Núm. 26 (2007)
Artículos

The Use of TRIPS Flexibilities by Emerging Countries

Amélie Robine
University of Paris
Biografía
núm. 26
Publicado junio 1, 2007
Palabras clave
  • TRIPS Agreement,
  • pharmaceutical products,
  • AIDS,
  • patent law,
  • emerging countries

Resumen

The patent law has been harmonized at the international level in 1994 by the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). In practice, this text requires all member States of the World Trade Organization (WTO) to recognize the patentability in all industrial sectors. A pharmaceutical patent shall then be granted for any pharmaceutical invention insofar as it fulfills all three criteria for patentability: novelty, inventive step and industrial application. Thus, developing countries can no longer copy molecules protected by patents. At first glance, the trips Agreement completely prevents the development of pharmaceutical industries in the most advanced developing countries from a technological point of view –emerging countries– and dried up sources of supply of cheap medicines for poor countries. However, if the trips agreement strengthens the protection of intellectual property rights, flexibilities have been provided by the wto law to ease international patent law under certain circums-tances, like public health considerations. The objective of this article is then to show how India, Brazil and Thailand, are using some of these flexibilities to ease the general principle of pharmaceutical inventions patenting according to their development goals, so that other emerging countries can inspire themselves by these examples.

Citas

  1. Abbott. 2007. “Abbott Agrees with World Health Organization Director-General to Expand Access to Kaletra/Aluvia (Lopinavir/Ritonavir).” April 10th 2007. Available at: http://www.abbott.com/global/url/pressRelease/en_US/60.5:5/Press_Release_0442.htm [consulted 11/08/2007].
  2. Adelman C., Norris J., Weicher J. 2005. “Access to Medicine - The Full Cost of HIV/AIDS Treatment.” Hudson Institute Review White Paper: 1-24.
  3. Basso M. 2004. “A Anvisa e a Concessão de Patentes Farmacêuticas.” October 18th 2004. Available at: http://www.tecpar.br/appi/News/A%20Anvisa%20e%20a%20concess%E3o%20de%20patentes%20farmac%EAuticas.pdf [consulted 10/23/2007].
  4. Barbosa D. B. 2004. “A Inconstitucionalidade da Anuência da anvisa no Procedimento de Concessão de Patentes como Manifestação Discricionaria da Administração Federal.” July 2004. Available at: http://denisbarbosa.addr. com/anuencia.doc [consulted 10/20/2006].
  5. Beas Rodrigues E. 2005. “Anuência Prévia: Integração do Direito à Saude aos Direitos de Propriedade Intelectual.” Revista dos Tribunais 840: 84-106.
  6. Bermudez J., Auxilidora Oliveira M. and Costa Chavez G. 2004. “O Acordo TRIPS da OMC e os Desafios para a Saude Publica.” In Bermudez J., Auxiliadora Oliveira M. and Esther A. (dir.), Acesso a Medicamentos: Derecho Fundamental. Papel del Estado. Rio de Janeiro: Fiocruz/ENSP.
  7. Bradol J.-H. 2007 March 1st. “Novartis affronte le Parlement indien.” Le Monde, p. 23.
  8. Cawthorne P. and Dayal A. 2006. “Thailand Still Shows the Way on HIV/AIDS.” The Nation, December 2nd 2006. Available at: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2006/12/02/opinion/opinion_30020541.php [consulted July 20th 2008].
  9. Correa C. 1996. “Développements récents dans le domaine des brevets pharmaceutiques: mise en œuvre de l’accord sur les adpic.” RIDE 1: 23-35. Cuzin E. 2007. “Médicaments et brevets: le Sud se rebiffe.” Pharmaceutiques (no Review Number): 78-79.
  10. De Freitas L. M. 2004. “Bis in Idem.” June 29th 2004. Available at: http://noticias.aol.com.br/negocios/industria/2004/06/0009.adp [consulted 10/07/2005].
  11. Deron F. 2007 January 3rd. “La Thaïlande autorise des génériques de médicaments protégés par des brevets.” Le Monde, p. 26.
  12. Ford N., Wilson D., Costa Chaves G., Lotrowska M. and Kijtiwathakul K. 2007. “Sustaining Access to Antiretroviral Therapy in the Less-Developed World: Lessons from Brazil and Thailand.” aids 21: 21-29.
  13. Instituto Dannemann Siemsen de Estudos de Propriedade Intelectual. 2005. Comentarios à Lei da Propriedade Industrial. Rio de Janeiro: Renovar.
  14. Kahn A.-E. 2007. “Les licences obligatoires.” In Moine-Dupuis I. (dir.) Le médicament et la personne - Aspects de droit International, pp. 219-243. Paris: Litec.
  15. Mamou Y. 2007, January 24th. “Les ong en guerre contre le laboratoire Novartis.” Le Monde, p. 13.
  16. Merck. 2007. “Merck & Co., Inc. Statement on Brazilian Government’s Decision to Issue Compulsory License for Stocrin.” May 4th 2007. Available at: http://www.merck.com/newsroom/press_releases/corporate/2007_0504. html [consulted 05/05/2007].
  17. Mueller J. 2007. “Novartis, Patent Law, and Access to Medicines.” The New England Journal of Medicine 6: 541-543.
  18. Remiche B. 2002. “Révolution technologique, mondialisation et droit des brevets.” RIDE 1: 83-124.
  19. Remiche B. and Desterbecq H. 1996. “Les brevets pharmaceutiques dans les accords du gatt : l’enjeu ?.” RIDE 1: 7-68.
  20. Robine A. 2008. Transfert et acquisition de la technologie dans les pays émergents - L’exemple brésilien de l’accès aux médicaments contre le sida. PhD Thesis, University of Paris I – Panthéon. Sorbonne.
  21. Shashikant S. 2008, April 1st. “Recent Thai Compulsory Licenses and the Aftermath.” Available at: [consulted July 20th 2008].
  22. USTR. 2007. “Thailand on Priority Watch List because of Use of trips Flexibilities.” May 3rd 2007. Available at: http://www.ustr.gov/ [consulted 04/05/2007]. “Thaïlande: sur la liste noire.” October 29th 2007. Available at: http://www.sidanet.asso.fr/webapps/komplete/index.php?KTURL=mod_ quotimed.html&page=70 [consulted 0/30/2007].
  23. Watal J. 2001. Intellectual property rights in the wto and developing countries. La Hague: Kluwer Law International.
  24. WHO. 2006. “Access to Aids medicines stumbles on trade rules.” In who Bulletin, 84 (May): 342-348.