Serena Nath is an IPilogue Writer and a 2L JD candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

Recently, a controversial trade deal between India and the United Kingdom (UK) was leaked.  The leaked portion pertains to the trade of intellectual property between the two countries.

UK-India Free Trade Agreement

In , India and the UK began negotiating a free trade agreement (FTA), aiming to double bilateral trade to $100 billion by 2030 via reduction or elimination of import-export tariffs between the two countries. Despite several setbacks, including but not limited to the high turnover of UK Prime Ministers, the deal seems to still be in the works.

The impugned IP portion of the proposal outlines demands by the UK to harmonize India’s patent and drug regulatory laws with those of the UK. These demands are what is mandated by  international trade rules.. seem to be aimed at tightening regulations on producing, supplying, and exporting generic medications from India. Article E.10 of the IP chapter of the leaked proposal effectively prohibits pre-grant oppositions. This means that India would not be able to stop challenges to weak or invalid patents until after the granting of the patent. Article J.11 gives power to Customs officials to block generic drugs from leaving India for developing countries if a pharmaceutical corporation was to claim that their patent infringement by India-made generic drugs. Lastly, both Articles J.5 and J.7 seek to modify how courts adjudicate IP disputes, which are likely to “.”

Implications of a Reduction in Generic Drugs

Due to these proposed modifications, many are concerned about the global supply of generic medicines because India is a dominating force for generic drug manufacturing. A decrease in the supply of generic medicines could have devastating impacts on global health, especially countries where medicine has historically been less accessible due to high costs — generic drugs are than their brand-name counterparts, while having . In fact, many studies suggest that brand name medications are not superior to generic medications.  With these potential impacts being so devastating, the medical humanitarian organization Doctors Without Borders/ Médecins Sans Frontières both the UK and India to remove these provisions from their FTA.

At the time of writing this article, FTA negotiations continue. Hopefully, criticism of these provisions will lead to their modification or, if still found to be more harmful than helpful, their removal.

The post Generic Drug Production to be Impacted by UK-India FTA?  appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Michelle Mao is an IPilogue Writer and an incoming 2L JD candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

Soon, manufacturers will be able to use NIH-licenced technologies to develop COVID-19 technologies for sale and distribution to low and middle-income countries. This is because the has finalized its its NIH-owned COVID-19 technology patents to the and the ’s (WHO) ). There will be a total of shared, including technologies supporting vaccine development, drug and diagnostic development, and prospective vaccine candidates. These technologies will be brought under a global and non-exclusive licence. Additionally, under the agreement, the NIH for products licensed in the United Nations’ .

While it may feel like the pandemic is ending in higher socioeconomic countries like the United States and Canada, vaccination levels in low-income countries are still , at around 15.9% first-dose vaccination rate. This continues the trend of COVID-19 pandemic leaving low-income countries in the face of expensive, patented COVID-19 vaccines and drugs. Allowing manufacturers to access previously patented technologies to develop their own products can dramatically decrease the cost of accessing COVID-19 technologies. A wider pool of manufacturers creating their own products to supply to lower and middle-income countries means they must compete with other manufacturers to keep the cost of products low.

During the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, scientists across the globe raced to develop life-saving medicines that could end the global crisis. Those efforts are by intellectual property laws, allowing scientists to securely make scientific advances without the worry of another competing lab “stealing” their discoveries. Now, due to a combination of a well-developed COVID-19 scientific field and the global obligations of the United States, the NIH feels ready to agree to a global non-exclusive licence for several of its patented COVID-19 technologies.

This agreement finally comes after from scholars in public health, intellectual property, and scientists about potential global inequalities that could arise in vaccine and drug development in a global pandemic. Due to the lack of economic resources for lower-income and middle-income countries for vaccine doses and a to manufacture their own COVID-19 medicines, it was predicted that lower-income countries would be hardest hit. Additionally, from the beginning of the pandemic, health-advocacy organizations have for pharmaceutical companies to share their patent knowledge so that lower-income countries can produce their own generic versions of COVID-19 drugs.

While the sharing of NIH-licensed COVID-19 technologies comes as good news for lower and middle-income countries still grappling with the pandemic, this licensing agreement may have come too little, too late. The pandemic has already swept through a majority of nations where many lives may have been saved if there was quicker and wider access to the life-saving COVID-19 vaccines that the higher income countries had first access to.

In future global crises, the problem of balancing intellectual property protections with global cooperation and socioeconomic inequality will continue. Hopefully, the COVID-19 pandemic can shed some light on how future policy considerations can be made to protect scientific innovation while minimising the sacrifice.

The post More Accessible COVID-19 Technology on the Horizon: The National Institute of Health Licenses its COVID-19 Tech Patents to the WHO and the Medicines Patent Pool appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Legal scholars, lawyers, and human rights advocates are often prone to believe that global health and human rights issues can be best addressed through law and litigation.  But do they always make a positive difference to the disadvantaged or do they sometimes augment the inequities they are intended to remedy? This is the core theme that runs as a thread through the international Global Health Law Conference that is taking place in Toronto on May 4-5, 2012.  At this conference, leading Canadian and international scholars, policy-makers, practicing lawyers and health care professionals will explore how law can address and make progressive change to global health challenges including: access to care and essential medicines for the most vulnerable; regulating medical tourism; ensuring equitable access to high quality healthcare; addressing the spread of chronic diseases and obesity; access to medicines in a global free-trade environment; and the global politics of health care.

Various intellectual property (IP) and international trade law issues which pervade some of the most burning global health challenges will be debated at the conference. One presentation will explore, for example, the difficult challenge of promoting affordable drug development to address health needs faced by developing and middle income nations under the current international patent regime. Another presenter will discuss the importance of developing a global governance regime to ensure access to reliable safety and effectiveness information. The connection between international trade agreements and human rights will come up in discussions related to pharmaceuticals, but also in the context of presentations on reproductive tourism. Other presentations will focus on tobacco control, the governance of non-communicable diseases, and the role of law in protecting vulnerable populations. James Morone of Brown University will further give a visionary plenary presentation looking at the future of health care in light of the technological changes we are facing, with the intriguing title “Creaky Policies in Nanotime: How will Health Care Systems Cope with Global Age."

The conference further features a keynote panel debate:  "Can Law Meet Global Health Challenges?  Perspectives from Medicine and Politics", with as panelists: Abdallah S. Daar, Senior Scientist, the McLaughlin-Rotman Centre for Global Health & & Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto; Theodore R. Marmor, Health Care Policy, Politics and Law Expert, Yale University; Michael Ignatieff, Senior Resident, Massey College, University of Toronto; and James Orbinski, Chair and Professor in Global Health, Dalla Lana School of Public Health; Co-Director, Global Health Diplomacy Program, Munk School of Global Affairs, University of Toronto

For Ontario lawyers, this program can be applied towards the 9 Substantive Hours of annual Continuing Professional Development (CPD) required by the Law Society of Upper Canada. The program may also be applicable towards up to 15 CPD hours for other jurisdictions within Canada and the U.S. Practitioners from these jurisdictions should confirm the applicability with their local law societies.

Trudo Lemmens is an Associate Professor in the Faculties of Law and Medicine of the University of Toronto, and a member of the Joint Centre for Bioethics and the Centre for Ethics.

The post Global Health Challenges and the Role of Law appeared first on IPOsgoode.