Advertisement

Compulsory Licences: Law and Practice in Thailand

  • Jakkrit Kuanpoth
Chapter
Part of the MPI Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law book series (MSIP, volume 22)

Abstract

When the WTO/TRIPS Agreement entered into force in 1995, around 100 countries had adopted compulsory licensing under national intellectual property law. The compulsory licensing measure can be effective in dealing with situations inhibiting access to medicines, for example when a patent holder fails to use the patent in the granting country or when he or she maintains artificially high prices for patented articles. Despite the significant international development, it remains to be seen how the flexibility margins provided by the TRIPS provisions can be used as safeguards to protect public health interests of the poor countries. Effective mechanisms are also required to support countries that are unable to make effective use of compulsory licensing due to the inefficiency of manufacturing capacity. This chapter examines the problem of using the legal mechanism of compulsory licensing by developing countries. It looks at Thailand’s experiences with the use of compulsory licensing to increase access to medicines. Since the majority of compulsory licences issued around the world are related to pharmaceutical patents, the chapter highlights the use of compulsory licensing in the context of a range of public health responses. It first discusses the use by Thailand of the compulsory government use licensing to increase access to medicines. It also examines international rules on compulsory licensing, including the provisions of the Paris Convention, the TRIPS Agreement, and the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health. Finally, the chapter discusses various legal issues under the Thai Patent Act regarding the compulsory licensing provisions. It also highlights the possible impact, in a broad sense, of the use of legal mechanisms such as compulsory licensing, which aims to effectively maintain fair market competition and dilute the monopoly power of the patent holder.

Keywords

Supra Note Essential Medicine Compulsory License Trips Agreement Patent Holder 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Abbott FM (2005) The WTO medicines decision: world pharmaceutical trade and the protection of public health. Am J Int Law 99:317–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adelman MJ, Baldia S (1996) Prospects and limits of the patent provision in the TRIPS Agreement: the case of India. Vanderbilt J Transnatl Law 29:507–533Google Scholar
  3. Bangkok Post (2008) Thai traders urge ‘Extreme Caution’ on CL. 14 FebruaryGoogle Scholar
  4. Baron D (2008) Compulsory licensing, Thailand, and Abbott Laboratories. Stanford Graduate School of Business Case P-66Google Scholar
  5. Bodenhausen GCH (1991) Guide to the application of the Paris Convention for the protection of industrial property as revised at Stockholm in 1967. WIPO Publication No. 611 (E), GenevaGoogle Scholar
  6. Champ P, Attaran A (2002) Patent rights and local working under the WTO TRIPS Agreement: an analysis of the US–Brazil patent dispute. Yale J Int Law 27:365–393Google Scholar
  7. Correa CM (2005) Can the TRIPS Agreement foster technology transfer to developing countries? In: Maskus KE, Reichman JH (eds) International public goods and transfer of technology under a globalized intellectual property regime. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 227–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Doane M (1994) TRIPS and intellectual property protection in an age of advancing technology. Am Univ J Int Law Policy 9:465–479Google Scholar
  9. Foster G (1998) Opposing forces in a revolution in international patent protection: the US and India in the Uruguay round and its aftermath. UCLA J Int Law Foreign Aff 3:283–298Google Scholar
  10. Gontijo C (2005) Changing the patent system from the Paris Convention to the TRIPS Agreement: the position of Brazil. The Heinrich Böll Foundation, Global Issue Paper No. 26, Berlin. http://fdcl-berlin.de/fileadmin/fdcl/Publikationen/GIP_Gontijo-Patente.pdf. Accessed 2 Aug 2012
  11. Harrelson JA (2001) Note: TRIPS, pharmaceutical patents, and the HIV/AIDS crisis: finding the proper balance between intellectual property rights and compassion. Widener Law Symp J 7:175–201Google Scholar
  12. Intellectual Property Watch (2007) Thailand presents report on compulsory licensing experience. http://www.ip-watch.org/2007/03/12/thailand-presents-report-on-compulsory-licensing-experience/ ?res=1024&print=0. Accessed 1 Nov 2012
  13. Kuanpoth J (2006) Harmonisation of TRIPS-plus IPR policies and potential impacts on technological capability: a case study of the pharmaceutical industry in Thailand. ICTSD-UNCTAD project on IPRs and sustainable development, Geneva. http://www.iprsonline.org/unctadictsd/regional_research.htm. Accessed 15 July 2012
  14. Love J (2005) Remuneration guidelines for non-voluntary use of a patent on medical technologies. World Health Organisation, WHO/TCM/2005.1, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  15. Lybecker KM, Fowler E (2009) Compulsory licensing in Canada and Thailand: comparing regimes to ensure legitimate use of the WTO rules. J Law Med Ethics 37:222–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ministry of Public Health and National Health Security Office (2007) Facts and evidences on the 10 burning issues related to the government use of patents on three patented essential drugs in Thailand. Document to support strengthening of social wisdom on the issue of drug patent, Bangkok. www.moph.go.th/hot/Second_white_paper_on_the_Thai_CL_%5BEN%5D.pdf. Accessed 14 Nov 2012
  17. Piot P, Seck AMC (2001) International response to the HIV/AIDS epidemic: planning for success. Bull World Health Organ 79:1106–1112Google Scholar
  18. PReMA (2007) Statement from the President of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers’ Association of Thailand (PReMA). Press Release, BangkokGoogle Scholar
  19. Roffe P (1974) Abuses of patent monopoly. World Dev 2:15–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Scherer FM, Watal J (2002) Post-TRIPS options for access to patented medicines in developing nations. J Int Econ Law 5(4):913–939CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sell SK (2002) TRIPS and the access to medicines campaign. Wis Int Law J 20:481–522Google Scholar
  22. United Nations Development Programme (2004) Thailand’s response to HIV/AIDS: progress and challenges. UNDP, BangkokGoogle Scholar
  23. United States Government Accountability Office (2007) Intellectual property: U.S. trade policy guidance on WTO declaration on access to medicines may need clarification. GAO-07-1198. http://www.gao.gov/assets/270/267763.html. Accessed 14 Nov 2012
  24. WHO/UNAIDS/UNICEF (2007) Towards universal access: scaling up priority HIV/AIDS interventions in the health sector. http://www.who.int/hiv/mediacentre/universal_access_progress_report_en.pdf. Accessed 28 July 2012
  25. WTO Ministerial Conference (2001) 4th session, Doha, 9–14 November 2001. WT/MIN(01)/Dec/2, 20 November 2001Google Scholar
  26. World Trade Organisation (2005) Implementation of paragraph 11 of the General Council decision of 30 August 2003 on the implementation of paragraph 6 of the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health. Council for trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights, IP/C/41. www.wto.org/english/news_e/pres05_e/pr426_e.htm. Accessed 12 July 2012
  27. Yamabhai I et al (2011) Government use licenses in Thailand: an assessment of the health and economic impacts. Global Health 7:28. http://www.globalizationandhealth.com/content/7/1/28. Accessed 25 Mar 2013

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of LawUniversity of WollongongWollongongAustralia

Personalised recommendations