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 >


    Pharmaceutical Patent Pools Seen As A Life And Death Matter In Kenya

    Published on 30 November 2009 @ 11:00 am

    By for Intellectual Property Watch

    NAIROBI – At the headquarters of UNITAID and other groups seeking to boost access to HIV/AIDS medicine, the notion of a patent pool where drug companies would combine their intellectual property is seen as an important way to drive down drug costs. In the Kenyan capital Nairobi, home of AIDS activist Nelson Otwoma, the patent pool is a matter of life and death.

    Otwoma is the chairman of the National Empowerment Network of People Living with HIV/AIDS in Kenya, or NEPHAK. He has watched people simply go without treatment – and lose the battle with HIV – because they can’t afford antiretroviral drugs, particularly second-line medicines.

    “People understand that if we pressure pharmaceutical companies, governments, and researchers to put their patents in the pool, drugs will be cheaper and better,” Otwoma told Intellectual Property Watch. “They have an interest in us. Those pharmaceutical companies want to have communities on their side. It’s a matter of public relations. I don’t think they are so insensitive that they don’t want to listen to what we are saying.”

    Otwoma is one of the hundreds of HIV/AIDS activists across Africa who have been pushing for a patent pool as quickly as possible, hoping to whip up a sense of passion among those who might not appreciate the urgent need for cheaper medicines in places like Kenya, or understand that the patent pool may be the only way to bring prices down.

    To its advocates, a patent pool would bring crucial drugs into the hands of more Kenyans. Drug companies agree to put their patents in one place, and drug manufacturers can buy a licence to produce a drug with that knowledge. Competition among them will drive down the cost of doing so. Because all the patents are in one place, manufacturers will also be able to make paediatric formulations that are not normally profitable for drug companies, or produce a single pill combining the medicines patented by several companies.

    It can be difficult to understand without proper explanation, a fact that has slowed advocates from spreading the word about it. But they hope pharmaceutical companies will realise that a patent pool is the only way they will sell their drugs in Africa. They hope to play on a sense of moral obligation combined with the financial fact that HIV/AIDS numbers in the West are falling, so companies will need to look elsewhere.

    “My sense is essentially that a lot of people see this whole patent pool idea as a new concept,” said Wariara Mugo, coordination manager for the French branch of Médecins Sans Frontières in Nairobi. “We need to make an effort to educate people on the issue and have the health ministries and the government of Kenya buy into and lobby for the patent pool.”

    UNITAID’s board of directors is expected to adopt a patent pool for HIV/AIDS drugs in mid-December. The next step will be persuading drug companies to contribute their patents so manufacturers can get started.

    “It’s about collective responsibility from all the players and the pharmaceuticals have a huge role in it,” said Lucy Chesire, an HIV and tuberculosis health advocate who was diagnosed with HIV in 1992. “Getting drugs in the pool would mean greater competition and lower costs.”

    Kenyan officials say it now costs about US$60 to keep a patient on first-line antiretroviral treatment for a year. Second-line drugs can cost hundreds of dollars a month. Second-line ARVs are so out of reach for many AIDS patients that in some rural areas of Kenya they are not even told of the existence of a more powerful set of drugs to fight the illness. And there aren’t the laboratory or testing facilities to judge whether a patient needs to make the change.

    Part of the problem for advocates of the pool has been to explain that the price of second-line HIV/AIDS drugs will not fall on their own like the prices for first-line drugs did. India in particular has adopted new patent laws that restrict generics manufacturers from making second-line drugs. Officials hope the patent pool will be the mechanism to bring down drug costs.

    “It’s absolutely true that there aren’t enough people who understand that (cost reductions) will not happen automatically without deliberate intervention,” said Ellen ‘t Hoen, head of the medicine patent pool initiative at UNITAID.

    Kenya is in the middle of a full-blown epidemic, with a seven percent infection rate.

    There are currently 300,000 Kenyans receiving HIV/AIDS drugs, which are paid for mostly by the Global Fund, the World Bank and the US President’s Fund for Emergency AIDS Relief. The country has also launched a campaign to encourage more people to get tested. Kenyan government statistics show that 80 percent of the country’s people do not know their status and many are reluctant to learn for fear of being stigmatised.

    A new HIV/AIDS strategy is expected to bring more people onto antiretrovirals earlier in their illness, a fact that will put greater demand on the donor system. But because of funding caps by PEPFAR limiting numbers to 190,000 for the next five years, Kenya’s only option is to decrease the cost of the drugs.

    “We see we are not getting additional commitments yet the need is increasing,” said Dr. Nicholas Muraguri, director of National AIDS/STI Control Program. “The more we can do to make sure people have access to ARVs the better, and the patent pool is one of those things.”

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

     


    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.