The North-South Divide in Pharmaceuticals: Analyzing the Role of TRIPS Agreement Within the Sphere of Public Health in Developing Countries
Keywords:
Intellectual property rights agreement (trips), intellectual property protection, doha declaration, health technologiesAbstract
This study explores the impact of the Intellectual Property Rights Agreement (TRIPS) on access to pharmaceuticals in developing countries, particularly in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. While promoting innovation and investment, the TRIPS Agreement has been criticized for creating barriers to affordable healthcare in developing countries. The study discusses the limitations of compulsory licenses and the adverse effects of TRIPS Plus provisions, which impose stricter intellectual property protection. It also explores the Doha Declaration, which recognized the flexibility of TRIPS for public health purposes. The study further examines the COVID-19 waiver proposed by South Africa and India, which sought to waive IP rights related to COVID-19 health technologies. It highlights some of the features of the COVID-19 waiver. It provides comprehensive approaches that need to be made in order to address the challenges of access to medicines and emphasizes the importance of technology transfer and data exchange. Finally, the study calls for measures to bridge the North-South divide in the pharmaceutical industry and ensure equitable access to essential medical products.
References
Worl Trade Organisation. Intellectual Property and TRIPS Agreement. [Online].
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/intel2_e.htm
Somesh Mathur. TRIPS: Issues, Impact and the Way Forward for Developing Countries Including
India. Paper presented at American Law & Economics Association Annual Meetings. 2007 Apr.
https://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=2191&context=alea
Muhammad Khalfan, Kudrat Virk. COVID-19 Vaccines: Is Equity between North and South Still
Possible?, Arab NGO Network for Development and Third World Network (2021),
https://civilsociety-centre.org/paper/covid-19-vaccines-equity-between-north-and-south-still-
possible.
Ibid.
Supra note 1.
Kenneth Shadlen. Patents and Pills, Power and Procedure: The North-South Politics of Public
Health in the WTO. 23 Int’l J Soc & Pol’y. 2003; 47. https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/1383
/WP42.pdf
Shalini Yog Shah, Gopakumar KM. (2021 Sep 6). Vaccine Monopoly, Heinrich Böll Stiftung India.
[Online]. https://in.boell.org/en/2021/09/06/vaccine-monopoly (last accessed May 5, 2023)
Kerry Vanessa Bradford, Kelley Lee. TRIPS, the Doha declaration and paragraph 6 decision: what
are the remaining steps for protecting access to medicines? Global Health. 2007; 3(1): 3.
Ibid.
Supra note 6.
Supra note 6.
Supra note 6.
Eric Chin-Ru Chang. (2023 Jan 27). The WTO Waiver on COVID-19 Vaccine Patents. [Online].
UCLA Law Review. https://www.uclalawreview.org/the-wto-waiver-on-covid-19-vaccine-patents/
Mohammed El Said. (2021). The impact of “TRIPS-Plus” rules on the use of TRIPS flexibilities:
Dealing with the implementation challenges. Springer eBooks. pp. 297–327. [Online] Available
from: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-83114-1_11#Sec6.
Supra note 13.
Supra note 8.
Supra note 8.
Supra note 13.
Supra note 13.
Mercurio Bryan. TRIPS-Plus Provisions in FTAs: Recent Trends. J Intell Prop Law Practice. 2012;
(8): 215–247.
Nandita Batra. (2022 Oct 6). Lessons from India's Implementation of Doha Declaration on TRIPS
and Public Health. [Online]. Available at https://www.southcentre.int/wp-content/uploads/2022/
/RP166_Lessons-From-Indias-Implementation-of-Doha-Declaration-on-TRIPS-and-Public-
Health_EN.pdf.
Supra note 20.
Ibid.
Ibid.
MSF. (2019 Jun). Access Campaign. Spotlight on TRIPS, TRIPS-Plus, and the Doha Declaration.
[Online]. Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) International. Available at: https://msfaccess.org/
spotlight-trips-trips-plus-and-doha
Supra Note 21.
Asok A. Compulsory licensing for public health and USA’s special 301 pressure: An Indian
experience. Journal of Intellectual Property Rights. 2019; 24: 125–131. [Online] Available from:
https://nopr.niscpr.res.in/bitstream/123456789/54321/1/JIPR%2024%285-6%29%20125-131.pdf.
Bayer Corp. v. Natco Pharma Ltd., [2010] 2 SCC 559.
The Economic Times. (2013). Rajagopal D. BDR pharmaceutical’s plea for compulsory licence on
cancer drug rejected. [Online] Available from: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/
healthcare/biotech/pharmaceuticals/bdr-pharmaceuticals-plea-for-compulsory-licence-on-cancer-
drug-rejected/articleshow/22501372.cms?from=mdr.
The Economic Times. (2016). Dandekar V. India rejects compulsory license application of Lee
Pharma against AstraZeneca’s Saxagliptin. [Online] Available from: https://economictimes.
indiatimes.com/industry/healthcare/biotech/pharmaceuticals/india-rejects-compulsory-license-
application-of-lee-pharma-against-astrazenecas-saxagliptin/articleshow/50652935.cms?from=
mdr.
Devika Agarwal, Radhika Agarwal. (2016 Apr 21). The Dismal History of Compulsory Licences
in India. [Online]. Kluwer Patent Blog. https://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2016/04/21/the-
dismal-history-of-compulsory-licences-in-india/
Supra note 6.
MSF. (2021). COVID-19 Pandemic: The Case for Compulsory Licensing and the TRIPS Waiver.
[Online]. Available at https://msfaccess.org/sites/default/files/2021-05/COVID_TechBrief_MSF_
AC_IP_CompulsoryLicensesTRIPSWaiver_ENG_21May2021_0.pd
Ibid.
Supra note 6.
Supra note 33.
Supra note 13.
Supra note 13.
Heinrich Böll Stiftung. (2021). Health expert KM Gopakumar speaks about global vaccine
monopoly and challenges facing equitable COVID-19 vaccination | India Office. Heinrich-Böll-
Stiftung. [Online] Available from: https://in.boell.org/en/2021/09/06/vaccine-monopoly.
Supra note 33.
Supra note 13.
Supra note 39.
Supra note 13.
Supra note 6.
Supra note 6.
