[Ip-health] Infojustice Roundup - October 19, 2015

Michael Palmedo mpalmedo at wcl.american.edu
Mon Oct 19 13:01:51 PDT 2015


Infojustice Roundup



[snip]



US Stands in the Way of LDCs' Pharmaceutical Transition Period



[Sangeeta-Shashikant] As the World Trade Organization's intellectual property body begins its session today, there is emerging consensus among the organization's members that the poorest nations in the world, the least developed countries (LDCs), should not have to apply or enforce pharmaceutical product patents or to implement 'mailbox' or exclusive marketing rights for as long as they remain LDCs.The WTO Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement (TRIPS) Council is meeting in Geneva on 15-16 October. However, whether or not these vulnerable nations will clinch their desired demands very much depends on the United States, which remains opposed to LDCs' requests. Click here for more.<http://infojustice.org/archives/35171>



See also:

-          Letter from U.S. NGOs to President Obama Expressing Deep Concerns Over U.S. Offer. Link<http://keionline.org/sites/default/files/NGOletter2Obama-LDC-patent-waiver-19October2015.pdf>.

-          William New for IP Watch. WTO IP Committee Suspended Over LDC Extension. Link<http://www.ip-watch.org/2015/10/17/wto-ip-committee-suspended-over-ldc-extension/>.



[snip]



Challenging the Use of the US Special 301 Procedures against Developing Country Access to Medicines Policies - Indian Pharmaceutical Patents and the WTO



[Suzanne Zhou] In April 2014, the United States Trade Representative (USTR) listed India on its Special 301 Priority Watch List, following India's refusal to grant a patent over the leukemia drug Gleevec and its compulsory licensing of the cancer drug Nexavar. USTR also undertook an out-of-cycle review of India's intellectual property laws, to determine whether or not to upgrade India to the more serious Priority Foreign Country status, which would potentially trigger retaliation through withdrawal of GSP benefits. In response, India threatened to take the United States to the World Trade Organization's Dispute Settlement Body over Special 301. This article examines whether such a case would succeed, taking three lines of inquiry. Click here for more.<http://infojustice.org/archives/35181/>



National IPR Policy Series: Quick Observations on the Leaked Draft of the National IPR Policy



Earlier this week, the "Don't Trade Our Lives Away" blog leaked the supposed final draft of India's National IPR Policy ("leaked draft"). This article presents quick comments on this leaked draft... Perhaps one of the strongest criticisms of the First Draft had been that it supposed a nexus between IP and innovation, and various stakeholders had been quick to point this out as problematic, and fallacious. Unfortunately, since the language of the new draft has barely changed (I have managed to count only two-three additions), this remains the underlying issue in the new draft as well. What continues to be worrying in both drafts is sweeping references of benefits of IP to India's socio-economic development. What constitutes this development and how IPR, and specifically the IPR Policy will achieve it is anyone's guess, given that there are no references to studies undertaken to assess how IPR contributes to socio-economic development, specifically in India. Click here for more.<http://infojustice.org/archives/35192>



[snip]





More information about the Ip-health mailing list