Balancing Patent Rights and Societal Interests: Interpreting Articles 20, 7, and 8 in Light of TRIPS

The rationale for the exception will vary with purpose for which it is granted. However, in the previous article 30, it has already been explained that these justifying reasons come from numerous sources such as Articles 7 and 8(1), the Doha Declaration and GATT 1994 and TRIPS opening declarations.

Just like Article 20 does not give clear criteria on justifiable reasons, Article 30 will neither specify clear indications of what kinds of grounds would qualify as sufficient justification of conflicts with normal exploitation of a patent nor which would prejudice the interests of its legitimate interests. Article 8(1) and the wider TRIPS framework will be needed to identify such justification explanations.

Therefore, public health, nutrition, and policies essential to socioeconomic and technological advancement are all considered legitimate reasons under Article 30. The legitimacy of developmental aims is heightened by the references to socioeconomic and sustainable development in Article 8(1), TRIPS’ explicit mention of development, and the inclusion of sustainable growth in the preamble of GATT 1994 SDG 3, which strives to ensure universal access to critical medications, aligning development and public health goals, which strongly urges exceptions. Moreover, these sources help to clarify the legitimate interests of relevant third parties and who satisfies that requirement.

Australia and the Panel did not attempt to outline any specific criteria in determining ‘sufficient support.’ They did however agree that a logical relationship alone is not sufficient; the measure does not necessarily have to be absolutely required.

Patent Law
[Image Sources: Shutterstock]

The process of balancing effectively amounts to a decision as to whether the policy rationales of creating a patent exception discussed under aspect (2) outweigh or at least equalise the level of conflict between the patent’s usual exploitation and the damage caused to the patent owner’s legitimate interests-discussed under aspect (1). This balancing act is best captured in the Panel’s finding that reducing tobacco consumption for public health purposes is an important objective. They argued that the measures, though having a significant effect on trademark use, would significantly contribute to this end. This indicates that even though the measures may have significant impacts, the benefits of imposing patent exclusions toward sound objectives of public health empirically foreseen to or substantially advance toward those objectives outweigh both the controversy and prejudice established.

This construction of Article 30 promotes balanced review as weighing and balancing competing interests, expanding the range of permitted exceptions. While the Australia-TPP precedents increase state confidence to enact exceptions for very important public policy objectives, the details of patent exception implementation are still undefined. Sophisticated strategy suitable to each state, their level of development, and the goals of the public interest have to be taken into consideration. This article suggests the addition of a future stockpiling exception to preparation for pandemics and epidemics with a view to more easily attain SDG 3, in an attempt to encourage countries to explore further exceptions .

CONCLUSION

This article tries to interpret Article 30 so that developing countries are more confident about their capacity to provide patent exceptions that will suit best their development goals, particularly in public health and medicine access which aligns with SDG 3. The above-stated reading of this article is based on a number of WTO legal sources including as the Doha Declaration, the Australia-TPP (Nos. 1 and No. 2), and the VCLT all confirming the critical significance of Articles 7 and 8 in interpretation of the voluminous language in Article 30. To secure an accord that will best suit the welfare of patent holders and the public interest—particularly in terms of mollifying negative impacts of patents within the developing nations—the paper suggests interpreting Article 30 with the term “unreasonably” as its core.

This approach, based on a weighing and balancing test, broadens the spectrum of acceptable waivers that are oriented towards critical public interest objectives. Further, Australia-TPP testifies that interests that are articulated in Articles 7 and 8 are true public interests that are entitled for authorization of policies having an impact on intellectual property rights. These include, inter alia, health, nutrition, as well as interests that are important to social and technical development of a country. Additional, the background of Article 30, which carries with it the preambles to TRIPS and GATT 1994 both of which refer to recognition of sustainability and long term development, might be used in infer lawful society interests. It is not debatable that application of exemptions affecting patent rights towards these objectives is justified because public health, development, and sustainable development represent core values for the World Trade Organisation.

Most certainly, the exceptions under the guise of SDG 3 are perfectly acceptable in the light of the fact that it is in consonance with the goals and objectives that the nations should do to achieve universal access to essential medicines pertaining to public health and development as stipulated in SDG 3. In this context, the paper argues for a stockpiling exception for pandemic and epidemic preparation aimed at making essential patented drugs available to impoverished nations to fulfill SDG 3. The hope is that developing nations will incorporate more significant exceptions into their national legislation. According to that, poor countries should feel more confident about the use of patent exceptions as a significant instrument of adjusting laws on intellectual property, and, thereby, reduce negative repercussions on social development and access to necessary medications.

Author: Sufian Ahmed, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to chhavi@khuranaandkhurana.com or at  Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney.

REFERENCES

  1. Christophe Geiger and Luc Desaunettes-Barbero, ‘The Revitalisation of the Object and Purpose of the TRIPS Agreement: The Plain Packaging Reports and the Awakening of the TRIPS Flexibility Clauses’ (Research Paper 2020-01, Centre for International Intellectual Property Studies, 2020) 38.
  2. Andrew Mitchell and Theodore Samlidis, ‘The WTO Tobacco Plain Packaging Disputes: A Prelude to Public Health Measures in International Economic Law’ [2021] ICLQ 1, p 13.

Leave a Reply

Categories

Archives

  • December 2024
  • November 2024
  • October 2024
  • September 2024
  • August 2024
  • July 2024
  • June 2024
  • May 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010