[Ip-health] Public Health Reps on 2 trade committees

[Flynn, Sean M.]

	By ershaffer@gmail.com

The dawn of public health accountability in U.S. trade policy has shown its
first rays of light.  As of last week, two outstanding health advocates have
been officially appointed to the U.S. Trade Representative's trade advisory
committees.  Our job now is to win public health's lawsuit for
meaningful representation on the remaining committees where 42 industry reps
from pharma, tobacco and for-profit health care still predominate, and to
press the U.S. Trade Representative to follow through on promises to appoint
more public health reps to two committees on prescription drugs.

Most importantly, we need to support our new reps, and keep up with any
reports they are permitted to present from the confidential advisory
committee meetings.  Drop me a note if you'd like to become active on this
project.

Congratulations to Eric Lindblom of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, now
a member of the Tobacco, Cotton, Peanuts and Planting Seeds Agricultural
Advisory Committee, and to Shawn Brown of the Generic Pharmaceutical
Association, appointed to Industry Trade Advisory Committee #3 on Chemicals,
Pharmaceuticals, Health/Science Products and Services.  ITAC #3 is scheduled
to meet on April 17.

The USTR has received many qualified applications in response to their Dec.
16, 2005, solicitation in the Federal Register seeking public health reps on
ITACs #3 and on #15, on Intellectual Property Rights, but so far has
appointed none. (Shawn's appointment was in the works prior to this
solicitation.)  A lawsuit seeking health reps on 6 additional committees is
working its way through the courts.  Plaintiffs are the Center for Policy
Analysis on Trade and Health (CPATH), California Public Health
Association-North, American Nurses Association, Physicians for Social
Responsibility, and the Chinese Progressive Association; Earthjustice acts
as legal counsel.

-----Original Message-----
From: ip-health-admin@lists.essential.org
[mailto:ip-health-admin@lists.essential.org]On Behalf Of
ip-health-request@lists.essential.org
Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006 12:00 PM
To: ip-health@lists.essential.org
Subject: Ip-health digest, Vol 1 #2004 - 2 msgs


Send Ip-health mailing list submissions to
	ip-health@lists.essential.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/ip-health
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	ip-health-request@lists.essential.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	ip-health-admin@lists.essential.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Ip-health digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. India, Brazil, Peru Push for Text-Based Talks on Patent Disclosure (Stephanie Weinberg)
   2. CPTech Brown Bag Seminar: Owen Barder on R&D Funding  (4/5) (Joy Spencer)

--__--__--

Message: 1
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 14:45:19 -0500
From: "Stephanie Weinberg" <SWeinberg@OxfamAmerica.org>
To: <ip-health@lists.essential.org>
Subject: [Ip-health] India, Brazil, Peru Push for Text-Based Talks on Patent Disclosure

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
The following article is from the news service Inside US Trade. For
internal use - please do not post on web sites.



INDIA, BRAZIL, PERU PUSH FOR TEXT-BASED TALKS ON PATENT DISCLOSURE

_______________________________________________

Inside US Trade - March 17, 2006



In the face of U.S. and European Union opposition, India, Brazil and
Peru this week called for text-based negotiations to begin by the end of
April on an amendment to rules on intellectual property rights in the
World Trade Organization that would require patent applicants to
disclose the source of genetic materials such as plant life and
traditional knowledge before they could receive a patent.



The concerted push by a group of WTO members that also includes Norway
comes amid speculation that an amendment on patent disclosure will be
necessary to get India to sign off on an overall Doha agreement. Geneva
sources said India has repeatedly reminded other WTO members of the
importance of this issue and has identified it as one of the few
offensive issues or gains that India could accomplish in the Doha talks.



This has worried U.S. groups representing biotech companies, including
pharmaceutical makers, which have lobbied the U.S. government to oppose
an amendment on patent disclosure. These groups have also tried to
convince India and other developing countries to back away from their
patent disclosure demands.



For example, this week the Biotechnology Industry Organization and the
American BioIndustry Alliance sponsored a program in Geneva designed to
support their arguments that making patent disclosure mandatory to
promote the sharing of benefits from patents based on traditional
knowledge and genetic material would not help developing countries.



India, Brazil and Peru said their demand for text-based negotiations is
based on language in the Hong Kong ministerial declaration that says the
General Council "shall review progress and take any appropriate action
no later than 31 July 2006." After years of work at the Trade-Related
Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Council and informal
talks led by the WTO Director General, India said it was inconceivable
that there should be no appropriate action in the coming months.



These countries also complained of large economic losses arising from
what they charged was biopiracy, according to a Geneva source. At the
same time, they acknowledged that some patents based on genetic
resources and traditional knowledge in their countries are legitimate.



However, the U.S., backed by Australia, said work on a text in April
would be premature because of the large difference that remain among
members.



Specifically, the U.S. argued that patent disclosure should not be
required. Instead, it said members should agree to use a system in which
contracts would be signed that give companies permission to research
genetic materials and commit them to sharing the benefits of any patents
developed from those materials.



The U.S. got some unexpected support from this position from Argentina
at March 15 consultations led by Deputy Director General Rufus Yerxa,
according to a Geneva source. This is the first time Argentina has come
down on the U.S. side on this issue, and it was not immediately clear
why it had taken this position.



Japan also supports the U.S. idea of using contracts as a system of
sharing benefits from patents derived from genetic material and
traditional knowledge.



But India argues that this system is insufficient, and in the March 15
TRIPS Council meeting said a compulsory disclosure requirement would
decrease the chances of someone being granted a "bad" patent that is not
actually based on a new invention. It offered the example of a patent
granted in the U.S. on turmeric spice that was said to cure stomach
ailments. The patent was granted to a group of Indian expatriates, but
was revoked after a challenge by the Indian government, which argued
that the existing knowledge behind the patent was ancient and should not
have been patented.



The U.S. argued that in the turmeric case, the patent applicants had
been required to disclose the "prior art" of the patent, but that the
patent was nonetheless granted. As a result, it argued a compulsory
disclosure requirement would not ensure that bad patents are not
granted. It also noted that in this case, the patent was revoked after
what the U.S. said was a quick and inexpensive challenge.



India, however, said these challenges are not inexpensive to developing
countries, and argued that a compulsory disclosure requirement would
lower the chance of bad patenting.



The EU joined the U.S. in arguing against a TRIPS amendment on patent
disclosure, but said it would favor a disclosure procedure that would
not jeopardize a patent from being granted. U.S. groups are worried that
the EU ultimately may support an amendment to TRIPS to further its goal
of amending TRIPS to require protections for wines and spirits with
geographic names or indications (GIs).



In a Feb. 7 letter to Alan Oxley, chairman of the Australian APEC Study
Centre, EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson did not rule out EU
support for a TRIPS amendment on patent disclosure, although he also did
not offer such support. "Developing countries have raised legitimate
concerns for some time now with regard to the misappropriation of their
genetic resources," Mandelson wrote. He noted that in 2002, the EU
agreed to discuss the possible introduction of a disclosure requirement
in the patent system to keep track at a global level of all patent
applications with regard to genetic resources for which countries have
been granted access.



One private sector source said that the EU has a biotech community that
opposes patent disclosure, but said it is more important for the EU to
get stronger protections for GIs that to guard against rules on patent
disclosure.



Separately, the EU also called for the TRIPS Council to take a closer
look at border measures that could curb piracy at the next meeting of
the Council in June. The EU said this should be the first step in a
process in which the TRIPS Council would assess how multilateral
anti-counterfeiting and piracy rules are being implemented by the WTO's
members and that the Council should try to start a dialogue aimed at
finding solutions to implementing difficulties.



The EU effort met immediate resistance, however, from China, India and
other developing countries, who said the EU would have to ask for this
subject to be addressed in writing before every TRIPS Council meeting.
These countries said the TRIPS Council is not the appropriate forum for
discussing these issues, and that monitoring enforcement and the
development of codes of good practice would exceed the Council's
mandate, according to a Geneva source.






--__--__--

Message: 2
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 16:18:06 -0500
From: Joy Spencer <joy.spencer@cptech.org>
To: ip-health@lists.essential.org
Cc: Joy Spencer <joy.spencer@cptech.org>
Subject: [Ip-health] CPTech Brown Bag Seminar: Owen Barder on R&D Funding  (4/5)

The Consumer Project on Technology (CPTech) is hosting a brown bag
seminar by Owen Barder on "R&D Funding-Competition, Patents, Prizes and
Markets".

Date:     Wednesday, April 5, 2006
Time:    12:30pm-2:00pm
Venue:  1621 Connecticut Avenue Suite 500, Washington, DC 20009

Owen Barder is a Senior Program Associate at the Center for Global
Development.  He is well known for his work on vaccine development, and
his advocacy, with Professor Michael Kramer and others, of Advanced
Purchase Commitments to provide incentives for development of medicines
for diseases that primarily afflict persons living in poverty.

His talk will address the broader issue of how to structure incentives
for new medicines, that are consistent with priority setting and access.

This will be one of several workshops CPTech will host on R&D issues.

If you would like to join us please RSVP your name, title, organization
and contact details to: joy.spencer@cptech.org or 202.332.2670 (t)





--__--__--

_______________________________________________
Ip-health mailing list
Ip-health@lists.essential.org
http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/ip-health


End of Ip-health Digest