Effects of Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights on the research and development expenditure of Indian pharmaceutical industry

2014 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 89-94
Author(s):  
Tannista Banerjee ◽  
Arnab Nayak
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Pharmaceutical Industry ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Research And Development ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Development Expenditure ◽  
Indian Pharmaceutical Industry

scholarly journals The TRIPS Agreement and the Pharmaceutical Industry in India

2019 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 95-113
Author(s):  
Atsuko Kamiike
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Pharmaceutical Industry ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Value Chain ◽  
Pharmaceutical Product ◽  
Trips Agreement ◽  
Pharmaceutical Firms ◽  
Technology Transfers ◽  
Indian Pharmaceutical Industry

The World Trade Organization’s (WTO’s) Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement) calls for the harmonization of intellectual property rights (IPRs) regulations across all WTO member countries. The TRIPS Agreement requires all WTO member countries to adopt and enforce minimum standards of intellectual property. It was assumed that the introduction of pharmaceutical product patents would hamper the Indian pharmaceutical industry’s growth. Contrary to expectations, however, the Indian pharmaceutical industry has been growing in the post-TRIPS period. The TRIPS Agreement changed the research and development (R&D) orientation of Indian pharmaceutical companies, which have increased their R&D investments. Since the TRIPS Agreement was signed, the pharmaceutical global value chain (GVC) has been re-structured and has now expanded to emerging countries like India. Indian pharmaceutical firms have thus been participating in the pharmaceutical GVC in the post-TRIPS period. This participation is conducive to technological upgrading and technology transfers. While operating in the GVC, Indian pharmaceutical firms are upgrading by adopting state-of-the-art technologies. This study explores how the TRIPS Agreement is influencing the Indian pharmaceutical industry and discusses the industry’s growth factors in the post-TRIPS period within the GVC framework. JEL: L21, L24, L26, L65

A Structurationist Analysis of Differing Policies Oriented to the Pharmaceutical Industry

2014 ◽  
pp. 291-312
Author(s):  
Yaşar Serhat Yaşgül
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Pharmaceutical Industry ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Global Governance ◽  
Active Participation ◽  
Governance Processes

This chapter has two purposes closely related to each other. The first one is to analyze why countries that have similar characteristics and benefits to each other develop different strategies in terms of rules that regulate the intellectual property rights in the pharmaceutical industry. The second one is to analyze the factors that determine active participation in global governance processes with regards to the intellectual property rights of countries that are developing, specifically in the pharmaceutical industry. The study used the structurationist approach developed by John M. Hobson, and findings were tested by comparing the examples of two countries: Turkey and Brazil.

A Structurationist Analysis of Differing Policies Oriented to the Pharmaceutical Industry

2016 ◽  
pp. 1001-1022
Author(s):  
Yaşar Serhat Yaşgül
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Pharmaceutical Industry ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Global Governance ◽  
Active Participation ◽  
Governance Processes

This chapter has two purposes closely related to each other. The first one is to analyze why countries that have similar characteristics and benefits to each other develop different strategies in terms of rules that regulate the intellectual property rights in the pharmaceutical industry. The second one is to analyze the factors that determine active participation in global governance processes with regards to the intellectual property rights of countries that are developing, specifically in the pharmaceutical industry. The study used the structurationist approach developed by John M. Hobson, and findings were tested by comparing the examples of two countries: Turkey and Brazil.

A Critical Discourse Analysis of Intellectual Property Rights Within NAFTA 1.0: Implications for NAFTA 2.0 and for Democratic (Health) Governance in Canada

2020 ◽  
Vol 50 (3) ◽  
pp. 278-291 ◽  
Author(s):  
Faisal Ali Mohamed ◽  
Claudia Chaufan
Keyword(s):  
Discourse Analysis ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Research And Development ◽  
Critical Discourse Analysis ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Critical Discourse ◽  
Compulsory Licensing ◽  
Drug Prices

In 1993, the Canadian federal government ratified the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Prior to ratification, compulsory licensing was eliminated from Canada’s Patent Act and intellectual property rights (IPRs) were strengthened. Compulsory licensing allows competitors to produce drugs under patent without the consent of the patent holder, challenging drug monopolies and lowering prices, whereas IPRs lengthen patent protections, shielding patent holders from competition and increasing prices. We perform a critical discourse analysis of key provisions in Chapter 17 of NAFTA in light of industry claims that pharmaceutical innovation requires important investments in research and development, justifying high drug prices. We note that since NAFTA, spending in research and development in Canada has decreased and drug prices have increased, becoming a major barrier to equitable access to critically necessary medications. We argue that by modifying the law, the federal government has wronged the Canadian people by discursively appropriating the language of protecting the public good while in practice legitimizing and consolidating private drug development and production, legalizing exorbitant profits, and excluding well-tested publicly financed alternatives. While NAFTA has now been superseded by the Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement, our analysis offers important lessons moving forward.

Regulating Access and Protecting Traditional Health Knowledge through Intellectual Property Rights? Issues from a Holistic Health Systems Perspective

2018 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 504-529 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ritu Priya ◽  
Chris M. Kurian
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Pharmaceutical Industry ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Health Systems ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Health Knowledge ◽  
Systems Approach ◽  
Holistic Health ◽  
World Intellectual Property Organization ◽  
Traditional Health

Traditional Health Knowledge (THK) has been a resource for modern pharmacology and the pharma-ceutical industry since its inception. Until the 2000s, there was little obligation to acknowledge the use of THK by the pharmaceutical industry. Now, with the intellectual property regime becoming a prominent mode of regulating use of pharmaceutical inventions and innovations, and attempts by the pharmaceutical industry to patent products based on THK, rights of THK holders are being fore-grounded. The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is seeking to protect the rights of THK holders through international legal instruments under the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) framework. This article discusses dilemmas arising from this attempt at bringing together two diverse knowledge frameworks. It draws upon existing literature on the nature of THK and upon the debates of the WIPO’s Inter-Governmental Committee on Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expression (WIPO-IGC), and analyses them from the standpoint of a holistic health systems approach (HHSA) in an era of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The approach leads to the conclusion that deliberations and promulgations of the WIPO-IGC will have long-lasting implications for the survival of diversity and context-specificity in healthcare. Therein lies the significance of thinking through the policy and legal measures to be adopted nationally and internationally.

Intellectual Property Protection for Biologics: Why the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Trade Agreement Fails to Deliver

2016 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristina M Lybecker
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Research And Development ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
The United States ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights Protection ◽  
Data Exclusivity ◽  
Property Rights Protection

Biopharmaceutical research and development is overwhelmingly focused in the U.S. becasue here it is incentivized and encouraged through a robust intellectual property rights protection environment.  Across the board, the United States provides the most comprehensive, effective intellectual property rights protections for biopharmaceuticals.  As a result, the industry locates here, researches here, and thrives here.  With an acknowledgement of the importance of intellectual property rights as well as the wider benefits of biopharmaceutical research and development, it's tremendously disappointing that the recently negotiated Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Trade Agreement fails to deliver sufficient IP protections for biologics.  This article explores the importance of a rigorous intellectual property environemtn for the biopharmaceutical industry through an examination of the importance of data exclusivity provisions.  Such protection is critical as the number, complexity and cost of clinical trials increases.  Technology inevitably evolves faster than the legal architecture that surrounds it.  As technology evolves, making the development of new biologic vaccines and therapies possible, society's commitment to incentivize innovation and protect it must be enshrined in the intellectual property protections of agreements such as the TPP.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document