[A2k] WHO Intellectual Property Rights report

[Soenke Zehle]

The full report is available at: http://www.who.int/intellectualproperty/en/


WHAT DOES THE REPORT SAY?

Intellectual property rights are a general incentive provided by governments
to promote innovation in all fields. In respect of public health, they are
embedded in a set of other incentives which influence the pattern of
innovation. They need to be looked at as part of a bigger picture.

In particular, because the market demand for diagnostics, vaccines and
medicines needed to address health problems mainly affecting developing
countries is small and uncertain, the incentive effect of intellectual
property rights may be limited or non-existent.

Because intellectual property rights may not be an effective incentive in
this area, there is a need for other incentives and financial mechanisms to
be put in place and for collaborative efforts between different
stakeholders.

Without access to the products of innovation, there can be no public health
benefits. Defining the conditions by which products can be accessed is
therefore an important aspect of the report.

There has been significant progress in recent years, in particular
initiatives taken by different stakeholders to promote innovation in
health-care products e.g. increased funding by foundations and the formation
of public-private partnerships for product development.

This momentum for change is welcome but is insufficient.

More needs to be done. There are unsettled and debated issues in
intellectual property for example the effectiveness of the recent amendment
to TRIPS in increasing access to medicines in countries without
manufacturing capacity, the impact of data exclusivity laws and the impact
of intellectual property provisions in bilateral trade agreements.

And there is a need to ensure enhanced financing on a sustainable basis of
innovation and access and promote synergy between the different partners.

Ultimately it is a responsibility that governments must accept if these
objectives are to be achieved.

It is appropriate that WHO should now take the lead in promoting a more
sustainable and better-funded effort and addressing unresolved issues.

WHO should accordingly develop a Global Plan of Action to secure enhanced
and sustainable funding for developing and making accessible products to
address diseases that disproportionately affect developing countries.

WAS THERE CONSENSUS ON THE REPORT?

All members of the Commission played a part to the very end in shaping this
report. Inevitably there were compromises which reflected the different
strands of opinion present in the Commission. It is no surprise, given that
members of the Commission exercise diverse responsibilities in different
fields (the pharmaceutical industry, public-private partnerships, government
departments, research institutions, regulatory authorities, and medicine),
that some would have preferred different emphases or analyses at particular
points.

Nevertheless, all the Commission accepted the report as a solid contribution
towards continued international dialogue, and progress towards the
objectives for which the Commission was established. However some
Commissioners have recorded their observations on the report and its
conclusions in an Annex to the report, and have also provided commentaries
which are available on the report page of the Commission website.

WHAT ARE THE NEXT STEPS?

The Commission, established as a time-limited body, has now finished its
work with the completion of its report.

The next steps are for the WHO's 192 Member States. First, an
intergovernmental working group of the WHO Executive Board will meet on 28
April in Geneva to discuss the report of the Commission, and an accompanying
draft resolution. Following that, the report and the draft resolution will
be presented to the World Health Assembly when it meets from 22 -29 May. The
Assembly will decide which steps WHO should then take to follow-up the
implications of the report.