[Ip-health] IP-Watch: US Advises Developing Country FTA Partners Not To Follow WHO IP Plan

Tue Dec 12 06:08:36 2006

It is interesting that the US considers IP outside the competence of the
WHO when there was never any doubt that IP was outside the competence of
GATT and the WTO.

MD

> http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/index.php?p=3D485&res=3D1024_ff&print=3D0
>
> 11/12/2006
>
> US Advises Developing Country FTA Partners Not To Follow WHO IP Plan
>
> By Tove Iren S. Gerhardsen
>
> The United States has busily negotiated bilateral free trade agreements
> with a variety of developing countries in recent years, and now appears
> to be using these to influence those countries=92 positions in
> multilateral bodies such as the World Health Organization (WHO).
>
> Developing countries that have free trade agreements (FTAs) with the
> United States received an email in the form of a =93d=E9marche=94 from th=
e US
> government before the 4-8 December meeting of the WHO Intergovernmental
> Working Group on Public Health, Innovation and Intellectual Property
> Rights. The demarche said that it had become apparent that the WHO was
> trying to go beyond its competency and address intellectual property
> rights and trade, which could have impact on the scope and effect of
> FTAs, according to a government source.
>
> This, the email said, and the proposed global framework described in
> World Health Assembly resolution WHA59.24 from May this year, could
> potentially harm the patent system. The United States was therefore
> proposing a more =93pragmatic=94 solution, as it appeared the WHO tried t=
o
> go beyond its technical expertise, the source said.
>
> The working group was mandated by the resolution, which states that it
> should come up with: =93a global strategy and plan of action in order to
> provide a medium-term framework based on the recommendations of the
> commission=94 aiming at =93inter alia, securing an enhanced and sustainab=
le
> basis for needs-driven, essential health research and development
> relevant to diseases that disproportionately affect developing
> countries.=94
>
> This refers to the WHO Commission on Intellectual Property Rights,
> Innovation and Public Health (CIPIH), which published with its
> recommendations in April.
>
> The US email also noted that these issues should be discussed at the
> World Trade Organization (WTO) and the World Intellectual Property
> Organization (WIPO), the source said.
>
> A demarche is used for direct high-level government-to-government
> communication. It is common practice for embassies to contact relevant
> countries before meetings to lay out their view and ask for support,
> and for this meeting, the United States wanted to ensure that the
> meeting would not undermine the IP regime, according to a developed
> country official.
>
> Signing a free trade agreement with the United States usually carries
> intellectual property-related terms that exceed those of international
> rules like the 11-year-old WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of
> Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).
>
> A Peruvian official told a side meeting at a WIPO meeting last week
> that the country somewhat hastily broke from its Andean region partners
> and signed a deal with the United States last year because it was on
> the verge of a presidential election. In the agreement, Peru agreed to
> terms beyond the TRIPS agreement, and once the agreement takes effect,
> it will have to check with the United States before agreeing to terms
> in multilateral negotiations at international organisations. The Peru
> agreement is expected to come before the US Congress this year for
> ratification, but may already have legal effect in Peru, he said.
>
> WHO and IP
>
> On 7 December at the WHO meeting, Brazil also talked about WHO=92s
> mandate in relation to IP, but instead of arguing that it should stay
> out if it, Brazil said that WHO should do its own work based on its
> =93own mandate from its own decision-making body,=94 with access to healt=
h
> as the main objective.
>
> Brazil said that the intergovernmental working group should avoid
> =93trying to import mandates from other United Nations agencies,=94 addin=
g
> that WHO should analyse intellectual property as it relates to health
> concerns, and =93take a health perspective on IP=94 as the objective shou=
ld
> be =93access to health.=94
>
> The Brazilian delegate said WIPO dealt with the protection of IP per
> se, and the WTO with liberalisation of trade.
>
> Brazil particularly took issue with references to counterfeiting, and
> said the CIPIH had not really dealt with this issue, which was now
> pushed at the WTO as well as WIPO.
>
> One developed country official told Intellectual Property Watch that
> the intervention of Brazil was =93bizarre,=94 and that the suggestion tha=
t
> counterfeit medicines is not a public health issue was a =93farce.=94 Als=
o,
> the source said, issues such as patent pools belong in WIPO, and had
> nothing to do with WHO.
>
> Other countries, including Canada and Norway, suggested that the plan
> and strategy of action should state that no work here will duplicate
> work in other organisations, but other countries took issue with this,
> including the United States, Australia and Japan.
>
> =93Work here should take into account work [in other organisations],=94 t=
he
> United States said, which also noted that the World Health Assembly had
> not endorsed, but welcomed the CIPIH report.
>
> ------------
> Thiru Balasubramaniam
> Geneva Representative
> CPTech
> voice +41.22.791.6727
> fax +41.22.723.2988
> mobile +41 76 508 0997
> thiru@cptech.org
> _______________________________________________
> Ip-health mailing list
> Ip-health@lists.essential.org
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/ip-health
>

Mickey Davis
_________________________________
Prof. Michael H. Davis
Professor of Law
Cleveland State Univ. College of Law
1801 Euclid Ave.
Cleveland, OH 44115-2214
(mailing address: 2121 Euclid Ave. LB 234)
216-687-2228
_____________________________________________________________
Patent Attorney Admitted to Practice Before the US Patent and Trademark
Office Reg.No. 45,863