[Ip-health] TPP May Be Dead – But Its Impact Lingers

Ruth Lopert ruth.lopert at gmail.com
Tue Dec 6 09:52:15 PST 2016


TPP May Be Dead – But Its Impact Lingers
*Threats to affordable access to medicines continue unabated.*

*http://www.ip-watch.org/2016/12/06/tpp-may-dead-impact-lingers/
<http://www.ip-watch.org/2016/12/06/tpp-may-dead-impact-lingers/>*

Despite the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) being – to
all-intents-and-purposes – dead in the water, pursuit of some of the most
egregious objectives of the corporate interests driving the TPP agenda
rolls on. Pharma is persisting in its push for countries to adopt not just
TRIPS-Plus, but in some cases even TPP-Plus intellectual property rules –
presumably groundwork for the later emergence of a ‘son-of-TPP’ agreement.

The TPP’s final intellectual property chapter is extraordinarily complex.
While many elements of the initial US proposals persisted and the
resistance of the non-US countries was worn down on many issues in the
final stages of the negotiations, the final text does include some hard-won
concessions and flexibilities. In some cases these flexibilities would have
allowed the TPP countries to retain their existing policy settings, or at
least make less extensive changes than the US was seeking. But the sheer
complexity of the agreement has also made room for the pharmaceutical
industry to press countries that are preparing for eventual TPP accession
to implement the TPP obligations in the most harmful way for access to
medicines, exceeding both the spirit and the letter of the agreement.


*Taiwan as a Case in Point*
Taiwan has had a bilateral Trade & Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA)
with the US since 1994. The Taiwanese Ministry of External Affairs
describes the agreement as “the most important channel for bilateral
high-level economic and trade consultations between Taiwan and the US.”

The 2014, 2015 and 2016 rounds of TIFA talks all highlighted the importance
of IP protection for medicines and biotech, with the summary of the 2014
talks stating, somewhat ironically, that Taiwan has “…made data protection
and patent (sic) a main policy, with the aim of following international
norms.” (Authors’ emphasis)

In fact, Taiwan’s IP rules for medicines already go beyond the minimum
standards of the TRIPS Agreement, and are arguably consistent with, if not
already well in excess of any putative ‘international norms’.

And yet, as if to justify its previously stated ambition to join the now
defunct TPP, Taiwan is forging ahead with further ‘enhancements’ to its IP
rules – some of which reflect provisions that the US pursued, but failed to
secure during the TPP negotiation. In other words, Taiwan is voluntarily
signing up to IP standards that even its would-be treaty partners refused
to accept in exchange for anticipated treaty benefits that Taiwan will
never enjoy.

Draft amendments to Taiwan’s Pharmaceutical Affairs Act (PAA) proposed by
the Ministry of Health and Welfare, ostensibly go beyond Chapter 18 of the
TPP, provide for major changes to data and market exclusivity as well as
introducing a new patent linkage mechanism:

   - Market exclusivity: Currently, under Article 40-2 of Taiwan’s of the
   PAA, products containing a new active ingredient receive 5 years of market
   exclusivity (ME) – this includes combination products containing at least
   one new active moiety. Article 40-2 therefore already meets the obligations
   of TPP Article 18.50.2(b)


   - 3 years of ME for new indications: Despite being already
   TPP-consistent, under the proposed amendments a further 2 years of data and
   3 years of market exclusivity will be added for amended or expanded
   indications, a completely unnecessary and TPP-Plus provision


   - Up to 5 years of ME for new indications supported by local trials:
   Worse still, if the originator conducts a clinical trial supporting the new
   or amended indication in Taiwan the additional period of ME is extended to
   5 years. The latter provision is not only TPP-Plus but would significantly
   exceed US domestic law as well. It is presumably destined to encourage
   clinical trials to be conducted in Taiwan; however to replicate trials for
   indications already adequately demonstrated elsewhere would be arguably
   unethical, and not necessarily informative.


   - Patent linkage to replicate the US ANDA process: Under the proposed
   amendments a new patent linkage provision will institute what is largely a
   replica of the US Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) process, albeit
   with 15-month rather than 30-month stays, and 12-months instead of 6-months
   exclusivity for the first generic successfully gaining market approval on
   the basis of ‘Para IV’ certification. This is significantly more onerous
   form of patent linkage than the admittedly complex provisions within the
   TPP, and similar to the obligations imposed under KORUS.

It is particularly disturbing to observe the ongoing drive for TRIPS-Plus
and (in this case) TPP-Plus obligations, as delaying generic market entry
can only increase to costs to Taiwan’s national health insurance program.
With a capped budget, this can only reduce value for money for the
pharmaceutical dollar, and adversely impact access to medicines.

Moreover, as the Taiwanese pharmaceutical industry consists mainly of
generics manufacturers, the patent linkage provision will not only have a
significant impact on domestic access but will also create delays in
manufacturing for export, therefore undermining export competitiveness. In
other words – bad for health, and seemingly, no better for (local) industry.

The proposed legislative amendments clearly belie any notion that Taiwan is
‘following international norms’. Taiwan is presumably being pushed by the
US and the US Chamber of Commerce, on the premise of commitments on
improved market access – commitments that may or may not be binding.

The TPP has only been narrowly averted. Although some of the more egregious
ambitions of the US were worn down by eight years of pushback from other
TPP parties, many elements of the aggressive IP agenda remained in the
endgame.

Going forward it will be critically important to recognise and exploit hard
won concessions and flexibilities retained in the final TPP text and ensure
these are (at worst) the starting point for pushing back against future
expansionist IP agendas.



More information about the Ip-health mailing list