Abstract
The previous chapters have focused mainly on how the battle between innovation and access has played out in the U.S. This chapter will expand beyond the U.S. and look at how that battle has been shaped in the international arena. In particular, this chapter will examine how the development of brand-name and generic products has been influenced by trade agreements. Initially introduced to strengthen intellectual property rights in foreign countries, especially developing ones, trade agreements are occasionally being used as a mechanism for circumventing intellectual property rights in favor of granting more access to lower cost drugs.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
TRIPS Agreement, Article 27(1).
- 2.
TRIPS Agreement, Article 27(2).
- 3.
TRIPS Agreement, Article 27(3).
- 4.
Doha Declaration, Paragraph 4.
- 5.
Doha Declaration, Paragraph 5.
- 6.
Doha Declaration, Paragraph 6.
- 7.
Section 5 of Patents Act 1970 (India).
- 8.
Section 84 of the Indian Patents Act (1970).
References
Timeline on Brazil’s Compulsory Licensing, Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property.
Supreme court to rule on generic drug industry, http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-01-04/news/36148955_1_generic-manufacturers-tuberculosis-and-aids-drugs-leena-menghaney.
How India used patents to become pharmacy of the developing world, http://scienceinpolicy.wordpress.com/2012/05/21/how-india-used-patents-to-become-pharmacy-of-the-developing-world/.
http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/intellectual_property/info.service/2008/twn.ipr.info.080610.htm.
Victory for access to medicine as Valganciclovir patent rejected in India 06/05/2010; why Roche lost a patent battle in India http://business.rediff.com/column/2010/may/13/guest-why-roche-lost-a-patent-battle-in-india.html May 13, 2010.
Intellectual Property Watch. Patent on AIDS medicine denied in India. 4 January 2011.
U.S. Patent Number 5,521,184.
U.S. Patent Number 6,894,051.
Novartis AG and another v. Union of India and others (6 August 2007, High Court of Judicature at Madras for W.P. Nos. 24759 and 24760 of 2006).
U.S. General Accounting Office, Prescription drugs: companies typically charge more in the United States than in Canada (1992).
U.S. General Accounting Office, Prescription drugs: companies typically charge more in the United States than in the United Kingdom (1994).
Minority Staff Special Investigations Division, Prescription Drugs Are More Expensive in Rep. Waxman’s Congressional District in California than in Canada, Europe, and Japan, ed. U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Governmental Reform (2002).
Hornbeck RA. Price discrimination and the smuggling of AIDS drugs. Top Econ Anal Policy. 2005;5(1):11.
Maskus, Parallel imports in pharmaceuticals: implications for competition and prices in developing countries, http://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/studies/pdf/ssa_maskus_pi.pdf.
Cambridge Pharma Consultancy, 2004.
Novartis, Glivec patent case in India: fact v. fiction http://www.novartis.com/downloads/newsroom/glivec-information-center/Fact_vs_fiction_of_Glivec_India_Case.pdf.
Attaran A, et al. Do patents for antiretroviral drugs constrain access to AIDS treatment in Africa? JAMA. 2001; 286(15):1886–1892.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Brougher, J.T. (2014). International Patent Law, Trade Law, and Access to Drugs. In: Intellectual Property and Health Technologies. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8202-4_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8202-4_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-8201-7
Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-8202-4
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)