the WTO and the rest addressed similar issues, citing TRIPS Article 51 on “suspension of release by customs authorities,” Article 41.1 of TRIPS which states that enforcement measures should not create barriers to legitimate trade, and Article 42.2 which says procedures must be “fair and equitable.” It also cites WTO accords such as the 2001 Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health, which reinforces the right of WTO members to protect public health and access needed medicines.

    A major concern has been the seeming blurring of the definition of counterfeit, substandard and generic medicines in some of the initiatives. The seizures serve to reinforce that concern as well.

    “Oxfam International is concerned with what appears to be confusion between counterfeit medicines that kill people and generic medicines that save lives,” said Elise Ford, Oxfam International’s head of the EU office.

    To honour its international commitments, the European Union “should immediately review and modify its counterfeiting regulation, if the regulation wrongfully allows European countries to seize legal generic medicines that are merely transiting through Europe,” Ford said. “It is nonsensical that a regulation intended to save lives could instead be jeopardising the ability of doctors and nurses in developing countries to protect them.”

    The letters assert that brand-name companies Merck and DuPont led Dutch authorities to act to intervene in the shipments. “So far, far too little attention has been directed at these corporate criminals who are acting with impunity to thwart lawful generic competition even in countries of export and import (India and Latin America) where their patents and marketing rights have no effect,” said Brook Baker of Health GAP. He called the “embargo of medicines” a direct violation of the Doha Declaration and “an unconscionable violation of the human right of access to essential medicines enshrined in multiple international treaties.”

    The letters were signed by 16 groups (counting four regional branches of one group). The groups are: BUKO Pharma-Kampagne, Consumers International, Consumers Union, Essential Action, Health Action International, Health GAP, IQsensato, Knowledge Ecology International, Medico International, Oxfam International, Third World Network and US PIRG.

    TRIPS Council Meeting

    The issue of the seizures could come up at the 3-4 March TRIPS Council meeting, although this was unclear at press time. The meeting agenda is likely to address the same topics as recent meetings, and there is expected to be a special session on a mandate to establish a register of geographical indications.

    Two other proposals could find a way into the meeting as well: extension of higher level GI protection to other products than just wines and spirits, and an amendment of the TRIPS agreement to include a requirement for the disclosure of origin of genetic resources in patent applications.

    On GI extension and CBD amendment, proponents are answering questions and offering clarifications on their previous proposal from last July, a government official said. While the Doha Round talks generally are moving slowly at this point, the expectation is that the WTO director general or a designee will reconvene discussions on these two TRIPS issues at some stage, sources said.

    William New may be reached at wnew@ip-watch.ch.

     

    Comments

    1. Burns Info Blog says:

      [...] Intellectual Property Watch » Blog Archive » International Health … [...]

    2. Viswanathan,T says:

      The Health Group warning to WHO,WTO on the medicines seized is a correct stand taken by the voluntary bodies.
      Generics that could save human lives, neednot be put under the pincers of the right and wrong debate instigated by the vested interest brand name organisations.
      article 41.1 and 42.2 may be conclusively implemeted and such attempts thwarted.

    3. Intellectual Property Watch » Blog Archive » Enforcement, Creative R&D Financing Priority Issues For Public Health in 2009 says:

      [...] on International Health Groups Warn WHO, WTO On Medicines SeizuresThe Health Group warning to WHO,WTO on the medicin… »John Gaynard on EPO Taps Indian [...]

    4. Intellectual Property Watch » Blog Archive » Concerns Continue Over Generics Drug Seizures As Legality Debates Begin says:

      [...] a letter addressing their concerns to Lamy and WHO Director General Margaret Chan, among others (IPW, Public Health, 1 February). Kaitlin Mara may be reached at kmara@ip-watch.ch.William New may be reached at [...]

    5. Andrew Dlugan - Face the Wind - Toastmasters Speech Contest says:

      [...] Intellectual Property Watch » Blog Archive » International Health … [...]

    6. wto-center.org says:

      Data Source: Asian WTO Research Network
      Bulletin: 2009/6/19
      Attachments:
      Content:

      On 23 May 2009, the AWRN held a business meeting at the National Taiwan University. As Mr. Iwamoto, the Secretary of the Network, was not available, Professor Mitsuo Matsushita chaired the meeting on his behalf. The meeting was attended by Prof. Rokaih Alavi, Dr. Deborah K. Elms, Prof. Minkang Gu, Dr. Fahmida Katun, Prof. Meredith Kolsky Lewis, Prof. Chin Leng Lim, Prof. Da-Nien Liu, Prof. Chang-fa Lo, Prof. Bryan Mercurio, Prof. Junji Nakagawa, Prof. Nohyoung Park, and Prof. Lawan Thanadsillapakul. This report provides a brief summary of the issues discussed at the meeting, based largely on the report of the AWRN business meeting held at Singapore Management University on 11 October 2008.

    7. wto-center.org says:

      Report on the business meeting of the Asian WTO Research Network held at NTU…

      Data Source: Asian WTO Research Network
      Bulletin: 2009/6/19
      Attachments:
      Content:
      On 23 May 2009, the AWRN held a business meeting at the National Taiwan University. As Mr. Iwamoto, the Secretary of the Network, was not available, Professor Mitsuo Mats…


    Leave a Reply

    We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website. By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

    We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website.

    By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

    1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party or which you know is under a confidentiality obligation preventing its publication and that you will request removal of the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, that amounts to spamming or that is otherwise inappropriate. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence are also prohibited. Furthermore, you may not impersonate others.

    2. You understand and agree that Intellectual Property Watch is not responsible for any content posted by you or third parties. You further understand that IP Watch does not monitor the content posted. Nevertheless, IP Watch may monitor the any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent nor notice. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site. IP Watch is not in any manner endorsing the content of the discussion forums and cannot and will not vouch for its reliability or otherwise accept liability for it.

    3. By submitting any contribution to IP Watch, you warrant that your contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to IP Watch for all purposes and you agree to indemnify IP Watch, its directors, employees and agents against all damages, legal fees and others expenses that may be incurred by IP Watch as a result of your breach of warranty or of these terms.

    4. You further agree not to publish any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example telephone number or home address). If you add a comment to a blog, be aware that your email address will be apparent.

    5. IP Watch will not be liable for any loss including but not limited to the following (whether such losses are foreseen, known or otherwise): loss of data, loss of revenue or anticipated profit, loss of business, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill or injury to reputation, losses suffered by third parties, any indirect, consequential or exemplary damages.

    6. You understand and agree that the discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.

    7. You acknowledge and agree that you use and/or rely on any information obtained through the discussion forums at your own risk.

    8. For any content that you post, you hereby grant to IP Watch the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive and fully sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part, world-wide and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

    9. These terms and your posts and contributions shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Switzerland (without giving effect to conflict of laws principles thereof) and any dispute exclusively settled by the Courts of the Canton of Geneva.