Canada and the European Union recently announced the completion of the largest trade agreement in Canada’s history, the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA). Importantly, the agreement moves beyond the traditional reduction of tariffs and elimination of non-tariff barriers to close critical gaps that currently exist in intellectual property protections.
Innovation is the engine of economic growth and development. Research and development (R&D) spending is what creates jobs and makes innovation a reality. As the global economy continues to recover and regain its former strength, the pharmaceutical industry remains the world’s largest source of R&D spending. According to a recent article in the Wall Street Journal, global pharmaceutical companies expect to spend just over $92 billion on research in 2015. Citing the 38th annual R&D Ratios & Budgets report from Schonfeld & Associates, the article notes that the pharmaceutical industry will spend 40% more than automotive companies which will be the second biggest investors at $65 billion.
A great article by Dr. Kristina Lybecker, Associate Professor of Economics at Colorado College, published in IP Watchdog on the battle for health in India and the TRIPS Agreement.
"The compulsory licensing provisions of the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS agreement and public health have the potential to save lives and protect public health. However, to deliver on this potential the provisions must be used responsibly. Specifically, the interpretation of ‘national emergency’ should adhere to both the text of the declaration, as well as its intent.
"It is time for India’s leaders to recognize the positive role that IP can play in fostering growth and improving citizens’ wellbeing," states Rod Hunter (senior director for international economics on President George W. Bush’s National Security Council, is a senior vice president at the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America) in his recent op-ed featured in Today's Zaman. "The reality is that IP protection is an economic engine that developing-country citizens should not have to forego."
An interesting article by Dr. Kristina Lybecker from IP WatchDog (Feb. 17, 2014) in regards to a recent report from the University College London (UCL) School of Pharmacy and at the London School of Economics (LSE). Dr. Lybecker highlights that "While intellectual property rights are essential to medical progress, policymakers must balance the needs of current populations against rewards for innovators as well as the needs of future populations. In this context, the authors note that preserving and sometimes strengthening intellectual property rights are essential to continued innovation."
Perhaps most importantly, she notes that "Underinvesting in innovation for the future would harm both the interests of patients and the global public."
An interesting article by Jasson Urbach, who argues that the South African government’s proposals to reform the intellectual property regime will hinder trade and industry more than encourage it.
A new caucus of supporters of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement under negotiation was launched yesterday in the US Congress and is headed by four co-chairmen: Republican Reps. David Reichert of Washington and Charles Boustany of Louisiana, and Democratic Reps. Ron Kind of Wisconsin and Gregory Meeks of New York. The four members issued a press announcement with statements on why they are supporting the agreement, which they say is important for US jobs, exports and economic growth.
By Pravin Anand and Archana Shanker.
Intellectual Property cases in India have witnessed an exponential growth in the last 10 years with the increase in infringement actions before the High Courts and the plethora of decisions rendered by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB), especially with respect to pharmaceutical patents. These decisions have ramifications for patients in India and around the world, and it is becoming increasingly clear that a top-down reform of the entire system is necessary. To protect the intellectual property of innovators and ensure the latest life-saving medicines are able to reach the Indian patients, India’s patent system must begin to reflect established international norms. Indeed, the rapid increase in cases where patents are revoked, denied or otherwise infringed upon sets a dangerous precedent that could effectively bar new pharmaceuticals from being approved in India, as innovators become increasingly wary that their intellectual property could simply be expropriated without proper compensation.
Since the Supreme Court’s decision in eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., U.S. courts have changed the process by which they determine the propriety of injunctive relief against an adjudicated infringer. Before eBay, permanent injunctive relief was a standard remedy for a patentee and was awarded as a matter of course. However, in eBay the Supreme Court instructed that in determining whether injunctive relief is an appropriate remedy for patent infringement, courts must use the same four-factor test that is used in considering injunctive relief in non-patent cases. This paper examines the ways in which courts have undertaken the newly-required eBay test and the factors courts have considered in determining whether injunctive relief is appropriate.
When the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiators gather for the nineteenth and potentially final round of talks later this month in Brunei, the ministers to whom they answer may be nearby.
According to an article published in the Japan Times on Monday, the government of Brunei has put forward a proposal to bring together ministers from the 12 participating countries in order to continue the push for a 2013 conclusion.