Antony Taubman

A handbook on the WTO TRIPS agreement

1. Introduction to the TRIPS Agreement 2. Copyright and related rights 3. Trademarks 4. Geographical indications 5. Patents 6. Industrial designs, layout-designs of integrated circuits, undisclosed information, anti-competitive practices 7. Enforcement 8. Dispute prevention and settlement 9. TRIPS and public health 10. Current TRIPS issues Appendix 1. Guide to TRIPS notifications Appendix 2. Guide to TRIPS documents Annex 1. Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement) 1994 Annex 2. Provisions of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (1967) referred to in the TRIPS Agreement Annex 3. Provisions of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (1971) referred to in the TRIPS Agreement Annex 4. Provisions of the International Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organisations (The Rome Convention) (1961) referred to in the TRIPS Agreement Annex 5. Provisions of the Treaty on Intellectual Property in Respect of Integrated Circuits (1989) referred to in the TRIPS Agreement Annex 6. Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health (2001) Annex 7. Decision on Implementation of Paragraph 6 of the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health (2003) Annex 8. Decision on Amendment of the TRIPS Agreement (2005) Annex 9. Decision on Extension of the Transition Period under Article 66.1 of the TRIPS Agreement for Least-Developed Country Members for Certain Obligations with Respect to Pharmaceutical Products (2002) Annex 10. Decision on Extension of the Transition Period under Article 66.1 for Least-Developed Country Members (2005).

Policy coherence for improved medical innovation and access

Public policy-making is an increasingly complex undertaking in a globalizing world, especially as policy domains for -merly viewed in isolation become more intertwined. This complexity marks the interplay between health, intellectual property and trade policies. Can such interplay be managed so as to enhance the discovery, development and delivery of medical technologies for better health services and outcomes? This question is at the heart of a joint study on promot-ing access to medical technologies and innovation recently launched by the World Health Organization (WHO), the World Intellectual Property Orga-nization (WIPO) and the World Trade Organization (WTO).

A Typology of Intellectual Property Management for Public Health Innovation and Access: Design Considerations for Policymakers

This paper seeks to set the practical discipline of public interest intellectual property (IP) management in public health into its broader policy context. The most immediate and direct impact of IP systems on public welfare results not from international standards nor from national legislation – though these norms are fundamentally important - but rather from the accumulated impact of numerous practical choices whether or not to seek IP protection; where and where not; and how any exclusive rights are deployed, by whom, and to what end. IP management is the essentially practical exercise of limited exclusive rights over protected subject matter, the judicious use of those rights to leverage outcomes that advance an institutions or a firms objectives. Exclusive rights are used to construct and define knowledge-based relationships, to leverage access to technology and other necessary resources, and to enhance market-based incentives. IP management choices range across a broad spectrum, spanning public domain strategies, open or exclusive licensing, and strong exclusivity. The idea of ‘exclusive rights’, as a specific legal mechanism, can run counter to expectations of greater openness and accessibility, but actual outcomes will depend very much on how these mechanisms are used in practice. For public interest or public sector institutions concerned with health research and development, particularly the development of new medicines, IP management choices can be just as critical as they are for private firms, although a predominant institutional concentration on advancing direct public interest objectives may lead to significantly different approaches in weighing and exercising practical choices for IP management: even so, a private sector approach should not be conflated with exclusivity as an end in itself, nor need public interest IP management eschew all leverage over IP. This paper offers a tentative framework for a richer typology of those choices, to give a sense of practical options available and the factors that might guide their application, but without advocating any particular approach.