Transcript Document
TRIPS-Plus Provisions in EU FTAs
Impact on Public Health and
Access to Medicines
Mohammed El Said (UCLAN)
IP and Access to Medicines
UNDP, Kiev 22-23 June 2010
Overview
EU
and IP protection
EU and bilateral trade agreements
Some TRIPS-Plus provisions under EU
bilateral trade agreements
EU and IP
Major producer + comparative advantage
Main player during the Uruguay Round
Industry influence
Pharmaceutical companies spent US $759
million to influence 1,400 congressional bills
between 1998 and 2004; the pharmaceutical
industry ranks top in terms of lobbying
money and the number of lobbyists
employed (3,000).
Stiglitz 2006
Internal and external policies
EU and Bilateral Agreements
Creator
of TRIPS-Plus = The Barcelona
Process in mid 1990s
Understanding TRIPS-Plus.
TRIPS-Plus emerge under 3 types of EU
bilateral agreements:
• EU-Association Agreements (AAs)
• EFTA Agreements
• EU-Free Trade Agreements (FTAs)
Some TRIPS-Plus provisions related to
public health and access to medicines
1- Transition periods
2- Extending patent term
3- Data exclusivity
4- Parallel Importation
5- Compulsory Licensing and government use
6- Patentability of new use
7- Patentability criteria
8- Accession to TRIPS-Plus agreements
9- Exceptions and exemptions
10- Terminology issues
1- Transition Periods
- TRIPS awards transitional periods
- FTAs may restrict this by applying these
standards in advance. e.g EU-Jordan AA
- Implications
1- Prevents countries from preparing
2- Facilitates entry of patented drugs earlier
3- High royalties
2- Extension of patent protection
term
TRIPS awards 20 years patent protection from
the date of filing. (Art 33)
FTAs require a country to make available an
extension of the patent term to compensate the
patent owner for unreasonable curtailment of the
patent term. e.g FTAs with Columbia and Peru
Implications
1- Extending patent the term monopoly
2- Impact on prices and generics
3- Pressure on patent offices
Patent term extension- Impact
A Korean study concluded that the extension of patent
term is likely to cost the Korean National Health
Insurance Corporation what amounts to US $529m for
extending drug patents for 3 yrs and US $757m if it has
to agree to a 4 yr extension as proposed under the FTA
negotiations with the United States. Hankyore (2006)
If provisions in US-AUS FTA delayed by 24 months entry
of generics of only top 5 PBS drugs (Aus
Reimbursement Scheme), expenditure will increase by
1.5$ billion between 2006-09.
Aus Institute
3- Data Exclusivity Requirements
Separate form of protection from patents
TRIPS awards countries considerable policy
space
TRIPS-Plus introduces this protection form. e.g
EFTA-Lebanon provides data protection for least
6 years for pharmaceutical products
Implications
1- Prolonging patent protection term
2- Delaying generic drugs entry into markets
3- Higher prices of medicines
Data Exclusivity- Empirical
evidence
The average price of generic drugs can fall by as much as 30% of the
innovator drug price when the number of generic versions of the
drug on the market increases
(WHO)
- In Jordan, Data exclusivity, independently prevented generic
competition for 79% of medicines launched by 21 multinational
pharmaceuticals since 2001.
- Additional expenditures for medicines with no generic competitor, as
a result of enforcement of data exclusivity, were between $6.3m and
$22.04m
Oxfam (2007)
- 8 years of data exclusivity in Canada would have added 600$m to
drug costs alone in the last 5 years. TWN (2008)
- CAFTA’s Data Exclusivity rules are limiting access to some generic
drugs in Guatemala.
(Shaffer and Brenner, 2009)
4- Parallel Importation
Under TRIPS, Countries have discretion to
choose the regime (Art 6).
Reiterated under Doha Declaration: leave each
Member free to establish its own regime for such
exhaustion
FTAs are imposing restrictions.
Implications
1- preventing countries from benefiting from the
variation in pharmaceutical prices
2- strengthens monopolistic position of companies
3- higher prices of medicines
Restricting parallel importationImpact
Parallel importation reduced the price of first-line
anti-retroviral medicines to one-third of the price
of the patented version in Kenya.
Oxfam (2006)
Glivec, an anti–blood-cancer drug, and Norvasc,
a hypertension drug –which patent was expired
in 2007-. While both drugs were cheaply
available in their generic form in India, the drugs
were being sold in their patented form in the
Philippines with a 90% increase in the price on
the Indian market.
Oxfam (2006)
5- Restricting Compulsory
Licensing and Government Use
TRIPS
(Art 31) and the Doha Declaration
reiterates members rights
FTAs may impose restrictions.
- Implications
1- Market monopoly
2- Negative impact on competition
3- Diminish flexibilities and options
Compulsory Licensing- impact
studies
Malaysia became the first country in Asia to issue a
“government use” licence for the importation of generic
ARVs in 2003. This reducing the average cost of the
Malaysian’s MoH treatment per patient per month from
US $315 to US $58, an 81% reduction.
Khor
If the US-Thailand signed the proposed FTA, compulsory
licensing that could have reduced the cost of second-line
ARVs by 90% in Thailand would be severely restricted.
The WB concludes that issuing compulsory licences for
second-line ARVs would represent a saving of US $3.2
billion for the Thai national health budget over 20 years.
WB
Ecuador latest country to issue one for ARVS in 2010.
The License immediately reduced cost of drug by 27%
6- Patentability of New Use
TRIPS sets the guidelines for granting patents, it
contains no obligation to award protection to
new use.
Increasingly, FTAs are awarding protection to
new use, e.g Art 15.9 of US-Oman FTA states:
Each party confirms that it shall make patents
available for any new uses for, or new methods
of using, a known product, including new uses
and new methods for the treatment of particular
medical conditions.
New Use - Implications
According
to a 2005 survey in France, it
found that 68% of the 3096 new products
approved in France between 1981 and
2004 brought “nothing new” in
comparison to previous preparations.
Prescrire (2005)
Implications
1- prolong monopoly and patent term
2- impacting innovation
7- Defining Patentability Criteria
Art 27.1 TRIPS protects inventions as long as
they are new, involve an inventive step and are
capable of industrial application.
Some FTAs define these. e.g US-Morocco
states:
Each Party shall provide that a claimed
invention is industrially applicable if it has a
specific, substantial, and credible utility.
Implications:
1- Restricting policy space
2- Imposing standards which may not be suitable
8- Accession to TRIPS-Plus
Agreements
TRIPS reference to IP agreements
No requirements to join any other agreement
outside TRIPS
EU-FTAs, e.g EFTA-Morocco, Annex V:
•
•
•
•
•
PCT
Nice
Budapest
UPOV
Rome
Other agreements such as the WIPO Treaties
Assessment of the impact first is necessary
9- Exceptions and Exemptions
Early working exemption
Exceptions from patentability, e.g Art 27.3 of
TRIPS gives countries the option to exclude:
• Diagnostic, therapeutic and surgical methods for the
treatment of humans or animals;
• plants and animals other than micro-organisms, and
essentially biological processes for the production of plants
or animals other than non-biological and microbiological
processes.
FTAs may forfeit this
10- Phraseology/terminology
Aim
for clarity, avoid use of vague
terminologies under FTAs, such as
Provision of intellectual property protection
in accordance with the “highest
international standards” in a “fair and
equitable” and ''effective'‘ manner.
Assessment too soon?
According
to WHO predictions, the full
impact of medicine price rises will not be
felt until about 15 years after the FTA
begins…
WHO
Conclusions/recommendations
Assessment
of impact
Collaborative effort
Negotiation teams
Strengths and weaknesses
Checks and balances
Thank you
Mohammed El Said
[email protected]