Access to Medicine and TRIPS Agreement: A Mapping of the Tradescape

The first legislation in India relating to patents was the Act VI of 1856. The Indian Patents and Design Act, 1911 (Act II of 1911) replaced all the previous Acts. The Act brought patent administration under the management of Controller of Patents for the first time. After Independence, it was felt that the Indian Patents & Designs Act, 1911 was not fulfilling its objective. Various comities were constituted to recommend, framing a patent law which can fulfill the requirement of Indian Industry and people. The Indian Patent Act of 1970 was enacted to achieve the above objectives. The major provisions of the act, provided for process, not the product patents in food, medicines, chemicals with a term of 14 years and 5-7 for chemicals and drugs. The Act enabled Indian citizens to access cheapest medicines in the world and paved a way for exponential growth of Indian Pharmaceutical Industry. TRIPS agreement, which is one of the important results of the Uruguay Round, mandated strong patent protection, especially for pharmaceutical products, thereby allowing the patenting of NCEs, compounds and processes. India is thereby required to meet the minimum standards under the TRIPS Agreement in relation to patents and the pharmaceutical industry. India’s patent legislation must now include provisions for availability of patents for both pharmaceutical products and processes inventions. The present paper examines the impact of change in Indian Patent law on Pharmaceutical Industry.

Download Full-text

Trips and Later Inter-Se Agreements

10.1093/oso/9780199663392.003.0005 ◽

2017 ◽

Author(s):

Henning Grosse Ruse-Khan

Keyword(s):

Conflict Resolution ◽

Intellectual Property ◽

Property Rights ◽

Free Trade ◽

Free Trade Agreements ◽

Trade Agreements ◽

Trips Agreement ◽

Ip Protection

This chapter focusses on how ‘Free Trade Agreements’ (FTAs) fit within the existing multilateral framework, primarily with the Trade Related Aspects of International Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement which most FTAs take as basis and benchmark from which the contracting parties modify rules among another (inter-se). In this context, the most prominent issue is the effect the continuous strengthening of the standards of intellectual property (IP) protection and enforcement has on the optional provisions and flexibilities of the TRIPS Agreement. The chapter examines whether and how the TRIPS addresses such further increases in protection and enforcement. It also looks at conflict clauses in FTAs and how they perceive their relation with the multilateral IP rules, especially the TRIPS Agreement. The principal question here is whether rule-relations within the international IP system are still primarily determined by harmonious interpretation — or if conflict resolution rather functions by choosing one rule over another.

Download Full-text

Does the Congo's Copyright and Neighboring Rights Law conflict with the Trips Agreement?

The Journal of World Intellectual Property ◽

10.1111/j.1747-1796.1999.tb00063.x ◽

2005 ◽

Vol 2 (2) ◽

pp. 311-327

Author(s):

Tshimanga Kongolo

Keyword(s):

Trips Agreement

Download Full-text

Taxing Disability: A Critical Look into the Medical Cannabis Regime under the New Cannabis Act, 2018

Journal of Canadian Studies ◽

10.3138/jcs-2020-0027 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 55 (2) ◽

pp. 436-457

Author(s):

Rachel Rohr

Keyword(s):

Medical Marijuana ◽

People With Disabilities ◽

Sales Tax ◽

Medical Cannabis ◽

Access To Medicine ◽

Excise Tax ◽

Insight Into ◽

Medical Regime ◽

Taxation Scheme

Medical marijuana users represent many people with disabilities in Canada. Recent legislative attempts have allowed people with disabilities to access cannabis as medicine, however the landscape is ever changing. The Cannabis Act was recently introduced, legalizing marijuana for all; however, people with disabilities have not been accounted for when it comes to the issue of access to medicine. Those who rely on cannabis as medicine and those who enjoy it recreationally are now part of the same system, for better or worse. The new medical marijuana regime, under the new Cannabis Act, boasts a “two-stream” process, and it claims that it will be maintaining and improving the old medical regime alongside the new recreational regime. The applicable taxes tell a different story. Medical marijuana has always been subject to sales tax despite being effectively prescribed by doctors to manage and treat many disabilities and illnesses. Now, with the enactment of the Cannabis Act, medical marijuana is subject to an excise tax too—colloquially known as the “sin tax.” Recreational and medical marijuana are subject to the same taxation scheme, making any notion of a “two-stream” process nonsensical and blatantly unfair. The purpose of this article is to provide insight into the varying faults concerning the medical marijuana regime in Canada, with specific emphasis on the issue of taxation. In the simplest terms, taxing medical marijuana is taxing medicine and effectively taxing people with disabilities. Broken down into five parts, this article discusses the underlying reasons for the taxes surrounding medical marijuana, provides a case study of the most important tax case for medical marijuana users, scrutinizes the lack of recognition of medical marijuana as a proper prescription, outlines the ways to improve legislation, and, finally, explores a potential Charter challenge that can be effectively brought against this taxation.

Download Full-text