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 >


    WHO Group Agrees On New Mechanism To Fight Poor-Quality Medicines

    Published on 1 November 2011 @ 5:47 pm

    By for Intellectual Property Watch

    The World Health Organization-led working group of member states on “substandard/spurious/falsely-labelled/falsified/counterfeit” (SSFFC) medical products has reached consensus on a new mechanism to prevent and control SSFFC medical products and associated activities. The creation of the new mechanism comes as the future of WHO involvement in an interagency anti-counterfeiting taskforce is in question.

    The SSFFC working group met behind closed doors from 25-28 October at the WHO, reaching a late-night agreement on the last day of the meeting.

    Chaired by Zambian Ambassador Darlington Mwape, the working group agreed upon a draft resolution with an annex including mechanism goals, objectives and terms of reference. The working group also produced a report on its work.

    Advanced, unedited versions of the SSFFC documents are available here: SSFFC Draft Resolution [pdf], SSFFC Draft Resolution Annex (goals, objectives, TORs) [pdf], and Working Group Report [pdf]

    These will be presented at the next regular World Health Assembly Executive Board meeting on 16-23 January [note: this week’s WHO Executive Board meeting is an exceptional gathering on WHO reform]. The proposal would then go to the annual World Health Assembly in May for final approval (IPW, WHO, 24 May 2011).

    According to the draft resolution, the new member state mechanism on SSFFC will be open to all member states and “should include expertise in national health and medical products regulatory matters.” In general, the draft mechanism documents show an effort to broaden participation of governments in WHO activities related to this problem, with increased transparency and reporting.

    The mechanism is intended to focus on public health, “excluding intellectual property and trade considerations,” according to the resolution.

    Saving Definitions for Later

    Not only is SSFFC difficult to say, it is also difficult to define. This is another point that the group agreed upon in their deliberations. In fact, one of the new mechanism’s objectives is “to further develop definitions of SSFFC medical products.” For now, the mechanism is directed to use the term SSFFC until the governing bodies have agreed upon a definition.

    For the sake of key working definitions, the WHO defines substandard medicines as “products whose composition and ingredients do not meet the correct scientific specifications” while counterfeit medicines are “deliberately and fraudulently mislabelled with respect to identity and/or source.”

    Irrespective of the terminology, SSFFC medical products are a problem that the WHO has made a priority of addressing. At the working group’s first meeting on 28 February 2011, WHO Director General Margaret Chan said in her opening remarks: “The first priority for public health, and priority for the WHO, is to protect populations from the harm caused by poor-quality, unsafe medicines. The objective is to keep these harmful products off the market everywhere, but especially in the developing world.”

    A Concerted Compromise

    Governments from both developing and developed countries stress that this mechanism should promote the quality, safety and efficacy of medicines rather than focus on fakes. A developed country delegate outside of the meeting said, “This is not about counterfeits, copies or fakes. This is about intentionally harmful fakes that are inefficacious, that can build virus resistance or that can be deadly.”

    Although there was a clear consensus on the mission of keeping harmful medical products off the market, questions were raised on how best to address the problem. According to sources, one of the main questions was how and to what extent the new mechanism should address issues related to access and availability of medicines.

    A delegate from a least developed country said, “It is important to look at the whole picture and not just part of it. The problem of access and affordability of medicines in countries leaves a vacuum. And it’s because of this vacuum that we have the problem of SSFFC.”

    The debate did not fall along clear developing/developed country lines. During the last day of the meeting, the African Group submitted a proposal [pdf] of six objectives that did not include issues related to medicine access or availability. One delegate explained that there are other avenues available to improving access to medicines and that this mechanism is meant to assure quality, safe and efficacious medicines and to protect people from the risks of SSFFC.

    In the end, both access and availability were included in the working group’s draft resolution. The mechanism’s goal is in part “to protect public health and promote access to affordable, safe, efficacious and quality medical products.” One of the objectives calls for strong collaboration between the new mechanism and “the work of other areas of WHO that address access to quality, safe, efficacious and affordable medical products.”

    IMPACT’s Uncertain Future

    Outlined in the agenda, the SSFFC working group also addressed the WHO’s relationship with the International Medical Products Anti-Counterfeiting Taskforce (IMPACT). The WHO launched the taskforce in February 2006 in response to the increasing public health problem of counterfeit medicines. According to IMPACT’s website, IMPACT is a partnership of all of the “major anti-counterfeiting players” tasked to “halt the production, trading and selling of fake medicines around the globe.” IMPACT includes the international police agency Interpol, among other organisations.

    The taskforce has incurred criticism from a number of stakeholders including the non-governmental Third World Network, Affordable Medicines for Africa, and OXFAM. At the outset of the meeting, over 50 NGOs issued an open letter [pdf] to the SSFFC chair, calling for the WHO to disassociate itself from IMPACT. The letter raised a number of concerns including “the role played by the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations (IFPMA) in IMPACT’s activities, the lack of transparency surrounding IMPACT’s activities, and lack of accountability as IMPACT has operated outside the purview of WHO member states.” It also took issue with the taskforce’s role in matters related to anti-counterfeiting and IP enforcement.

    Although the SSFFC reviewed the WHO’s current and future relationship with IMPACT, no decisions were made. According to the meeting report, “There were divergent views expressed with regard to WHO’s involvement in the Taskforce” and that “a way forward on this specific issue could emerge when the new mechanism is considered.”

    Rachel Marusak Hermann may be reached at rachel@rachels-ink.com.

     

    Comments

    1. WHO Board Considers Reform, Director Re-Election, Key IP-Related Issues | Intellectual Property Watch says:

      [...] Chan did not directly mention the issue of counterfeit and substandard medical products by name, perhaps because of the difficulty in finding acceptable words by which to refer to it. The issue of “substandard/spurious/falsely-labelled/falsified/counterfeit medical products” – as it has been dubbed by member states in an effort to appease all sides – has been controversial at WHO in recent years. But members managed to agree in October on a new mechanism for addressing the issue (IPW, WHO, 1 November 2011). [...]


    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.