On September 14, 2016, the United Nations Secretary-General’s High-Level Panel on Access to Medicines released its report, in which they had a mandate to “review and assess proposals and recommend solutions for remedying the policy incoherence between the justifiable rights of inventors, international human rights law, trade rules and public health in the context of health technologies.”[1]
On 30 June 2016, the 24th session of the WIPO Standing Committee on the Law of Patents (SCP) agreed to an ambitious work program on patents and health, exceptions and limitations to patent rights, quality of patents, transfer of technology and confidentiality of communications between clients and their patent advisors.
On patents and health, the Committee agreed to the following:
*(The author thanks Mirza Alas and Alexandre Gajardo for their notes of the 2nd round of informal consultations held on 22 June 2016 and Sophia Simon for transcribing the statements delegations made during the plenary discussions held on 1 July 2016.)
30 June 2016
By Sophia Simon
The World Intellectual Property Organization’s (WIPO) Standing Committee on the Law of Patents (SCP) plays a significant role as the United Nation’s only dedicated, multilateral forum for the discussion on patents. The WIPO SCP convened for its 24th session in Geneva from 27 June 2016 to 30 June 2016.
On Wednesday morning, 29 June 2016, Nigeria, on behalf of the African Group, presented a revised proposal (SCP/24/4) for a WIPO work program on Patents and Health at the Standing Committee on the Law of Patents (SCP). The African Group proposal is a welcome breath of fresh air in the patent committee; the proposal aims to make WIPO more responsive to recent developments including: 1) “Challenges to public health …. Continue Reading
SCP24
27 June 2016
KEI statement on exceptions and limitations to patent rights
In relation to limitations and exceptions, we recall Brazil’s prescient submission, document SCP/14/7 (tabled in January 2010) which called attention to the lack of policy coherence in a world where in certain international fora, countries endorse the use of compulsory licensing to promote access to medicines for all, and in separate fora, criticize developing countries for actually considering or issuing such compulsory licenses.
At the 32nd session (13 June 2016 – 1 July 2016) of the Human Rights Council, a bloc of countries known as the the Core Group (Brazil, Egypt, Indonesia, India, Senegal, South Africa and Thailand) have tabled a resolution on access to medicines “premised on the primacy of human rights over international trade, investment and intellectual property regimes.” The draft resolution complements the work of the United Nations High-Level Panel on Access to Medicines in reviewing and assessing “proposals and recommend solutions for remedying the policy incoherence between the justifiable rights of inven Continue Reading
More on this dispute at /colombia
In response to the recent announcement from Colombia’s Ministry of Health that a public interest declaration regarding imatinib will be issued in a matter of days, Novartis issued a statement that criticized the forthcoming action, saying, “We have consistently said that Declarations of Public Interest can be important and legitimate tools to be used only in exceptional circumstances,” and saying “this is simply not the case in Colombia.” Continue Reading
*The author thanks Professor Marc Perlman (Brown University) for his comprehensive notes on the IGC deliberations of 3 June 2016.
For more information, contact:
(U.S.) Andrew Goldman, KEI: andrew.goldman@keionline.org or +1 (202) 332-2670
(Colombia) Andrea Carolina Reyes Rojas, Misión Salud: subdireccion@mision-salud.org
(Colombia) Dr. Francisco Rossi, IFARMA: francisco_rossi@hotmail.com
(More on Colombia here: /colombia)