[Ip-health] NZ PhaRMAC targeted in Special 301

Prof. Michael H. Davis michael.davis at law.csuohio.edu
Mon May 2 14:32:15 PDT 2011

I don't think that is right. Pharmaceutical people think this affects adequate intellectual property protection. If you believe in intellectual property rights, they are correct. The statute certainly says that much. 

The problem is 301, not whether it goes this far. Of course it does, but even if it didn't it would be deplorable.

Mickey Davis

Michael H. Davis
Professor of Law
Cleveland State University
College of Law
Cleveland, Ohio 44115

Patent Attorney Admitted to Practice Before the US Patent and Trademark Office
Reg. No. 45,863

-----Original Message-----
From: Sean Flynn <sflynn at wcl.american.edu>
To: TPP-ALLIES at LISTSERVER.CITIZEN.ORG, ip-health at lists.keionline.org
Sent: Mon, 02 May 2011 17:19
Subject: [Ip-health] NZ PhaRMAC targeted in Special 301

This appears to be a new passage in the Special 301 report for this

2011 Special 301 Report, P. 14

With respect to New Zealand, U.S. industry has expressed serious
concerns about the policies
and operation of New Zealand's Pharmaceutical Management Agency
(PhARMAC). Industry continues to express concerns regarding, among other
things, the
transparency, fairness, and predictability of the PHARMAC pricing and
regime, as well as the overall climate for innovative medicines in New


State officials and health advocates have previously noted that there is
nothing in the 301 authorizing statute that allows the Special 301
Report to veer into pharmaceutical pricing policies.


Ip-health mailing list
Ip-health at lists.keionline.org

More information about the Ip-health mailing list