WCL Student Wins National Law Review Writing Contest with Paper on Pharmaceutical Patents and International IP Agreements
The National Law Review has announced that Washington College of Law LLM Student Guadalupe A. Lopez is one of its Spring 2011 Student Legal Writing Contest Winners. The introduction to her paper, "From TRIPS to ACTA: Establishing the Intent to Uphold Access to Medicine in the Face of Ambiguity," is below, and the full text is available at http://www.natlawreview.com/article/trips-to-acta-establishing-intent-to-uphold-access-to-medicine-face-ambiguity
The numbers speak for themselves. Each year, over 9.5 million people die due to infectious diseases for which there exists medication – most live in developing countries. Currently, there are over 33 million people around the world living with HIV/AIDS, 70 percent of whom are in dire need of anti-retroviral medication but not receiving it. This has been attributed, in part, to the lack of affordable healthcare in developing countries, along with the high drug prices associated with monopolies provided by pharmaceutical patents.
Studies demonstrate that there is a significant change in the price of a drug once its patent expires, allowing its generic version to be legally manufactured and introduced into a given market. The introduction of a generic drug often results in the reduction of prices anywhere between 22% and 88%, depending on the type of drug and the number of generic manufacturers producing it. In some instances, even the threat of introducing a generic drug into a market will be enough to significantly lower the price of its patented version. For this reason, it is in the best financial interest of pharmaceutical companies to acquire and maintain the highest levels of intellectual property rights (“IPR”) protection on their patents. In furtherance of that objective, pharmaceutical companies have actively engaged in campaigns, both domestically and around the world, aimed at preventing generic manufacturers from accessing global drug markets. Unfortunately, this comes at a high cost to patients who are in need of treatment and cannot afford the patented versions of these medicines. This paper will address this concern by explaining how the pursuit of high levels of IPR protection has exacerbated the inaccessibility of medication by keeping more affordable, generic drugs off the market. This has been largely possible due to a narrow application of the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement (“TRIPS Agreement”), as well as efforts to establish the highest possible levels of IPR protection, led mainly by industrialized nations.
The first section of this paper will provide an introduction to the TRIPS framework as well as a timeline of international events leading to the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health (“Doha Declaration”). This was a declaration by all members of the TRIPS Agreement reaffirming their obligation to protect public health through the use of provisions referred to as “TRIPS flexibilities.” The second section explains that despite the Doha Declaration, certain TRIPS flexibilities have been undermined through the implementation of bilateral trade agreements with developing countries, and regulations within regional trading blocs providing vigorous protection of IPRs. These trade agreements and regulations contain “TRIPS-Plus” provisions demanding higher levels of IPR protection than those required by the TRIPS Agreement itself. In essence, they have been seen as attempts to circumvent the obligations agreed to during the Doha Declaration, acknowledging that public health issues take precedent over IPRs. The third section of this paper introduces the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) recently negotiated by the world's most industrialized nations, and presents the arguments raised in opposition to the accord. Many have argued that due to the special interests behind ACTA's negotiating countries, this agreement will have a detrimental impact on developing countries, as they will be forced to adopt a framework of heightened IP standards to which they did not explicitly assent. The last section argues that despite the clear threats posed by ACTA, negotiating countries have expressed a clear intent to uphold access to medicine principles as asserted in the Doha Declaration. However, because many of the ACTA negotiations have been held behind closed doors, there is no record that reflects this intent outside of the public statements made by country representatives. The section proposes creating an unofficial drafting history for ACTA based on amendments made to various drafts of the text as well as public statements released by the parties. This drafting history will provide assistance when interpreting any ambiguity within ACTA that may be used to impede access to medicine or undermine any of the obligations made under the Doha Declaration.