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 >


    Kenya Pressured To Implement Anti-Counterfeit Law Despite Access Fears

    Published on 2 July 2009 @ 10:18 am

    By for Intellectual Property Watch

    NAIROBI – An influential manufacturers’ lobbying group in Kenya is pushing the government to start enforcing an anti-counterfeiting law within weeks, despite fears from public health advocates that the new rules will impede access to generic drugs and set an unwanted precedent in East Africa.

    The Kenya Association of Manufacturers (KAM) says it wants the Anti-Counterfeit Act to come into force by mid-July and is in talks with the government to make sure that happens. The law was passed last year but has not yet taken effect because of budgeting and procedural delays.

    KAM and other advocates say counterfeiters peddle fake batteries, cosmetics, pens and numerous other products – including live-saving drugs – across Africa, with estimates of counterfeit penetration ranging up to 40 percent for some items. The association claims that counterfeits cost companies 50 billion shillings ($650 million) and the government 19 billion shillings ($250 million) in taxes in 2008.

    “We needed legislation that was to give backing to the fight against counterfeits,” said Joseph Wairuko, who served on KAM’s anti-counterfeiting committee. “All other laws there before were fragmented and could not support the fight against counterfeits.”

    Yet public health advocates argue that the act’s definition of what constitutes a counterfeit product is too vague, and could be used to block the import and local manufacture of generic drugs. If the law goes into effect, they say, similar laws under consideration in Uganda and elsewhere in East Africa could face a smoother ride.

    Health Action International (HAI) and other domestic groups fought to amend the act and scored minor success, but are not satisfied with the result. They argue that the act’s language could lump generic drugs – both those that infringe on patent rights and those that do not – in the counterfeit category. They say the two issues of counterfeiting and patent rights must remain separate.

    Generics [Note: original modified to remove editing error] are not considered counterfeits because they are not pretending to be a known brand.

    “We basically said, ‘If you can assure us that this act will not prevent the seizure of a legitimate shipment of generic medicines, then we’ll be more than happy to go ahead, but there’s no consensus on how to interpret that definition,” said Christa Cepuch, a pharmacist with HAI Africa. “Nobody could assure us that it was going to be OK and that access to generics was not going to be undermined by this act.”

    Officials at HAI and elsewhere fear that pharmaceutical companies which have backed the passage of the act could use it as a weapon to clamp down on generic drugs, though they acknowledge not having seen any evidence of such tactics so far in Kenya.

    The Act is so broad that it could, for example, allow a pharmaceutical company to charge legitimately produced generics as counterfeits in Kenya even if its patent is not registered there.

    “It means one does not have to have IP rights registered in Kenya for it to be enforced in Kenya, which is against the whole principle of territorial application of IP rights,” said Peter Munyi, an intellectual property rights lawyer who works with HAI.

    The Kenya Association of Manufacturers says the law is clear. In the meantime, the association says there has been an uptick in the incidence of counterfeit products on the Kenya market as illegal importers rush to get their products on the market before the act goes into effect.

    “There’s no blockage of generic drugs. These are recognised as not counterfeits,” said Wairuko. “The law is very clear. Let them consult first and they can then go and talk about something they know.”

    As the debate continues, the stakes could not be higher. The US government’s President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) programme and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, import hundreds of millions of dollars in drugs, almost all of them generic, into Africa each year. Often, those drugs are the only hope for the continent’s poor.

    Indian companies have been in an uproar about the Kenyan move. In response to the legislation, the Indian government called a meeting of African ambassadors to note its concern about Kenya’s move.

    GlaxoSmithKline, which is a member of the Kenya Association of Manufacturers, says it welcomes the anti-counterfeiting act and “supported its development through local trade association activity,” Lisa Behrens, director of product communications, said in written answers to questions from Intellectual Property Watch.

    Behrens said she believes the act’s language does not confuse counterfeits and generics, and said that “even illegal, patent-infringing generics should not be viewed as ‘counterfeits.’”

    “Clearly generics have a role to play in improving affordability of medicines to some of the world’s poorest countries and peoples,” Behrens said. “This is why we have provided 8 voluntary licences for ARVs [antiretrovirals] to African generic companies. But the main challenge is less now about the price of medicines but getting products of appropriate quality to the people who need them. We support the importation of generics from India, China and elsewhere so long as they are legal and quality standards are adhered to.”

    While HAI Africa and others acknowledge that the act has yet to slow the traffic of generics into East Africa, they fear it could set a precedent. For example, Uganda and Tanzania are both considering bills with similar language. A policy to harmonise anti-counterfeit laws in the East African community also is being discussed.

    They also say that whether or not pharmaceutical companies are involved, legally produced generic drugs are being seized in European ports. They point to several recent cases in which customs agents in Europe have impounded legitimate antiretrovirals and other drugs destined from Asia to South America and Africa on suspicion that the drugs violated European patent rights. In January, for example, a shipment of the blood-pressure drug losartan headed from India to Brazil. Merck, which held the patent on the drug, demanded the destruction of the shipment, according to media reports at the time.

    “The action has exacerbated the concerns of a number of developing countries that several initiatives to address counterfeit drugs might have a ‘hidden agenda’ to attack legitimate trade in generics,” Frederick Abbott, an international law professor at the Florida State University College of Law, wrote in an essay published by the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development. “Once again, the public legitimacy of the WTO is under attack as a consequence of a hyper-extended approach to intellectual property law by some of its developed country members.”

    As the debate continues, public health advocates say the real problem is substandard medicines – ones that have expired, or were not manufactured properly – and access to good medicines. Because the Kenyan public health sector routinely faces drug shortages, people must buy their drugs in shops, where the incidence of substandard drugs is much higher.

    “We all agree that there is a need to fight counterfeits, but it should really be done in a way that public health and access to generic quality drugs is not impaired,” said Alexandra Heumber, IP Policy Adviser, MSF Access to Essential Medicines Campaign.

    Nicholas Wadhams may be reached at info@ip-watch.ch.

     

    Comments

    1. Intellectual Property Watch » Blog Archive » Kenya Pressured To … | Kenyan Post says:

      [...] Read more: Intellectual Property Watch » Blog Archive » Kenya Pressured To … [...]

    2. Njuguna says:

      It seems that the problem may not entirely be with Kenyan’s anti-countefeit Act but (mis)understanding of what is generic medicine and under what circumstances generic medicine can be manufactured or imported in a country bearing in mind the existence of patents rights in that country.

      For example in paragrapgh 6 of this artile, HAI is quoted saying “…generic drugs – both those that infringe on patent rights and those that do not” and in the subsequent paragragh that “generics are legal”. The question is can generics that infringe on patents be legal?

    3. William New says:

      Njuguna, thank you for bringing that text question to our attention. The addition of the words “are legal” was an editor’s error and has been removed, sorry for any confusion. I cannot speak to your broader point on generics and patent rights. William New

    4. Josh Kay says:

      A vague definition should hardly prevent beneficial actions from taking place. Clearly the counterfeiting has become a problem to a degree that it drastically needs to be addressed. Surely the Kenyan government does not want to cure one problem at the expense of another. The international IP community should offer guidance and resources to encourage strong IP rights in Kenya and similar nations. For more on IP enforcement see, http://www.generalpatent.com/ip-enforcement-services


    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.