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

Advertisement


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.

Occupy IP: New Economy Businesses Clash With Old

It may be too much, too late for content providers finally trying to tame the internet, and a fresh approach is needed, writes Bruce Berman.




Special Reports

Non-Communicable Diseases Issue Energises Public Health Policymakers Read More >


Latest Comments
  • I deeply apprecite the initiative to combat agains... »
  • 1. Cuál es el problema principal que se plantea en... »

  • 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 >


    Alarm Escalates Over Delayed Generic Drug Shipments As Action Sought

    Published on 6 March 2009 @ 5:13 pm

    By , Intellectual Property Watch

    Health advocates on Friday further escalated their alarm over recent seizures by the Dutch government of shipments of legitimate generic pharmaceuticals passing through Europe on their way to developing countries. The European Commission has defended its actions as permissible under its own and international rules, but is being asked to look more carefully at those rules.

    Oxfam International, Health Action International (HAI) and Knowledge Ecology International (KEI) on Friday issued a strongly worded statement calling on the European Union to review and modify its regulations (Council Regulation [EC] No 1383/2003 of 22 July 2003) [pdf] on counterfeiting that are prompting the seizures.

    The groups said they “condemn the unacceptable seizure of legitimate generic antiretroviral medicines in transit from India to Nigeria by Dutch customs authorities.” The shipment’s delay could lead to HIV-positive Nigerian patients missing “critical treatment,” said Sophie Bloemen of HAI, who also urged the EU to reconsider inclusion of its regulation in regional free trade agreement negotiations. If it does not, “this could prove disastrous for access to medicines in their regions,” she said.

    Judit Sanjuan of KEI called the seizures “unacceptable,” and asked that WTO Director General Pascal Lamy mediate in the dispute, as he indicated a willingness to do in a letter to KEI and other groups this week. NGOs also are awaiting a reply on the issue from World Health Organization Director General Margaret Chan.

    The issue was front and centre at the 3 March meeting of the WTO Council on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) (IPW, WTO/TRIPS, 5 March 2009).

    NGOs held a press briefing on Wednesday at the United Nations in Geneva to bring the issue to journalists’ attention. Alexandra Heumber, IP policy adviser for Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) said in a statement: “Blurring the lines between counterfeit drugs and quality generic drugs is leading to a dangerous situation – a situation where legitimate trade in generic drugs is blocked – a situation which is making a mockery of the EU’s support of the [WTO] Doha Declaration, to put health above commerce.

    The latest shipment to be raised this week involved AIDS drugs for UN agency UNITAID and the Clinton Foundation established by former US President Bill Clinton.

    The European Commission made a statement in its defence to the Tuesday TRIPS Council meeting, saying the shipments were “temporarily detained,” not “seized.” The Commission representative insisted the EU that there has been absolutely no intention to hamper legitimate trade in generic medicines or to create legal barriers to trade, and said the EU customs regulation “is fully in line with the WTO and TRIPS requirements, in terms of scope and coverage of customs intervention.”

    There appears to be a variation between the Commission and MSF on whether the regulation allows customs officials to determine if shipments are fake and can be destroyed.

    The Commission also said that a two-month EU customs operation called MEDI-FAKE late last year targeted illegal medicines and involved 6 million items, which confirmed a “significant and worrying level of trade in illegal medicines indicating a potentially serious public health and safety issue, which fully justify the control of medicines in transit suspected to infringe IP rights.”

    KEI President James Love said in the Wednesday briefing that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) negotiation being led by developed countries is contributing to concerns and should not be being negotiated in secret. He noted that the new Obama administration is not fully in place yet and it is difficult to judge whether there will be a shift in policy on these issues.

    The Third World Network (TWN) said statements at the TRIPS Council meeting are “basically a wake-up call for all developing countries that they should not be misled into thinking that this is a battle against compromised medicines.” TWN’s Meena Raman told the Wednesday press briefing, “As anti-counterfeiting initiatives proliferate the problems of access are likely to worsen.”

    All sides appear to be headed for more discussion on the matter.

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

     

    Comments

    1. Intellectual Property Watch » Blog Archive » World Health Organization Issues Statement On Generic Drug Seizures says:

      [...] The issue has garnered international attention, especially after a shipment from India to Brazil was stopped in the Netherlands, and have escalated with the revelation that the seizures include a shipment bound for Nigeria ordered by UN drug purchasing agency UNITAID that involved former US President Clinton’s foundation. Concerns arose that authorities are acting on behalf of developed-nation patent holders to interfere with generics trade, and questions have been raised about the rights of a transit country (IPW, Public Health, 6 March 2009). [...]

    2. World Health Organization Issues Statement On Generic Drug Seizures - Make Pharmacist More Exist ~ Bikin Apoteker Lebih Pinter says:

      [...] The issue has garnered international attention, especially after a shipment from India to Brazil was stopped in the Netherlands, and have escalated with the revelation that the seizures include a shipment bound for Nigeria ordered by UN drug purchasing agency UNITAID that involved former US President Clinton’s foundation. Concerns arose that authorities are acting on behalf of developed-nation patent holders to interfere with generics trade, and questions have been raised about the rights of a transit country (IPW, Public Health, 6 March 2009). [...]

    3. Samuel Barns says:

      Standards are not something that should be compromised, especially when it comes to generic drugs, which when given for life threatening conditions, need to follow the named brand drugs specifications to the letter so that more harm than good is not done. Sadly there is a need to police the generic drug industry because the potential for monetary is so great.


    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.