[Ip-health] EC offers its own USA like resolution on IPR, as amendment to Brazil, et al, resolution

[James Love]

This is (see below) the draft amendments that the European Commission is
asking for in the Brazil resolution on IPR, innovation and public health.
It is somewhat of a throwback to the earlier 1998 pre-revised drug
strategy position on public health and IPR by the Commission, illustrating
how much both the US and the EC are returning to traditional positions.

In reading this, I would ask the Commissionn who prepared it, and ask them
if they have ever heard of

(1) Controveries over cope of patents in biotechnology and medicines, (2)
Widely lauded efforts to prevent the Human Genome from being patented, (3)
Problems with "follow-on" inventions.
(4) The European Biotechnology Directive, which provides for mandatory
complusory licensing to protect follow-on innovations,
(5)  The existance of the NIH or the Welcome Trust, and any appreciation
for public and donor funded research in the development of new drugs for
diseases that affect even rich Europeans,
(6) Paragraph 4 of the Doha Declaration (which they try to rewrite below
in the EC proposal for paragraph 7 of Brazil resolution,
(7) Concerns even by applicants for patents on SARS virus that such
patents can impede research,
(8) Amendment 196 in the European Parliament, on exports, which takes a
much better approach than the USA moratoria the EC seeks to endorse.

I note also how developing countries are getting stuck wtih the December
16 Motta text with all of its well known flaws (see end of EC proposal).

       Jamie

-------------

EC comments on the Draft resolution by Brazil on IPRs, innovation and
public health


Paragraph 1 ("Noting that =85") should be better balanced, and therefore
replaced by the following two paragraphs :

"Recognising the importance of intellectual property rights in fostering
research and development in innovative medicines and the important role
played by intellectual property with regard to the development of
essential medicines".

"Insisting on the need to ensure that intellectual property contributes to
genuine innovation with real therapeutic advantage".

2nd paragraph : Please check the source. If not reliable: to be deleted.

4th paragraph ("Concerned about=85"). It should be replaced by:

"Concerned about the insufficient research and development in so-called
neglected or poverty related diseases, and encouraging governments and
companies to take the necessary measures to promote research into poverty
related diseases, notably through increased funding and public-private
partnerships with the participation of developing countries"

6th paragraph ("Reaffirming that=85") : It should be modified so as to read
" =85 (TRIPs) can and should be interpreted =85" (and not "should and must"=
).

7th paragraph ("Noting that =85") should be redrafted: "Noting that the
TRIPs Agreement is sufficiently flexible and contains safeguards which
allow Members to take measures to protect public health and allow for a
mutually supportive implementation of intellectual property and public
health policies".

8th paragraph :  The part of the sentence coming after "=85(SARS, =85)",
should be replaced by the following : "=85and that intellectual property
protection can be an important tool to encourage research into new
medicines with potential therapeutic effect, while taking into account
that measures may have to be taken to ensure that such medicines are
universally available without discrimination".


Paragraphs under "URGES =85"

(1) : to be replaced by : " to reaffirm that public health policies and
trade policies should be mutually supportive and in particular that trade
policies should take due account of public health concerns".

(2) "to seek, where appropriate, to adopt the necessary measures,
administrative, judicial or legislative, to make use of the safeguards and
flexibilities confirmed in the Doha Declaration on the TRIPs Agreement and
Public health, including a solution to the problem identified under
paragraph 6 of the Doha Declaration on the TRIPs Agreement and Public
health, once agreed, or, in the meantime, on the basis of the moratoria
declared by certain WTO Members".

(3) insert the underlined into the sentence : "=85 within WTO and before th=
e
Cancun Ministerial, a consensus solution for paragraph 6  =85"


Paragraphs : under "REQUESTS =85"

(1) No real need to add language on tech transfer. It should be reminded
that the draft compromise of 16 December 2002 (Perez Motta text) already
provides that "Members recognise the desirability of promoting the
transfer of technology and capacity building in the pharmaceutical sector
in order to overcome the problem identified in paragraph 6 of the
Declaration.  To this end, eligible importing Members and exporting
Members are encouraged to use the system set out in this Decision in a way
which would promote this objective.  Members undertake to cooperate in
paying special attention to the transfer of technology and capacity
building in the pharmaceutical sector in the work to be undertaken
pursuant to Article 66.2 of the TRIPS Agreement, paragraph 7 of the
Declaration and any other relevant work of the Council for TRIPS".

(2) Support would depend on the terms of reference.




--
James Love
http://www.cptech.org mailto:james.love@cptech.org
mobile +1.202.361.3040