We are concerned about TRIPS-plus proposals concerning intellectual property enforcement. Intellectual property are “private” rights, to be enforced by the IP holder. However, we note with concern that there are a number of proposals shifting the burden of enforcement onto the government and according greater enforcement rights in favour of the IP holder at the expense of equity, rights of third parties and public interests.
[Heesob Nam] Soon after the signing of the Korea-US FTA (“KORUS”) in June 2007, South Korea experienced a dramatic increase of complaints of copyright crime from 2007. Around one hundred thousands of persons were accused of copyright infringement in a year, and juvenile’s victims occupied 24% in 2008.
[Clara Ducimetière] In 2009, C.S. Gibson was suggesting that: “With this early coverage of intellectual property in BITs, it is perhaps surprising that there has yet to be a publicly reported decision concerning an IPR-centered investment dispute. Given the trajectory of the modern economy, however, in which foreign investments reflect an increasing concentration of intellectual capital invested in knowledge goods protected by IPRs, this could soon change”. A couple of years later, the first investment cases dealing with IP issues were made public.
Former Deputy U.S. Trade Representative Mariam Sapiro has written a memo for the Pass USMCA Coalition arguing that the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) would not prevent a future Congress from shortening the period of marketing exclusivity granted to new biologic medicines in the U.S. She argues that the countries could amend the agreement if the U.S. wanted to pass a law in violation of its current obligations.
We write to express our strong opposition to provisions that limit access to medicines in the revised NAFTA agreement, also known as United States-Mexico Canada Agreement (USMCA).... The USMCA would keep drug prices out of reach for patients by increasing and locking in 10 years of marketing exclusivity for brand biologics, expanding the scope of brand biologics eligible for protection, and making it easier for brand-name drug companies to extend their monopolies through additional patents, patent extensions and other forms of patent "evergreening."
[Kenneth Shadlen, Bhaven Sampat and Amy Kapczynski] Abstract ... We draw attention to the conceptual and methodological challenges of assessing the effects of patent provisions in trade agreements on prices and access to drugs, with particular emphasis on the importance of timing. Depending on when countries began allowing drugs to be patented, TRIPS-Plus provisions have different effects; and when pharmaceutical patenting has been in place for more countries for more time, the effects of TRIPS-Plus provisions will change again.
[Rebecca Giblin] Abstract: The United States (‘US’) extended most copyright terms by 20 years in 1998, and has since exported that extension via ‘free trade’ agreements to countries including Australia and Canada. A key justification for the longer term was the claim that exclusive rights are necessary to encourage publishers to invest in making older works available — and that, unless such rights were granted, they would go underused. This study empirically tests this ‘underuse hypothesis’ by investigating the relative availability of ebooks to public libraries across Australia, New Zealand, the US and Canada.
[Jean-Frédéric Morin and Jenny Surbeck] Abstract: This article introduces a new dataset on the intellectual property (IP) provisions included in preferential trade agreements (PTAs) and makes it available for research and policy communities alike. Several PTAs include IP commitments that go well beyond the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs). A sound knowledge of these TRIPs-plus commitments is essential in order to improve our understanding of what drives them and of their legal, social, and economic consequences. Yet, until now, these provisions have not been mapped in a comprehensive and systematic way.
The Canadian government tabled Bill C-100 yesterday, the bill to implement the Canada-US-Mexico Trade Agreement.... The bill also features several provisions related to copyright term but notably does not touch the current general copyright term of life of the author plus an additional 50 years. There are several new terms included in the bill with extensions for anonymous works, performances in sound recordings, sound recordings, and cinematographic works. The bill expressly states that none of the extensions are retroactive which means that the works that are currently in the public domain will remain there even after the new terms are established.
The trade ministers from Chile, New Zealand and Singapore have announced a new set of trade negotiations at this month's APEC meeting - the Digital Economy Partnership Agreement (“DEPA”). Their statement says "The DEPA seeks to deepen and strengthen cooperation in digital areas, establish new international approaches for digital trade issues, and explore new frontiers in the digital economy, such as digital identities, e-payments, cross-border data flows and artificial intelligence."
How will the recently-concluded United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) impact access to affordable medicines? The USMCA – the renegotiated North American Free Trade Agreement (also commonly referred to as NAFTA 2.0) – incorporates many of the harmful provisions from the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), including patent provisions that were suspended by the remaining Parties following the withdrawal of the US. It goes even further than the TPP in extending the exclusivities for biologics to ten years, an unprecedented TRIPS-plus measure. Beyond the intellectual property chapter, multiple other chapters and provisions of the USMCA also have implications for access to affordable, safe and effective medicines.
[Joel Lexchin] Abstract: Biologics are currently protected from competition by eight years of data protection. The renegotiated North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) increases data protection from 8 to 10 years. This study investigates the effect of such an extension on drug spending in Canada.